Father versus Mother-Who receives precedence?[1]

• If one’s mother and father both request their child to do something, who should the child serve first?

If one’s father instructed him to give him water to drink, and also his mother instructed him to bring her water to drink, then he is to leave his mother’s request and deal with the honor of his father [if he is unable to fulfill both of them simultaneously[2]].[3] [However, some Poskim[4] suggests that this rule only applies regarding those matters that the wife is obligated to fulfill for her husband[5], however, by those matters that the wife is not obligated to perform for her husband then it is possible that the child may choose to precede the request of whichever parent he wishes. However, other Poskim[6] argue on this and rule that one is obligated to precede the father regarding all matters, and that this precedence is of Biblical status. Practically, one is to be stringent in this matter. Some Poskim[7] rule that the obligation to precede the father to the mother only applies by matters that are done out of honor of one’s parents, which includes all matters that the parent receives direct benefit from such as to bring them a drink. However, those matters in which the parent receives no direct benefit and one’s obligation to listen to them is simply due to the mitzvah of fearing one’s parent, then one is not obligated to precede the father to the mother. Practically, however, many Poskim rule that one must always listen to his parents due to the command of honoring them, and hence the laws of precedence would apply even in such a case. Nonetheless, in the event that the father asks his son to do something which he does not receive direct benefit from, such as that the son clean up his room, while the mother asks him to do something which will directly benefit her such as to prepare her coffee, then the mother’s request is to be proceeded.[8] Likewise, if one’s father asks the son to do something which the son is not obligated in, such as to use his own money to purchase him something, and his mother asks of him to do something which he is obligated in, then he is  not obligated to precede his father and according to some is even encouraged to precede his mother’s request.[9]]

If the parents are divorced:[10] If one’s parents are divorced, then they are both considered of equal status, and hence the child can choose to proceed whomever he wishes. [However, some Poskim[11] rule that the child should not precede one parent over the other, and he should rather try to serve both simultaneously, if possible. If it is not possible, then he may should proceed whichever act of service is more available for him to accomplish. If one’s parents are divorced and one of the parents makes a request and the other parent asks for that request to not be honored by the son,  then so long as the parent has a justifiable reason  for asking for the request to be denied and is not doing so simply out of hatred for the other spouse, then the child is to avoid doing anything and getting involved.[12]]

Father instructs his son not to say Kaddish for his mother:[13] The father may not protest his son from saying Kaddish on behalf of his mother.[14]

Q&A If one’s mother requests from the child to do something that he knows his father does not want him to do, who is he to listen to? So long as his father did not directly instruct him not to do it, then he is to listen to his mother even if he assumes that his father would not want it to be done.[15] If, however, his father explicitly instructs him not to do it, then he must listen to his father, [unless the entire reason behind his father’s request is to belittle his mother, as explained next].[16]   If one’s father instructs his son to do something which will belittle his mother, what is he to do?[17] He is not to listen to his father in such a case.[18]   If one’s father instructs the child not to listen to the request of the mother, what is he to do? If his father is making the request purposely in order to sabotage the request of the mother due to his hatred towards her, then he is not to listen to her.[19] Otherwise, he is obligated to listen to the father.[20] If, however, one’s parents are divorced then he should simply avoid the matter altogether, and not fulfill the request, as stated above.   If one’s father request one to do something for him while he is in the midst of fulfilling the request of his mother’s, what is he to do?[21] He should first complete the request of his mother and only then perform his father’s request.   If one’s now deceased father had requested something prior to his passing, does this request precede a request from the mother if the requests contradict each other?[22] Some Poskim[23] rule that in such a case one is to fulfill the request of the living parent, which is his mother, and ignore the request of his father.[24] This applies even if the request was written in a will. Other Poskim[25], however, question this ruling. Other Poskim[26] rule that the child may follow the request of whichever parent he chooses especially in a case that listening to the living parent will cause him a loss of money.[27]   If one’s now deceased mother requested something prior to her passing, does this request precede a request from the father? This matter falls the same dispute as above, regarding if it is better to follow the living parent or if he may choose to follow whoever he desires. However, some Poskim[28] rule that in such a case one is to listen to the father even if in the previous case we would rule to allow him to follow whoever he chooses.   If both of one’s parents have passed away and both parents left conflicting requests, whom should one listen to? Some Poskim[29] rule that death is similar to a divorce and hence the child may follow the request of whichever parent he chooses. Other Poskim[30], however, rule that one is to always precede the father’s request. Practically, the majority of Poskim conclude like the former opinion.   If both one’s father and mother are being held captive for a ransom which parent comes first in being redeemed?[31] The mother is to receive precedence in being redeemed by her children.   If both one’s father and mother are poor and in need of money, who comes first?[32] The mother is to receive precedence in being supported by her children.

[1] Michaber 240:14; Kiddushin 31a; Mishneh Kerisus 28a; Pesakim Uteshuvos 240:41-43

[2] Menoras Hamaor 4 p. 23; Mishneh Halachos 16:62; See also Har Tzevi Y.D. 198

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that even if one is able to fulfill both simultaneously he should still precede his father to his mother. [Meishiv Devarim Y.D. 138; Chukei Chaim 5 Y.D. 11:2]

[3] The reason: As one’s mother is also obligated in honoring his father which is her husband. [Shach 240:16; See Megillah 16b]

Is this obligation to precede the father a Biblical or Rabbinical injunction? Some Poskim rule that the obligation to precede the father is merely a Rabbinical injunction. [Chaim Sheol 1:27; Erech Hashulchan O.C. 472; Tiferes Yisrael Miseches Kerisus 6:67; Sheiris Yehuda Y.D. 129; See Pischeiy Teshuva 240:10-11] Other Poskim, however, rule that it is of Biblical status. [Mahrsha Kiddushin 31a; Sefer Hamakneh Kiddushin 30b; Aria Derabanon Mareches Chaf 333; Amudei Harazim on Yireim 56; Implictaion of Rokeiach and Ralbag on Shemos 20]

[4] Pischeiy Teshuvah 240:9

[5] See Michaber E.H. 80:4

[6] Sheiris Yehuda Y.D. 129; Cheker Halacha 3; Chazon Yechezkal on Tosefta Bava Metzia 2:13; Betzel Hachochmah 1:69-5; 5:14; Rav Elyashiv in his Heaors on Kiddushin 30b; See also Maggid Mishneh on Rambam Ishus 15:20; Shut Rav Akiva Eiger Kama 68

[7] Hamakneh Kiddushin 30b

[8] Torah Lishma 280

The reason: As the main command and mitzvah of honoring one’s parents is regarding matters which they can benefit from. [Torah Lishma ibid]

[9] Shut Rav Akiva Eiger 1:68 writes that in such a case he may precede whoever he wishes; Yad Eliyahu 1:40 rules that in such a case he must precede his mother; Chazon Ish Y.D. 149:6

[10] Michaber ibid; Beir Hagoleh ibid based on Rif and Rambam and Rashi

Other opinions: Some Poskim  rule that the child should not precede one parent over the other, and he should rather try serve both simultaneously. [Rashal in Yam Shel Shlomo Kiddushin 1:62; Rabbeinu Yerucham Nesiv 1 4:15, brought in Beis Yosef 240; Pischeiy Teshuvah 240:12; ]

[11] Meishiv devarimY.D. 138; Chaim Sheol 27; Meiri Kiddushin 31aSee other opinions in previous footnote: Rashal in Yam Shel Shlomo Kiddushin 1:62; Rabbeinu Yerucham Nesiv 1 4:15, brought in Beis Yosef 240; Pischeiy Teshuvah 240:12;

[12] Givas Pinchas 3; Chazon Ish Y.D. 149:6; However, see Birkeiy Yosef 240:8; Maharshal Langzum 77:3

The reason: As since there is no way of getting this right, and there is no precedence for either parent, it is better to simply be inactive [i.e. Shev Veal Taashe Adif]. [Poskim ibid]

[13] Rama 376:4; Rashal in Yam Shel Shlomo Kiddushin 63; Hagahos Rabbeinu Peretz on Tashbeitz Katan 425, brought in Bies Yosef 403; Pischeiy Teshuvah 240:14; Mateh Efraim Dinei KaddishAlef Lamateh 4;  Pesakim Uteshuvos 240:43; See M”A 132:2; Chaim Sheol 1:5; Birkeiy ysoef 240:8; Betzel Hachochmah 5:15-8; Beir Moshe 1:60

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule the son is not allowed to say Kaddish for his mother if his father protests. [Rivash 115, brought in M”A 132:2; Poskim brought in Pnei Baruch 34 footnote 38; See Pischeiy Teshuvah 240:10-11 in name of Teshuvos Rav Akiva Eiger 68]

[14] The reason: As the father transgresses the Mitzvah of Veahavta Lereiacha Kamocha and it is considered as if he is telling the child to transgress a matter of the Torah of which he is not obligated to listen to him. Alternatively, it is because saying Kaddish after a parent is considered similar to a rabbinical obligation and hence one is not required to listen to his parent who tells him not to say it. [Rashal ibid, brought in Pischeiy Teshuvah 240:14; 376:5]

[15] Maracheiy Leiv 2 Derush 73; Shaareiy Ezra Y.D. 20; Kneses Hagedola 240:29; Maharshach 1:137

[16] Maharam Rothenberg, brought in Beis Yosef 376; Maharil 24; Noda Beyehuda Tinyana Even Haezer 45; Shut Rav Akiva Eiger 1:68

[17] Moshav Zekeinim Vayikra 19; Mateh Efraim Dinei Kaddish Alef Lamateh 4; Divrei Malkiel 2:137

[18] The reason: As the father in such a case is asking his child to transgress the mitzvah of honoring his mother, and one is not obligated to listen to his parent to transgress a prohibition. [Poskim ibid]

[19] Moshav Zekeinim Vayikra 19; Mateh Efraim Dinei Kaddish Alef Lamateh 4; Divrei Malkiel 2:137

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that if the father instructs his son not listen to his mother’s request regarding a matter of honor, such as not to bring her a drink as requested, then he should listen to his father. [Yad Shaul 240:11]

[20] Maharam Rothenberg, brought in Beis Yosef 376; Maharil 24; Noda Beyehuda Tinyana Even Haezer 45; Shut Rav Akiva Eiger 1:68

[21] Raavan Kiddushin 31b; Derech Sicha Parshas Yisro of Rav Chaim Kanievsky

[22] Pischeiy Teshuva 240:10-11; Pesakim Uteshuvos 240:43

[23] The Rav asking the question to Rav Akiva Eiger 1:68; Noda Beyehuda Tinyana E.H. 45

[24] The reason: As the mitzvah to honor a parent who is still alive is more than the Mitzvah to honor a parent who has passed away. [Noda Beyehuda ibid]

[25] Teshuvos Rav Akiva Eiger 1:68 based on Maharam and the ruling of those Poskim who rule that a father can protest against a son reciting Kaddish on behalf of his mother; Beis Av 6:265; See Betzel Hachochmah 5:15

[26] Pischeiy Teshuva 240:10; Givas Pinchas 3; Chaim Sheol 1:5; Mateh Efraim Dinei Kaddish Alef Lamateh 4;Teshuros Shaiy Kama 270; Minchas Soles 33:2; Divrei Malkiel 2:37; Nitei Nemanim 29; Chidushei Reb Reuvein Yevamos 4; Betzel Hachochmah 5:15

[27] The reason: As death is no different than divorce and just like after divorce the child can proceed whichever parent he wishes so too after death. [Pischeiy Teshuva ibid]

[28] Minchas Soles 33:2; Divrei Malkiel 2:37; Nitei Nemanim 29; Chidushei Reb Reuvein Yevamos 4; Betzel Hachochmah 5:15;

[29] Givas Pinchas 3; Chaim Sheol 1:5; Mateh Efraim Dinei Kaddish Alef Lamateh 4;Teshuros Shaiy Kama 270; Pischeiy Teshuva 240:10; Minchas Soles 33:2; Divrei Malkiel 2:37; Nitei Nemanim 29; Chidushei Reb Reuvein Yevamos 4; Betzel Hachochmah 5:15;

[30] Teshuvos Rav Akiva Eiger 1:68 based on the ruling of those Poskim who rule that a father can protest against a son reciting Kaddish on behalf of his mother; Beis Av 6:265; See Betzel Hachochmah 5:15

[31] Rashal in Yam Shel Shlomo Kiddushin 1:62; Pischeiy Teshuvah 240:12

[32] Pischeiy Teshuvah 240:12; See Michaber 251:8

Bookmark