Debt and right
You said that the definition of a court of law is that there is a debtor and there is a beneficiary, and that of a judge of opinion is that there is only a debtor. Therefore, the law of property can be conditioned on the fact that we can all waive the right we have, as long as we are a judge of opinion. That’s fine.
What about honoring a father and mother? There is a debtor (the son) and a beneficiary (the parents), and here too they can waive the right they have (forgiveness of his honor), so ostensibly it belongs to the Hoshen Mishpat, were it not for the fact that money is not involved here, but it can still be said that honoring one another can be through money.
In short, according to your definition, why doesn’t honoring parents appear in the rabbinical code?
(It’s true that I have an intuition that conquering parents belongs to an opinion shooter, but as you always say, intuition is not enough and they need to be defined and conceptualized)
Even a poor person can forgo charity and then there is no obligation to give it to him. So why does charity appear in the Yom Kippur?
But this is a mistake. The parents cannot sue me in court to honor them. They can complain that I do not honor them, and then the court will force me to obey the commandments, not the laws of wealth and obligations. The parents have no right to honor them. I have an obligation to honor them, just as in charity to the poor.
The parents can waive it because waiving it is like I have been accepted, or I have no need. If there is no need, then there is no mitzvah.
Very clear. Thank you.
You also distinguish between "cancel the right I have" (which is impossible) and "give up the right I have" (which is possible). I did not understand the distinction, that is, I did not understand why it is impossible to cancel my right, after all, I am the owner of the thing, I can do what I want, and just as I can give up (= give gifts) I can also cancel?
There is a big difference. To cancel the right itself means to say that as a depositor with a salary keeper, I have no right to receive compensation for theft and loss. To give up means that I have a right but I give it up, as if I were accepted and returned the money to you. The Gemara itself makes this distinction: Waiting so that you will not drop me on the seventh day – is the cancellation of the right, and waiting so that you will not drop me on the seventh day (that you will not drop me on the seventh day) – is a waiver of the right.
Excellent. I'm just making sure: I can if I want to cancel the right by canceling my ownership of the object altogether, right?
of course
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
