Mother's Hurt When Adult Son Doesn't Reciprocate Financially
The commandment to honor one's parents is a fundamental aspect of Jewish and Christian traditions. In the context of an adult son not reciprocating financially to his mother, this commandment is particularly relevant. The biblical basis for this commandment is found in Exodus 20:11, which states, "Honor your father and your mother" [1].
In Jewish tradition, the Babylonian Talmud provides extensive discussion on the meaning of "honor" in this context. According to Kiddushin 165a, honoring one's parents involves monetary loss, implying that children are expected to support their parents financially if needed [1]. This interpretation is reinforced by the principle that one honors God "with your wealth" (Proverbs 3:9), drawing a verbal analogy between honoring God and honoring parents.
The Talmud also explores the nuances of financial responsibility between parents and children. For instance, Bava Kamma 87b discusses the scenario where a father is particular about receiving money that comes to his children from elsewhere, but not if the children suffer physical pain in obtaining it [2]. This distinction highlights the complexity of financial obligations within families.
In the Christian tradition, the Patristic era saw an emphasis on the importance of honoring parents as part of living a pious life. The Pseudo-Clementine literature, for example, includes teachings on the duty to honor parents as part of the chief injunctions of the law [4].
The Nonconformist/Puritan tradition also addresses the issue of financial reciprocity between parents and children. Matthew Henry's commentary on Judges 17:1 notes a case where a son, Micah, robs his mother, highlighting the complexities of family financial dynamics and the consequences of not honoring parental expectations [3].
Maimonides' Mishneh Torah provides further insight into the financial responsibilities within families. It discusses scenarios where a husband or father is obligated to support his children or ex-wife, including the provision of sustenance for children until a certain age [5, 6, 7].
The issue of an adult son not reciprocating financially to his mother can be seen as a breach of the honor due to parents. While the sources do not directly address this modern scenario, they provide a framework for understanding the importance of financial responsibility within families. The Jewish tradition, in particular, emphasizes the monetary aspect of honoring parents.
In cases where adult children are financially capable, the expectation to support their parents is rooted in the commandment to honor them. However, the specifics of how this is implemented can vary depending on the circumstances and the traditions being followed.
The historical development of thought on this matter is marked by a consistent emphasis on the importance of honoring parents. From the biblical commandment through the Talmudic discussions and into Christian Patristic teachings, the principle remains a cornerstone of family ethics.
Ultimately, the question of an adult son's financial reciprocity to his mother is addressed through the lens of honoring parents, a duty that encompasses financial support among other aspects. The various traditions represented in the sources underscore the significance of this familial obligation.
The complexities of family financial dynamics, as illustrated in the sources, demonstrate that the issue is not merely about financial transactions but about the values of respect, care, and responsibility that underpin family relationships.
Sources
- Babylonian Talmud (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 165a.63:2: The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita : It is stated: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:11), and it is stated: “Honor the Lord with your wealth” (Proverbs 3:9), which teaches the following verbal analogy: Just as there one honors God “with your wealth,” i.e., through monetary loss, so too here one must honor his father through monetary loss. And if you say that one honors him from the money of the father, what difference does it make to the son, i.e., what monetary loss does he suffer? The Gemara answers: It makes a diffe”
- Babylonian Talmud (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Babylonian Talmud, Bava Kamma 87b.10: The Gemara challenges that response: But isn’t a found item a matter that comes to the children from elsewhere, and the father is particular about receiving it? The Sages say in response: With regard to profit that comes to the children from elsewhere, and they do not suffer physical pain in obtaining it, the father is particular about receiving the money, as he does not feel that the children deserve it. But in the case of an injury, where they suffer physical pain and it comes to them from elsewhere, the father is not particular about receiving the compe”
- Judges (Nonconformist/Puritan) “Matthew Henry on Judges 17:1: Here we have, I. Micah and his mother quarrelling. 1. The son robs the mother. The old woman had hoarded, with long scraping and saving, a great sum of money, 1100 pieces of silver. It is likely she intended, when she died, to leave it to her son: in the mean time it did her good to look upon it, and to count it over. The young man had a family of children grown up, for he had one of age to be a priest, Jdg 17:5. He knows where to find his mother's cash, thinks he has more need of it than she has, cannot stay till she dies, and so takes it away privately for his o”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 8: Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts, Epistles, Apocrypha, Decretals — CHAP. IV.--THE MOTHER MUST NOT TAKE FOOD WITH HER SON. THE REASON STATED.: As soon as my mother had enough of sleep, she awoke, and Peter at once began first to talk to her of true piety, saying: "I wish you to know, O woman, the course of life involved in our religion.(6) We worship one God, who made the world which you see; and we keep His law, which has for its chief injunctions to worship Him alone, and to hallow His name, and to honour our parents, and to be chaste, and to live piously. In addition to this, we do not”
- Mishneh Torah (Maimonides) (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Mishneh Torah (Maimonides), Mishneh Torah%2C Marriage 23:16: When a man makes a financial commitment to his son-in-law and then moves to another country [without fulfilling his commitment], the woman has the prerogative of telling her [prospective] husband: "I did not make this commitment myself. What can I do? Either consummate the marriage without a dowry or divorce me." 25 I.e., the husband must take one of these two options. He cannot leave the woman consecrated (in which case she cannot marry someone else), but not married. This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch ( Even HaEzer 52:1). ”
- Mishneh Torah (Maimonides) (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Mishneh Torah (Maimonides), Mishneh Torah%2C Marriage 21:17: [A husband] is not [obligated to] support his divorcee, even when she is nursing his child. In addition to the wage she receives [as a nursemaid], he must, however, provide her with those things that the child needs for clothing, food, drink, salves and the like. A woman who is pregnant is not entitled to any [payment] at all [from her ex-husband]. [The following rules apply after the 24] months have been completed, and the child has been weaned. If the divorcee desires that her son remain in her custody, he is not separated from her”
- Mishneh Torah (Maimonides) (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Mishneh Torah (Maimonides), Mishneh Torah%2C Marriage 21:16: When a woman is divorced, she cannot be compelled to nurse [her child]. If she desires to nurse the child, [her ex-husband] must pay her a wage. 23 For a father is obligated to pay for his child's sustenance until the age of six, as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 14. If she does not desire [to nurse], she should give the son to his father, and he should care for him. 24 The husband cannot, however, be compelled to pay for a nursemaid if the mother is given custody. When does the above apply? When she did not nurse the child long enou”