Honoring in-laws

...In memory of my father-in-law D. M ben Y.D. whose yohrzeit had just passed.

The obligation to honor members of one's family can be either primary and specific to the person honored, independent of the obligation to honor parents and teachers, or secondary, or, derived from the obligation to honor ones own parents, elders or teachers. In the former cases, it deserves, perhaps warrants its own obligatory source; in the latter, it is merely an extension, i.e., by honoring others, such as the oldest brother, you show respect and honor to his and your parents. (see Minchas Chinuch, 33 in regard to such an analysis of the obligaton to honor the oldest brother). One assumes that if there is a Scriptural source for a specific obligation to honor, it is not an extension of another obligation, whereas if there is no separate source for an obligation to honor someone, it is merely an extension of another obligation.

The obligation to honor one's father in-law is curious in this regard, for while there is a moral requirement to "honor" one's wife and doing so brings blessing, there is no halachic obligation to do so. Thus, one should not have to honor one's father in-law as an extension of the honor owed to one's spouse.

Rav Chelbo said, “A man should always treat his wife with respect, for blessing only enters his house on her account. Similarly Rava told the people of Mechuza, “Honor your wives, that you may become rich.” (Bava Metzia 59a)

Rav Avira taught, at times in Rav Ami’s name, and at times in Rav Assi’s name: A person should eat and drink at a level less than he can afford, clothe and acquire a home according to what he can afford[ and honor his wife and children more than he can afford; for they depend on him,] while he depends on the One who created the world with His word. (Chulin 84b)

Bu this logic, there should be no obligation by extension to honor one's in-laws. The source of this obligation therefore becomes the crucial question in order to establish that it even exists, and if so, what its nature might be.

Rambam and Tur  do not say that a man must honor his in-laws. The Bach suggests that this omission is based on variant application of drashos about the respectful interaction of David and his father in-law, Saul, in Midrash Shochar Tov and that the follow the 2nd opinion in the midrash that applies this interaction for Avner and not to Saul. The Mechaber, however does quote these words: "A man is obligated to honor his father-in-law". Shach explains it as follows, "as much as he is obligated to honor other elders". Shach clearly understands that the source of the obligation to honor one's in-law is no greater and no different than that of honoring older people. Why then does Shulachan Aruch need to write it at all?

There are, however several other sources that I had seen over the years that suggest an independent source, and by implication, a non-contingent nature, for this obligation.

1.Torah Temima to Shemos 18:7 quotes a Mekhilta: "from here they said that a man must be ready for his father-in-law". The Mekhilta derives this from the fact that Moshe kissed Yisro first, and only then did Yisro kiss Moshe. Torah Temima is convinced that this is an incontrovertible source for an obligation to honor the father in-law, but, in fact, it only says that a person should extend himself to his father-in-law before the father in-law extends himself to him.

2. Chareidim to Yerushalmi Brochos 3:1 (p.23, s.v. hu hava chamoi) off-hand refers to a Rashi in Shabbos 23 as a source of this obligation. However, the Rashi and the passage which he elucidates are not at all explicit in this regard.

3.Sefer Chareidim Ch. 12 (not to be confused with tthe latter's commentary Chareidim to Yerushalmi) identifies the souce in the following well-known verse:

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)

This verse is now often now understood in an exclusive fashion - that a newly married man or woman must separate from his or her parents. The Chareidim understands it  inclusively, meaning that the new family now owes respect and honor to both sets of parents, each partner in marriage taking on the obligations of honor and respect of the other.

In conclusion, the source and the nature of the obligation to honor one's father and mother in-law (see Ber Heitev to Y.D.240) is not entirely clear. However there are several sources that either outright state or imply this obligation and that also frame it as an independent duty, perhaps derived from the nature of the marriage relationship itself and from the mutual taking on of the obligations by both partners within the marriage.

Comments

[kurkevan]

"...not to be confused with the much later commentary Chareidim to Yerushalmi"

Actually, they were both written by the same author, R' Eliezer Azkari.

[avakesh]

Absolutely so, an inescusable error, and I corrected it.