Parshat Lech Lecha
13 Cheshvan 5764
November 8, 2003
Daf Yomi: Menachos 33
Guest Author:
Rabbi Chaim Landau
Associate Member, YICR
Before there was
ever an Intifada, and a sustained campaign of vicious and brutal terrorism
aimed against the Israeli citizenry to scare them out of Israel and to
attempt to extract the land out of their hands and into those of the
Palestinians', the following fascinating rabbinic argument evolved: which
mitzvah dominates and takes precedence - that of honouring parents or that
of mitzvat aliyat le-aretz. In other words, prior to the current attempt
of bombing the Jews out of Israel came the discussion as to whether we
should be even going to Eretz Yisrael when it conflicted with the mitzvah
of honouring one's parents who, living in the Diaspora, refuse the child
the right to go there.
This discussion begins with the opening words of our parshah, Lech Lechah,
to which the Panim Yafos quotes a Midrash explaining why the word Lechah
had to be included in the Divine order to Avraham. Responds the Midrash as
follows: The dispensation to leave your family and continue your journey
to Eretz Yisrael applies only to you, Avraham, thus overruling the
otherwise ongoing mitzvah of Kibud Av. So what is clearly being learnt
from this Midrash is that when parents live in the Diaspora and children
wish to leave for Israel, the parents may refuse them this wish, and the
children must abide by the parents' requests.
But then, why for Avraham was the conflict resolved to his benefit?
Responds the Panim Yafos by saying that Terach's status in the world as an
evil person made him unworthy to have the mitzvah of Kibud Av apply to
him, and so Avraham did not have this conflict and could proceded to
Israel without any twinge of conscience. But for everyone else, such a
conflict would have to be resolved to the benefit of the parent in
following the mitzvah of Kibud Av.
Is this such an obvious resolution that we had to learn the outcome from
Avraham? The difficulty here is created by a rabbinic discussion in the
Masechet of Yevamot whereby if a father orders his son, a Cohen, to make
himself unclean (tamei), or orders his son not to return a lost
object...what takes precedence? Father's orders or the Torah's dictates?
The concept here is whether a parent can order a child to contravene a
mitzvah from the Torah and still rely on his own mitzvah of Kibud. The
paradigm here is that when a parent insists that his child desecrate
Shabbat, the child should disobey the parent and obey G-d, for when it
comes to mitzvot in general, ultimately, we all owe allegiance to G-d's
Torah, and so G-d's overriding precedence overrules any conflicting
parental decrees.
In our case under discussion, the paradigm seems to have been extended
into our current conflict: the child wishes to fulfill the mitzvah of
Aliyah over the parents' desires to have the child remain with them in the
Diaspora. However, the Midrash teaches that this matter was resolved only
in Avraham's favour, and that, for all of us, we would be dutybound to
follow honouring our parents.
Support for this opinion is also found in a sefer penned by the Chochmas
Adam, entitled Shaar Mishpetei Ha'Aretz who also adds the following proof:
everyone knows that Yaakov was punished for having stayed away from his
father for 22 years preventing him from fulfilling the mitzvah of Kibud Av
by having his own son Yosef copy his actions. But why doesn't anyone say
that Yaakov was punished for having remained outside of Israel for 22
years? Responds the Chochmas Adam that since Yaakov transgressed these two
mitzvot at the same time (failing to honour his parent and not having made
the mitzvah of Aliyah by his 22 year absence) everyone mentions only the
more important mitzvah (Kibud) for which he was punished, thus subsuming
the secondary mitzvah (Aliyah). However, he adds, if parents were living
in Israel, and the father decides to pick up and head for the Diaspora,
insisting the son leave with him, then here the son may refuse his
father's demands and insist on remaining in Israel to fulfill the mitzvah
of Aliyah uninterruptedly. Proof? Machlon and Kilyon (of Megilla Rus fame)
who followed their father's wishes and left Israel, which eventually ended
with their deaths.
However, the final halachah, notwithstanding all the above, is clear:
parents cannot prevent their children from fulfilling the mitzvah of
Aliyah, and the Rambam includes this in his Hilchos Mamrim, Chapter 6 that
even when contravening a mitzvah derabanon, the need for Aliyah outweighs
that of Kibud.
* * *
There is a wonderful Meshech Chochmah on the word �Vayikach� in Avraham's
taking of Sarah with him. It means he persuaded her with arguments, not
that he physically forced her along, for you are not allowed to go and
live elsewhere unless your wife agrees to the move. This seems to
contravene the Gemara of Ketuvot which holds that you can force your wife
to come with you to make Aliyah and even divorce her if she refuses to go
along. The Meshech Chochmah resolves this contradiction by telling us that
the mitzvah to go and live in Israel applies in Lech Lechah only after G-d
says to Avraham "Kum Ve-His-halech" at which moment G-d is allowing
Avraham the means to procure Eretz Yisrael by means of kinyan on behalf of
all the Jewish people for the future. Until G-d states these words, there
is not the mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael and therefore Avraham has to
persuade Sarah with words. But once this mitzvah originates from G-d's
mouth to Avraham, from that time onwards, one can even force one's wife to
join you in the mitzvah of Aliyah.
For those of us who have not yet made the mitzvah of Aliyah, hopefully we
are all doing everything within our possibilities to support Eretz Yisrael
in every and any means within our range so that, even while outside in the
Diaspora, we are not neglecting our people in Israel, nor should they feel
neglected, by the concerted efforts we are providing on their behalf.
Shabbat Shalom.
To receive a free e-mail subscription to NCYI�s weekly Torah Bulletin, send an email to:
YI_Torah@lb.bcentral.com