How The Girsa Changes The Whole Story

There is a short and mysterious story in Kiddushin 31a:

שאל בן אלמנה אחת את ר' אליעזר אבא אומר השקיני מים ואימא אומרת השקיני מים איזה מהם קודם אמר ליה הנח כבוד אמך ועשה כבוד אביך שאתה ואמך חייבים בכבוד אביך בא לפני רבי יהושע אמר לו כך אמר לו רבי נתגרשה מהו אמר ליה מבין ריסי עיניך ניכר שבן אלמנה אתה הטל להן מים בספל וקעקע להן כתרנגולין

A widow's son asked R. Eliezer: If Dad says, 'Give me a drink of water,' and Mom says 'Give me a drink of water,' who comes first?

He answered: 'Leave your mother's honor and fulfill the honor of your father, for both you and your mother are bound to honor your father.' 

Then he went before R. Joshua, who answered him the same.

He said to him, "Rabbi, what if she is divorced?"

He said to him, "Between the tears in your eyes it is obvious that you are a widow's son! Pour some water for them into a trough, and screech for them like chickens!"

This is quite a strange aggadah. Firstly, let's see Rashi's reading:

אמר לו כך. ר' יהושע השיב לו כדרך שהשיב לו ר' אליעזר: נתגרשה. שאין אמי חייבת בכבוד אבי מהו: מבין ריסי עיניך. שערות שבשורות כסוי העין אתה ניכר שהיית יתום ונשרו ריסי עיניך מן הבכי כדאמרי' [בסנהדרין] (ד' קד:) והיה רבן גמליאל שומע קולה ובוכה כנגדה עד שנשרו ריסי עיניו: שבן אלמנה אתה. ולא צריך אתה למעשה אלא ללמוד באת ואני אומר לך שכבוד שניהם שוה עליך: הטל להם מים בספל וקעקע. קרקר להם כמו שמקרקרין לתרנגולים ולפי שלא היה צריך לעשות והוא שאלו כמו שעליו לעשות אמר לי אבא ואימא השיבו בלשון שחוק:

He answered him the same: R. Joshua answered him in the same way R. Eliezer answered him. She is divorced: That my mother is not obligated in the honor of my father, what then? Between the tears in your eyes: The lashes in the lines of the eyelids you are recognizable as an orphan, and the eyelashes have fallen out from crying... That you are a widow's son: And you don't need this for practice, rather you have come to learn, and I say to you that the honor of both of them are equal upon you. Pour some water for them into a trough and screech: Shriek at them like one who shrieks at chickens, and because he didn't need it for practice, and he asked it as if he needed it for practice, "My father and my mother said to me...", so he answered in a joking manner.

According to Rashi, the import of him saying, "Dad" and "Mom" (or he might have had the girsa of "My father and my mother") is that he was asking theoretical questions, which allowed R. Joshua to respond sarcastically.

The Rosh seems to say like Rashi, which is unclear but I think means that he presents himself as asking a practical question when he is not...: אמר ליה נתגרשה מהו אמר לו מבין ריסי עיניך ניכר שבן אלמנה אתה אלא שהלכה למעשה אתה שואל הטל להם מים בספל וקעקע להם כתרנגולין. On the other hand, Ri HaZaken says that he saw that he was a smart guy (instead of a smart aleck), since he was young yet following the conversation, which must mean he was part of the workforce, which must mean his father was dead, and decided to answer his theoretical question: שמתנועותיך ודבריך ניכר שפקח אתה שבן אלמנה פיקח הוא מרוב שטורד בפרנסתו

However, even with Rashi, the process of the story is not exactly explained.

(Interestingly, there is some debate as to what the actual halacha is at the end. Is it that one is actually required to do this dual solution trough thing to the request of the parents, or is R. Joshua indicating that both are equal, since the mother does not have any requirements of honor to the father? The Beit Yosef, YD 240:14, notes that both the Rif and the Rambam (Mamrim 6:14) leave out the end of the story with the chickens and the trough. He says this is because one gets the message from the beginning of the story, that one can honor whoever he wants first in the situation of divorce. Beit Yosef believes that Rashi indicates this as well. After all, Rashi writes, "The honor of both of them are equal upon you," and thinks the trough answer is "lashon sechok," sarcastic or joking. Beit Yosef notes, however, that Rabbenu Yerucham believes the gemara's last part with the trough is the actual solution, since you must honor them equally, you can't choose who to give first. Both, in that case, must come "first." Adding to this myself, Ritva is on the Rif, Rambam, etc side הטל להם מים בספל. פירוש בבדיחותא אמר ליה לומר שאינו חייב בכבודו של זה יותר מזה.)

(And see שו"ת הרב"ז ילקוט החנוכי סימן כג, where he writes that Chazal didn't think very highly of those without a father, since that's where you get your civility from, and since the guy asked about what if they're divorced, without realizing the answer was already implied in the reasoning of "she has to give honor to him", he must not have had a father to teach him very much: אמנם נראה נכון ליישב דקדוקו של המהרש"א ז"ל, עפ"י מאמרם (נדרים ס"ו ע"ב) דר"ש לא טעים מתבשילו של אותו האיש שנדר שלא יהנה ממנה עד שיטעימו ר"ש ור"י, ור"ש אמר: ימותו כל בני אלמנה ואל יזוז שמעון ממקומו, פירש הרא"ש שם: "ימותו כל בני אלמנה. בני אלמנות אין להם אב להדריכם בדרך ישרה, ואינם בני תרבות כמו זה הנודר". הרי מפורש יוצא דבני אלמנות מאחר שאין להם אב ללמדם ארחות יושר, אינם בני תרבות, ואינם בני דעה [ראה רש"י חולין קי"א ע"ב ד"ה יתמא, "בלא דעת"]. ומעתה עולה יפה מאמרו של ר' יהושע "מבין ריסי עיניך ניכר שבן אלמנה אתה", כיון ששאלהו דבר שאינה נחוצה למעשה, ואין בו דעת לשאול, כדרך בני אלמנה שאינם בני תרבות, ואינם בני דעה, מאחר שאין להם אב להדריכם בדרך ישרה.)

Getting back to understanding our gemara, Meharsha asks some pointed questions:

א"ל מבין ריסי עיניך ניכר שבן אלמנה כו' פרש"י שבן אלמנה אתה ולא צריך אתה למעשה כו' עכ"ל. והוא דחוק כיון דהוא לא היה צריך לשאלות אלו לא הל"ל אבא ואימא אלא הל"ל אביו א"ל השקיני ואמו א"ל השקיני כו' ועוד קשה דא"כ בשאלה קמייתא ששאל לר"א דאבא אומר השקיני למה לא א"ל ר"א כך מבין ריסי עיניך ניכר שבן אלמנה אתה וע"ק מה ראה ר"י בו שבן אלמנה הוא ואימא בן אלמן הוא ומתה אמו ובכה עליה עד שנשרו ריסי עיניו ונ"ל דבשאלה קמייתא ודאי דנמי ראה בריסי עיניו שהוא יתום אבל לא ידע אם בן אלמנה הוא או בן אלמן ושאל מלתא דהוה צריך לו כבר בהיות אביו ואמו שניהם קיימים ואולי אירע לו בחייהם כך ושאל אם שפיר עשה אבל כששאל בנתגרשה אמו מהו בצריך הדבר לאמו שאל ע"כ דאמו קיימת והוא בן אלמנה ולא שאל על עצמו שהרי כבר מת אביו אלא על אחין מן האם שנשאה אמו איש אחר והיה לה בנים ונתגרשה ממנו היאך יעשו וא"ל הטל להם מים בספל כו' ר"ל אחיך מן האם יעשה כן דכיון דא"א לו ליתן כוס לא' מהן שהוא כלי השתיה יתן להם מים רבים לפניהם בכלי הרחיצה שהוא הספל ויקעקע כו' ודו"ק:

He said to him, "Between the tears in your eyes it is obvious that you are a widow's son: Rashi explains, "You are a widow's son, and do not need it for practice." This is difficult, since if he didn't need it practically, he shouldn't have asked these as "My father and my mother," but rather "One's father says to him, Give me a drink, and one's mother says to him, Give me a drink..." 

A further question: If so, with the first question that he asked to R. Eliezer, that "Dad says, Give me a drink...", why didn't R. Eliezer say to him the same thing, "Between the tears in your eyes it is obvious that you are a widow's son..." 

A further question: What did R. Joshua see in him that he was a widow's son? Maybe he was a widower's son, and his mother was the one who had died, and he was crying for her until his eyelashes fell out.

It seems to me that regarding the first question, certainly he [R. Eliezer] also saw that he was an orphan, but he did not know whether he was a widow's son or a widower's son. He was asking that he did need the answer when his father and mother were still alive, and it could be this happened to him in their lifetime, and he asked if what he did was good. But when he asked when his mother became divorced, what then, putting the necessities on to his mother, he could conclude that the mother was the one alive, and that he was a widow's son, and he wasn't asking about himself since his father had already passed, but rather on his bothers from the mother, a mother who had a second marriage, and she had children and then got divorced, how should they act?

So he answered that you could pour water in a trough... meaning that your brother from the mother should do it, since it's impossible for him to give a cup to each of them, a cup to drink from, so he should give them lots of water from a vessel to wash with, which is the basin, and he can shriek, and dok.

The Meharsha's questions on Rashi are formidable, but his answer is somewhat of a creation of a new story to fit the puzzle. I think, if we look at the girsas, we will find that there is a variance, seen in the Munich manuscript and corroborated by the Meiri, that transform this story, and can explain R. Joshua's strange response.

When we look at the Munich 95 manuscript, many questions are answered. The Munich 95 manuscript has this questioner not being a "בן אלמנה," but rather a "בן גרושה." Similarly, when R. Joshua tells him he can tell who he is, he says "מבין ריסי עיניך ניכר שבן גרושה אתה":

Thus, the story goes like this:

1. A ben gerusha asked R. Eliezer what to do if his parents (without specifying if they are divorced) ask him for something at the same time.
2. R. Eliezer says father goes first, and provides the reason as both mother and son required to honor the father.
3. The ben gerusha then asks R. Joshua, who answers the same.
4. The ben gerusha then asks about divorced parents.
5. R. Joshua realizes this, and deduces from his teary eyes that he is a ben gerusha.
6. R. Joshua answers in a sarcastic or seemingly unserious manner. 

So on this level, several things fall into place. Firstly, the question of the Meharsha as to how R. Joshua knew he was a widow's son, as opposed to a widower's son, falls away. Both are presumably alive. In addition, we now understand how the question of "If she is divorced, what then?" makes a lot more sense, since the guy was trying to find out how to deal with the honor of divorced parents. Lastly, his questions phrased as if both parents were still alive makes a lot of sense now.

But more than this, the whole story falls into place. We now can understand R. Joshua's seemingly callous answer. When the questioner asked what happens when they're divorced, R. Joshua recognized that several things were happening here. Firstly, this young man is living this case. As opposed to Rashi, who sees the guy as asking only a theoretical question, this manuscript has it being extremely practical to him. And we find out something else. That this case upsets the young man. His parents are divorced. He cries a lot. And they demand of him equal honor, and he knows he must fulfill both of their desires equally. And he knew not what to do. This was a very upsetting story for him. He went to R. Eliezer, but didn't want to tell him at first the full story. So when he got the basic answer of who to honor when they're married, he left it at that, and went to another rabbi. This time, he worked up the courage to hint that he was a son in a divorced family.

So, R. Joshua recognized that this boy had parents who were taking out their problems on him. The parents were making him "choose sides", so to speak. And so, R. Joshua realized that for the mental health of the kid, his answer must be sensitive. His answer to this kid is that they must deal with their own problems. If they decide to act like animals, give them water like animals. Give them a trough, and don't worry about the consequences, because this is about you and your abilities as their kid. From the perspective of the parents, R. Joshua's advice is that if they separately ask for water (presumably they don't get along and aren't usually near each other), the advice is to provide merely one basin, and the mother and father need to get closer and drink from the same water. Perhaps this would put them in the same space, maybe even bring future reconciliation, but most importantly, allow them to recognize, like R. Joshua did, the strain this is putting on their son.

Indeed, the Meiri reports that this Munich 95 girsa is his girsa, and the one that makes the most sense to him!

כבוד אב ואם שוים מכל מקום כל שאמו אשת אביו ומצות שניהם באה עליו כאחת יקדים כבוד אביו מפני שהוא ואמו חייבין בכבוד אביו 

הא כל שאין אמו אשת אביו כגון שנתגרשה או שלא היתה אשתו מעולם ישתדל כמה שיוכל לעשות מצותם כאחת כגון אם ישאלו ממנו דבר אחד ישים לפניהם כאחת ואם אי אפשר ליעשות כאחת יקדים את המזדמן ואל יעבור על המצות 

כך היא שיטתנו ומפני שאנו גורסים כאן מבין ריסי עיניך נכר שבן גרושה אתה תן להם מים בספל וקעקע להם כתרנגלין 

 ומכל מקום יש גורסין מבין ריסי עיניך נכר שבן אלמנה אתה כלומר שהם אדמות ורכות מרוב הבכי וכדרך שאמרו במועד קטן שהיה רבן גמליאל שומע קולו ובוכה עד שנשרו ריסי עיניו ואף זה היה כן ולפיכך אמר לו מבין ריסי עיניך נכר שבן אלמנה אתה ואם כן אי אתה שואל לצורך ואיני נזקק להשיב אלא שמכל מקום דרוש וקבל שכר וכל שאירע כן הטל לפניהם וכו' כלומר לפי שאלתך ראוי לך לעשות כ  

והדברים מראין כדעת ראשון שאין ריסי עינים מעידות שבכה על אביו ושמא על מת אחר הוא בוכה ועוד שלא נאמר מעולם מבין ריסי עיניך ניכר אלא על דמיון הענינים לא עינים ממש  

ומכל מקום יש מפרשין מבין ריסי עיניך נכר שבן אלמנה אתה כלומר שאתה פקח וכמו שאמרו בפרק חלק ההוא יתמא בר ארמלתא קטלינהו לכלהו שסתם בני אלמנה נכנעים ומתגדלים בפקחות ויש מפרשים שבן אלמנה אתה שנשאת לבעל ואתה שואל בין אמך לבעל אמך שאדם חייב בכבודו גם כן כדכתוב את אמך לרבות בעל אמך ובזו ודאי הטל להם וכו' הא אב ממש אב קודם:

R. Avraham Sofer, who has footnotes to his version of the Meiri, writes, for footnote 9 on Meiri's claim of his girsa, and his claim of other people's girsa.

(Another possibility is within the Oxford Opp. 248 (367) manuscript, which retains the בן אלמנה question, but then contains a script that allows for his second question to be "נהרג מהו" - if the father dies, what then? Meaning, his question shows that he just wants to show that his father died, because obviously the dead father isn't asking for water. Perhaps what is happening here is that the son wants desperately to fulfill his father's wish, in this case to bring him water. What if he never got to fulfill his father's request, must he still try now, meaning pour it on his grave or in some other way fulfill it? He was asking this to the expense of his mother. R. Joshua sees that this is a most silly question, and retorts that he should provide a basin big enough for both to use. He was pointing out that the dead don't drink, just like people aren't chickens that they should want water mindlessly...)