The gemara seems to assume that when a father tells a son to do an aveira there is a mitzvah of kibud av, the only discussion is whether this mitzvah of kibud av is strong enough to push off a lo sa'aseh sheyesh bo kareis. Even Tosafos 6a d.h. nigmar, who says that once we are told that kibud av is not a special strong aseh, we assume it is a weaker aseh and does not even push off a regular lav, still assumes that there is a mitzvah to listen to a father when he tells you to do an aveira, just that it doesn't have the strength to push off an issur.
The Maharatz Chiyus asks based on the gemara in B.M. 62 that if a father is not "oseh ma'aseh amcha" i.e. a rasha, there is no mitzva of kibud av at all. Acc. to this opinion, anytime a father tells the son to do an aveirah he is automatically not oseh ma'aseh amcha, and there is no mitzvah of kibud av at all! How can the gemara assume that there is a mitzvah just that it doesn't override an issur?
The Maharatz Chiyus asks based on the gemara in B.M. 62 that if a father is not "oseh ma'aseh amcha" i.e. a rasha, there is no mitzva of kibud av at all. Acc. to this opinion, anytime a father tells the son to do an aveirah he is automatically not oseh ma'aseh amcha, and there is no mitzvah of kibud av at all! How can the gemara assume that there is a mitzvah just that it doesn't override an issur?
Maharatz Chiyus quotes from the Shita Mikubetzes that if the aseh would push of a lo sa'aseh, the father would not be doing anything wrong by telling the son to violate shabbos or do an issur. It is only once we say that kibud av is not docheh the issur that it is considered something wrong. He concludes with a very strong question. Based on the conclusion that the fathers command to do an issur does not push off the issur, thereby making the father an oseh ma'aseh amcha, the reason the son should not listen is simply bec. there is no mitzvah of kibud av at all. So, how can the gemara think to learn from the lav of mechamer to all other places that aseh is not docheh lo sa'aseh, perhaps it is only by chibud av where there is no mitzvah at all to listen, but by other places we would learn from kelayim b'tzizis that aseh is docheh a lo sa'aseh.
4 comments:
very interesting,
why do we assume just because he asks to do an עבירה he is no longer עושה מעשה עמך? doesn't the חפץ חיים go to great length to determine who exactly is considered so? its not so פשוט no?
but if i am wrong then the question is really intriguing
why is there no mitzvah at all to listed, i didn't follow the conclusion?
thanks
The Ostroftzer Rebbe was once in Warsaw by one of his chasidim. The chasid proudly showed the Rebbe the new invention that was just installed in his house, a telephone.
The Rebbe took the telephone in his hands and 'sanctified' it with words of Torah.
He said: The Meiri in Yevamos asks: Why is a verse required to teach us that a son may not listen to his father when he instructs him to perform an aveira; the father is a rosha and the son is thus excluded from honoring him based on the Gemora in Bava Metzia that a father who is not "oseh ma'aseh amcha," one is not required to obey?
The Rebbe answered: It is referring to a case where the father calls the son on the telephone. The father is in one time zone, and it is already Motzei Shabbos, and the son is in a different time zone, where it is still Shabbos. One might think that the son is required to 'listen' to his father and answer the phone, the verse teaches us that everyone is obligated to honor HaShem and therefore the son should not obey the father.
I do not know how the above case fits into the Gemora.
Post a Comment