Following the question: "no-bracha-on-kibud-av-vaeim", some tried to say that the Sages did not set a Berocho for this Mitzvah as the father can be Mochel and there's no Mitzvah in such a case. Example:

The father enters the house and the son stands up. The father says "Oh, please, you don't have to, I'm Mochel wholeheartedly". The son says: "Nevertheless, I'd like to show my respect by standing before you".

Who said in such a case the son DOES NOT perform the Mitzvah of Kibud Av?

  • 1
    אב שמיל על כבודו כבודו מחול, רק במלך יש מחלוקת רבי יהודה וחכמים
    – kouty
    Commented Nov 25, 2018 at 19:49

3 Answers 3


The answer lies within the understanding of the Rashba's qualification that we don't make a bracha on any mitzvah which requires the involvement of another person.

The Chasam Sofer (Shu"T OC"H §54) proves that the Rashba did not mean to disqualify any Mitzvah whose kiyum requires the involvement of another. (For example, we do make a ברכת המצות on אירוסין, which requires the consent and involvement of the wife.) The Rashba meant to disqualify Mitzvos whose chiyuv requires the involvement of another. Any Mitzvah which is bein adam lechaveiro or ניתן למחילה needs another party to obligate, and such a Mitzvah doesn't require a blessing. [The Rashba's reference to Kesuvas 40a supports this]

Accordingly, perhaps your question is answered. Although it is possible to be mekayem the Mitzvah without the consent or involvement of another party, the obligation doesn't.

(See answer above, however, that some level of obligation still exists.)

  • +1, needs another party to obligate do you mean needs another party's consent to obligate?
    – Al Berko
    Commented Nov 26, 2018 at 8:13
  • Kibud Av is different from other Ben Adam Lechaviro, because in all BAL"CH a person had no personal obligation toward the other, for example Tzedoko one has no direct obligation to give, or פריקה וטעינה somebody else can do it as well, but Kibud Av one is constantly obligated toward his father.
    – Al Berko
    Commented Nov 26, 2018 at 8:51

The Shulchan Aruch (based on gemara Kiddushin 32a) writes that אב שמחל על כבודו, כבודו מחול.

The Sefer Chassidim (573) writes that although the Mechila works, one is still obligated 'miDinei Shamayim':

ומה שאמרו האב שמחל על כבודו, כבודו מחול, מדיני אדם, אבל בדיני שמים חייב

The Radvaz (524) brings from the Rema (Baba Metziah) that the Mechila works only to exonerate the son from punishment, but the obligation still stands.

ואם כן לא תועיל המחילה כי אם לפטור אותו מהעונש אבל מצוה הוא

[Perhaps the intention of the Rashba and Avudraham (who explain the reason we don't make a ברכת המצות because Mechila works) is because they understand that although some form of obligation still stands, the words וציונו would only be said on the primary obligation in it's standard form. It is also possible that the Rashba and Avudraham disagree with the aforementioned Radvaz and Sefer Chassidim.]


The OP is under a mistaken assumption IMHO.

In the linked answer (provided by the OP) to another question on "MY", it was stated (in the name of the Rashb"a; Teshuvos Vol. I: 18) that there is no brachah made on the mitzvah of kibbud av v'em (honoring parents) or Tzedakah (charity) because the receivers might be "mochel" (forego) the obligations owed to them.

I took the liberty to correct that answer by editing the word "mochel" (forego) and replacing it with the idea that fits the Rashb"a IMHO:

The Rashb"a says that there is no brachah made on giving Tzedaka because the poor man might "REFUSE" the gift offered. (NOT MOCHEL)

So too in the Rashba's example of kibbud av, he explains that the case is where the mitzvah is uprooted entirely, similar to when a woman REFUSES a marriage to a rapist or seducer, thereby uprooting the man's mitzvah to marry her.

Obviously the following example of the OP is not correct:

"The father enters the house and the son stands up. The father says "Oh, please, you don't have to, I'm Mochel wholeheartedly". The son says: "Nevertheless, I'd like to show my respect by standing before you".

Rather, the example that fits the Rashb"a is:

The father enters the house and the son stands up. The father says "Oh, please, I don't want you to stand up for me, I'm asking you not to do it".

If the son says: "Nevertheless, I want to do it anyway" it is not a mitzvah anymore because:

1) The father specifically asked him not to do it.

2) Hashem is not overriding the father's request (which would make it into a mitzvah anyway), because we know that a father who is mochel his honor, then his honor is mochel.

Similarly if you walk by a poor man and he outright "REFUSES" to take charity because of his pride, you will have made a blessing but cannot perform the mitzvah.

Therefore, we don't make such blessings.

Now if you will argue that the son knows his father doesn't mind if he stands up for him...then he should make the brachah?

The Rashb"a explains that once a situation like that, (uprooting the mitzvah based on someone else's wishes) in a mitzvah, is merely possible, then Halachah never established a brachah for that mitzvah, regardless of your knowledge about the person's wishes in a particular situation.

  • A great answer, I reread Rashba and I now understand it better, he says that מחילה equals עקירה, so when the father is Mochel he uproots the Mitzvah totally. Fortunately it contradicts the other opinions, brought in the other two answers, please read.
    – Al Berko
    Commented Nov 26, 2018 at 7:45
  • I would correct then your example, based on the new understanding: the father says "my respect is Mochul, I have no respect for now, so you can't perform a mitzvah, ha ha ha".
    – Al Berko
    Commented Nov 26, 2018 at 7:47
  • What about מורא? Where does it say that his מורא is or can be theoretically Mochul?
    – Al Berko
    Commented Nov 26, 2018 at 7:48
  • Al Berko - ברכי יוסף, יו"ד רמ אות יג discusses and concludes that Mechila works on Morah to.
    – chortkov2
    Commented Nov 26, 2018 at 21:06
  • @chortkov2 maybe, but most agree that in Morah there is no Mechila as the disgrace is opposite to respect.
    – Al Berko
    Commented Nov 27, 2018 at 7:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .