Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman
So much happens in Parashat Yitro—the reunion of Moses with his family, Yitro’s advice on establishing a judicial system, the preparation for revelation, and most dramatically, the giving of the Ten Commandments at Sinai—that it is easy to miss the significance of how it opens. Before the thunder and lightning, before the entire nation stands at the foot of Mount Sinai, the Torah records a quiet family encounter: “Moses went out to meet his father-in-law; he bowed down and kissed him, and they greeted one another, and they came to the tent” (Exodus 18:7).
This simple narrative has served as the foundation for an important area of Jewish law—the obligation to honor one’s father-in-law. The great prophet who speaks with God face to face, who splits the sea and brings forth water from a rock, bows down before his wife’s father. This gesture, preserved in the sacred text, would inspire generations of halakhic discussion and moral reflection.
The Biblical Source
The Tur (end of Yoreh Deah 240) cites the verse where David says to Saul, “My father, see, yes, see” (1 Samuel 24:12). The Yalkut Shimoni (Samuel, section 132, citing Midrash Shocher Tov) derives from this that a person is obligated to honor his father-in-law. The Yalkut on Parashat Yitro explains that when the Torah states “they greeted one another,” since “the man” refers to Moses—who is called “the man Moses was very humble” (Numbers 12:3)—it was Moses who bowed and kissed Yitro. The Mechilta states: “From here they said that a person should be prepared to honor his father-in-law.”
A Puzzling Question
R. Betzalel Rudinsky (Mishkan Betzalel, Exodus, page 87) asks: How did the sages know that Moses bowed and kissed Yitro specifically because of a fundamental legal obligation? Perhaps this was simply common courtesy, given that Moses had not seen his father-in-law for an extended period, and when Yitro came to the wilderness, Moses showed him respect through these gestures?
R. Rudinsky explains that since Moses was a king, and a king who forgoes his honor does not have his honor truly forgone, Moses could only perform these acts if they were mandated by fundamental law. The very fact that Moses—as king—bowed to Yitro demonstrates that this must have been a legal requirement rather than mere social convention.
This observation is relevant to addressing an important question about the nature of this obligation. Great halakhic authorities of later generations debated whether the obligation to honor one’s father-in-law is biblical or rabbinic in origin. The Mechilta’s formulation implies it is of Torah origin. Indeed, the Vilna Gaon writes in his letter: “And honor your mother-in-law, and I have also come to request of my wife that she honor my mother, as is written in the Torah.” Later authorities carefully noted that the Gaon’s language—“as is written in the Torah”—indicates that he viewed this obligation as biblical in nature.
The Scope of the Obligation
The sources present varying perspectives on whether the obligation to honor one’s father-in-law is equal to that of honoring one’s father, or whether it operates on a different level.
The Bach notes that from the Tur’s language, it appears one is only obligated to honor one’s father-in-law as one honors elders—through standing and showing deference. However, Midrash Shocher Tov uses different language: “My father, see, yes, see—from here [we learn] that a person is obligated to honor his father-in-law like the honor of his father,” suggesting that whatever one is obligated to do for one’s father must also be done for one’s father-in-law.
The Bach explains that the Tur’s more limited formulation is based on the continuation of the midrashic passage, which records a dispute about which person David called “my father” and which he addressed with “see.” According to the Rabbis’ interpretation of the passage, David did not call Saul “my father,” which means there is no proof that one must honor one’s father-in-law like one’s actual father. The Tur follows this view but maintains that one is still obligated to honor one’s father-in-law like other distinguished elders, since the phrase “yes, see” (gam re’eh) somewhat connects to the honor of a father.
The Conceptual Rationale
The Sefer Charedim (Chapter 5, positive commandments dependent on one’s hands) explains that since a man and his wife are considered as one body, his father-in-law and mother-in-law are comparable to his own parents. The obligation is a positive commandment from the Torah that can be fulfilled daily, stemming from the principle that the father and mother of one spouse are like the father and mother of the other.
Similarly, the Chida in his Birkei Yosef brings a proof from Micah (7:6): “A daughter rises up against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law,” noting that the verse equates the two sins. He further cites the Tanna D’vei Eliyahu (Eliyahu Rabbah, chapter 24), which juxtaposes “Honor your father” with “You shall not commit adultery” to teach that if a man marries a woman and she does not honor his father and mother in their old age, it is as if he has committed adultery all his days. Similarly, “Honor” is juxtaposed to “You shall not steal” to teach that if children in a household do not honor their parents, it is as if the father has been stealing souls all his days.
These midrashic teachings underscore how seriously the tradition takes the breakdown of family honor. When a child-in-law fails to honor their spouse’s parents, they violate the integrity of the marital bond. When children fail to honor their parents, they steal from them the fundamental respect and dignity that are their due.
The Sefer Siftei Kohen on Parashat Yitro offers an elegant explanation: One’s wife, who is spiritually considered the other half of oneself, was raised and cared for by her father just as one’s own father cared for oneself. Therefore, one is obligated to honor one’s father-in-law like the honor of one’s own father, because the completeness of one’s body came through him.
This formulation grounds the obligation not in abstract legal categories but in existential reality. One’s spouse is part of oneself—the tradition says “one body”—and one’s spouse would not exist without their parents. Therefore, honoring one’s spouse’s parents is, in a sense, honoring the source of one’s own completeness.
(See also regarding the words of Maimonides, in Migdenot Eliyahu 1:58:4, in Responsa Minchat Elazar, vol. 3, section 34, and in Sefer Kochvei Yitzchak, vol. 3, Kavod Melachim, section 11, and section 17, subsection 3, and Rabbi Zalman Halevi Uri, in the journal Hapardes, Year 65, Issue 6, section 37.)
Practical Application
Rabbi Shimon Pollack (Responsa Shem Shimshon, vol. 1, section 22) explores several practical differences between honoring one’s father and honoring one’s father-in-law. He notes that the obligation to honor one’s father-in-law is not explicitly stated in a clear biblical verse, and from this he derives several distinctions. Among them is the possibility that even according to the view that one must honor even a morally unworthy parent, this may not apply to a father-in-law.
Additionally, there is a clear custom in the halakhic literature regarding proper titles. For one’s father, the formulation is “my father, my teacher” (avi mori), whereas for one’s father-in-law, the usage is “my teacher, my father-in-law” (mori v’chami). This difference in ordering reflects two factors: First, the role of father carries greater obligatory weight than that of father-in-law. Second, one’s father becomes a father at the child’s birth and teaches Torah later, whereas with a father-in-law, he is typically first encountered as a teacher (or elder worthy of respect) and only later becomes a father-in-law through marriage.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 240:24) rules: “A person is obligated to honor his father-in-law.” The formulation indicates that this is an obligation of lesser priority than that of honoring one’s father. The Shach (subsection 22) clarifies, citing the Bach, that this means the obligation is somewhat connected to the honor of a father, and one is obligated to honor him like other distinguished elders.
The Pitchei Teshuvah (subsection 20) notes that this interpretation appears necessary, otherwise there would be a contradiction in the Shulchan Aruch itself. Earlier, in section 17, the Shulchan Aruch states that a married woman is exempt from honoring her parents when it conflicts with her obligations to her husband. If the obligation to honor one’s father-in-law were equal to honoring one’s father, then the wife would be obligated to honor her own father despite being married, since her husband is also obligated to honor his father-in-law (her father). Since the Shulchan Aruch exempts married women, it must be that honoring one’s father-in-law is not equivalent to honoring one’s father. The Chayei Adam (Rule 67) expands this question: If honoring one’s father-in-law is a biblical obligation, why is the woman exempt, given that the husband is also obligated [to honor his father-in-law], and honoring one’s father takes precedence over honoring one’s mother because the mother is also obligated to honor her husband?
This apparent contradiction reveals an important reality about the nature of marital obligations and family relationships. The resolution lies in understanding that not all forms of honor are created equal, and the structure of obligations within a marriage follows its own internal logic. A married woman’s primary obligation is to her husband, and this takes precedence even over honoring her parents. Yet her husband is obligated to honor her parents—not with the same intensity as he honors his own parents, but nevertheless with genuine respect and deference. This asymmetry reflects how family systems function and how obligations can be calibrated to maintain harmony while upholding core values.
Responsa Hitorerut Teshuva (vol. 4, section 199) also raises the question of why a married woman is exempt from honoring her parents if her husband is biblically obligated to honor them. Ikvei Sofer (in glosses on that work) states that the position must be as indicated: the obligation to honor one’s father-in-law is not the same as the obligation to honor one’s father, but rather similar to honoring an elder, as explained by the Bach, Shach, and Pitchei Teshuvah.
Rabbi Shlomo Schneider (Divrei Shlomo, vol. 2, section 98) elaborates extensively on this issue. He explains that the honor due to one’s father can override other forms of honor only when that paternal honor applies directly to the person involved—stemming from the father-son relationship itself, such as the honor a father receives from his son. However, regarding one’s father-in-law, this honor does not apply directly to him through biological relationship. Rather, it is only because of his wife that the obligation to honor her father is imposed upon him. Such honor, which derives from another source, cannot override the wife’s obligation to honor her husband, who takes precedence.
Rabbi Meir Aryeh Segal, in his Sefer Imrei Shefer (section 78), offers a different approach. The obligation of a wife to honor her husband differs from the obligation of a son to honor his father. A wife’s obligation to honor her husband stems from the law of marital commitment. She cannot transfer her husband’s rights to her father. By contrast, a son’s obligation to honor his mother is simply a matter of fulfilling a commandment. Therefore, he must give precedence to honoring his father over his mother, because both he and his mother are obligated to honor his father.
According to all understandings, the honor due to one’s father is more stringent than that due to one’s father-in-law. R. Natan Gestetner (Responsa LeHorot Natan, vol. 13, section 16) rules that one should not recite Kaddish for one’s father-in-law if one’s own father objects, because the honor of one’s father takes precedence. (See also Responsa Avnei Yashfeh, vol. 8, section 129.)
After Divorce or Death
Another dimension of this obligation concerns whether it continues after divorce or the death of one’s wife.
R. Betzalel Rudinsky (Mishkan Betzalel, Exodus, pages 87-88) suggests an approach based on the source from Moses and Yitro. Many assume that after a wife’s death or divorce, one is certainly not obligated to honor the father-in-law and mother-in-law. However, the Talmud records that according to one opinion, Tzipporah had been sent away from Moses with a bill of divorce—meaning that when Yitro returned with Tzipporah, she was not actually Moses’s wife. Yet Moses was still obligated to honor his father-in-law. As explained based on the Mechilta, this demonstrates that the obligation to honor one’s father-in-law stands forever, even after death or divorce.
However, Rabbi Meir Aryeh Segal (Imrei Shefer, ibid.) raises a challenge to this view. For those authorities who maintain that honoring one’s father-in-law is a biblical obligation, why does the Talmud in Moed Katan (26b) state that one tears one’s garment for one’s father-in-law and mother-in-law (only) out of respect for one’s wife? This is codified in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 374:6). If the obligation is biblical and equivalent to honoring one’s father, it should derive directly from the honor due to the father-in-law himself. Perhaps even according to those who maintain that honoring one’s father-in-law is biblical, this applies only during the father-in-law’s lifetime, but not after his death. (Alternatively, the law of tearing garments is not part of the concept of honor but rather relates to the laws of mourning. See also the extended discussion in Sefer Siftei Shlomo on Parashat Yitro, section 2.)
Maimonides’s Approach
Notably, Maimonides omits the law of honoring one’s father-in-law entirely, except for what he writes in the Laws of Mourning (2:5): “A married woman, although her husband mourns for her, does not mourn with her for other relatives except for her father and mother. Out of respect for his wife, he conducts himself in mourning over them in her presence.”
R. Moshe Shternbuch (Responsa Teshuvot VeHanhagot, vol. 3, section 277) explains that according to Maimonides, the entire obligation to honor one’s father-in-law stems from honoring one’s wife. Therefore, if the wife derives no benefit from this, and certainly after her death, there is no obligation to honor them at all.
Most of the sources cited above, however, suggest that there is more to this obligation than derivative honor. The issue warrants further examination.
Rabbi Mordechai Benedict (Shearim Metzuyanim on Parashat Yitro, section 101, subsection 3) discusses the dispute among the early authorities regarding why a son-in-law must mourn for his father-in-law. Maimonides’s view is that it is out of respect for his wife, while the Tur’s view is that it is out of respect for the father-in-law himself. They follow their respective positions: The Tur brings the law that a person is obligated to honor his father-in-law, but Maimonides does not cite this. Therefore, regarding mourning, Maimonides maintains it is because of respect for one’s wife, not because of respect for the father-in-law.
Rabbi Benedict suggests this may provide evidence for an earlier discussion regarding if, according to Maimonides, the obligation to honor one’s father stems from gratitude. Regarding one’s father-in-law, this rationale does not apply (at least to the same degree) since the father-in-law has not been personally beneficent toward him nor did he bring him into the world. According to the Tur, the obligation to honor one’s father stems from the concept of transmitting tradition—honoring those who transmit tradition helps preserve it. Therefore, since the father-in-law is also included in the category of “father,” he is among the transmitters of tradition and must be honored.
Conclusion: The Enduring Message of Yitro and Moses
The obligation to honor one’s father-in-law, while perhaps not identical to the obligation to honor one’s own father, nevertheless reflects the Torah’s recognition that marriage creates not just a union between two individuals but a connection between families. When one marries, one’s spouse’s parents become part of an extended self, worthy of respect and honor.
Whether following the stringent view that equates this honor to that of one’s own parents, or the more moderate position that it resembles the honor due to distinguished elders, the fundamental message remains: the family bonds created through marriage carry real obligations. These obligations persist because they reflect the essential truth that “a man and his wife are considered as one body”—and with that unity comes the responsibility to honor those who brought one’s spouse into the world and raised them.
In relationships between in-laws, which can sometimes be fraught with tension, the Torah’s directive takes on particular significance. The obligation to honor one’s father-in-law and mother-in-law is not contingent on personal affection or agreement. It flows from the sacred bond of marriage itself and the recognition that in honoring one’s spouse’s parents, one honors one’s spouse and strengthens one’s own home.
Moses’s greeting of Yitro in the wilderness thus stands as an eternal model of proper conduct, teaching that even the greatest among us showed deference to his in-laws, and in doing so, conveyed that such behavior fulfills not only a legal obligation but also recognizes its crucial role in protecting the harmony and wholeness of family life.
