Monday, December 21, 2015

Honoring A Grandfather


The pasuk in Vayigash says that Yaakov brought korbanos to the G-d of his father Yitzchak. Rashi explains that it says in the name of his father Yitzchak and not his grandfather Avraham since he is obligated in the honor of his father more than he is obligated in the honor of his grandfather. His source is the medrash [94/5] and is cited by the Rema [Yo”d 240 24].

Asked the Ramban, that we find elsewhere that the grandfather is mentioned BEFORE the father. When Yaakov davened to be saved from Esav [Parshas Vayishlach] he said אל-הי אבי אברהם ואל-הי אבי יצחק - Avraham the grandfather precedes Yitzchak!:-). Similarly, when Yaakov ran away from Lavan [Parshas Vayeitzei] he says לולי א-להי אבי אברהם ופחד יצחק. Avraham before Yitzchak. Ahhhaaaa!!!!

The sefer Livyas Cheyn [written by the grandson of the Bach cited in the Tshuvos of Rebbi Akiva Eiger Kamma 68] answers based on the gemara in Kiddushin [31a] that R' Eliezer was asked: If the father says give me water and the mother also asks for water – which parent comes first? R' Eliezer answers that the father comes first because both the mother and the child are obligated to honor the father [see the mishna at the end of Krisus that a woman is obligated to honor her husband. There is a machlokes if this obligation is biblical or rabbinic. אכמ"ל בזה].

According to this, says the Livyas Cheyn, in an instance where there is a conflict between a father and a grandfather, the grandfather should come first because both the grandson and the father are obligated to honor the grandfather.

He says further that in the Maseches Kiddushin case there is a difference: If the mother is still alive then we say that the mother is also obligated to honor the father. But if the mother is no longer alive then she is no longer obligated to honor the father and if so then it is comparable to the case in the gemara where the parents are divorced and thus the father has no preference over the mother.

According to that, when Yitzchak was still alive, Yitzchak was obligated to honor Avraham [and even after Avraham's death, because a child is obligated to honor his parents even after their death]. That explains the instances where Yaakov mentioned Avraham first – since Yitzchak was still alive and thus also obligated to honor his father Avraham, Yaakov mentioned Avraham first. However in Parshas Vayigash, where Yitzchak had already passed away, Yitzchak has no obligation to honor Avraham and there is no longer an obligation to mention Avraham. On the contrary – only Yitzchak must be mentioned, as Rashi says – one is obligated to honor his father [Yitzchak] more than his grandfather.

The Beis Yosef [Yo”d 376] says that it is a mitzva to say Kaddish for one's mother in his father's lifetime. In the event that the father opposes this practice, he must listen to the father even though the mother specifically requested that the son say Kaddish, because the obligation to honor the father takes precedence over the obligation to honor the mother. 

Asked R' Akiva Eiger, that according to the Livyas Cheyn, we should apparently tell the son that he may do as he wishes, since the mother is no longer alive and thus not obligated to honor the father. [It is similar to a case where the parents divorced and one parent doesn't take precedence over the other.]  

The Noda Bi-yehuda [Tinyana 48] says that in a case where a father commanded his son to do something and then died, and the mother is opposed, the child should listen to the mother because honoring a living person takes precedence over honoring a dead person. If so, certainly in our case, the honor of the father [who is opposed to the son reciting Kaddish] should take precedence over the wishes of the mother.



However, R' Akiva Eiger notes that this logic is not adopted by the Beis Yosef, for he explains that one must listen to the father because his honor trumps that of the mother and DIDN'T write [as the Noda Bi-yehuda opined] that honor of the living comes before honor of the dead.

The Divrei Malkiel [2 – 137/5] explains that in the case of the Beis Yosef there is a special reason to listen to the father. Namely, that the recital of Kaddish will cause him anguish and it is a disgrace to the father. But this is difficult because the LACK of recital will cause the mother anguish, so why is the fathers pain more significant in our eyes?!

The Haflaah [in his Givas Pinchas simman 3] wonders, that for another reason the son should not recite Kaddish even if we equate the parents: If he says Kaddish then he will have transgressed the will of his father ACTIVELY, while if he refrains from doing so then he will only have transgressed the will of his mother PASSIVELY. It is definitely preferable to do an aveira בשב ואל תעשה and not בקום ועשה.

But once again – this reason was not mentioned by the Beis Yosef [maybe because he chose the simple path – that both the son and mother are obligated to honor the father. But in principle he would agree].

[עפ"י דברי הגר"א גנחובסקי זצ"ל והרחיבו והאריכו בזה במקומות רבים – עי' בסוף ח"ב ילקוט יוסף על הל' כיבוד אב ואם, מנחת אשר ויגש ובמיוחד בדברים הנפלאים של הכלי חמדה פרשת ויגש עיי"ש ותמצא נחת]

לזכות ר' שמואל צבי בן ר' דוד עקיבא לרגל יום הולדתו!