Yisro, Shemos 20:122, Honoring Parents, and the Ten Commandments . כיבוד אב ואם ועשרת הדברות

(Please note that I use the word 'nexting' or 'nexted'.  I strongly dislike the word 'juxtaposition', and nexted is the only alternative I like.  I also dislike the word 'neologism,' almost as ugly a word as 'blog.')

It has often been said that the Aseres HaDibros seem to be evenly divided between those that deal with our relationship to Hashem and those that focus on our relationship with our fellow man.  When Moshe Rabbeinu came down with these commandments written on the Luchos, five on each Tablet, the laws were balanced between his two hands, one hand presenting religious doctrine and the other hand human ethics.  The one Dibbur that doesn’t seem to fit is the fifth, Kibbud Av Ve’eim, which ends the first Luach, but seems to belong with the second group, the one that deals with inter-human relationships.  


Indeed, the Ramban here says that there are only four in the "relationship with Hashem" group, and Kibbud begins the six that involve our relationship with our fellow man.  He adds that kibbud is listed first in the second group because it relates to the first of the first group, Anochi.  Honor your father as you honor Me, because I am your heavenly Father, and he is your earthly father.    True, he later says that the luchos were equally divided between man/G-d and man/man, because we honor our parents because they are Hashem's partners, and just as we honor Hashem, we ought to honor His partners, so it is also man/G-d.  The connection seems tenuous, dachuk, in light of his earlier statement that Kibbud is man/man.  In any case, although the Ramban’s explanation does connect Kibbud to Anochi, it would be nice to understand why Kibbud is so closely related to the others that are on the same Luach, those that are בין אדם למקום, between man and Hashem.   

How many times did Hashem teach us the mitzvah of Kibbud Av Ve’eim?  The Kli Yakar in Parshas Kedoshim says that the mitzvah is stated three times: Yisro (Shemos 20:12), Va’eschanan (Devarim 5:16), and Kedoshim (Vayikra 19:3).  What do all the occurrences have in common?  The Kli Yakar says that they all are stated contiguously with Shemiras Shabbos.  Three times is no coincidence.  And I later realized that this occurs a fourth time as well!  The Gemara in Sanhedrin 56b talks about the mitzvos we were given in Mara: Shabbos, Kibbud Av Ve’eim, and Dinim.  There you have it again!  True, Rashi in Beshalach (Shemos 15:25) says the mitzvos of Mara were Shabbos, Dinim, and Para Adumah, but he later explains that when he said Dinim he meant Kibbud Av.  Rashi just added Para on the basis of a Medrash.  In any case, Kibbud Av is mentioned four times.  Every single time, it is contiguous with the Mitzva of Shabbos.  This nexting is undeniably intentional and clearly indicates a linkage.  

In an answer reminiscent of the Ramban, the Kli Yakar explains that every man is created by three partners, a father, a mother, and Hashem.  Shabbos is our way of honoring Hashem for creating us individually, besides the general creation of the world as a whole; similarly, Kibbud is our way of honoring our parents.   

This Kli Yakar would also explain what Kibbud is doing on the first luach.  This deep connection between Kibbud and Shabbos results in every mention of Kibbud being immediately followed by Shabbos, and because of that connection they had to be on the same luach.


But does that mean that the idea that the first luach instructs us about בין אדם למקום, man to G-d, and the second about בין אדם לחבירו, man to man, is not correct? 

A certain very Chashuveh person made an superlative observation which adds a new dimension to the Kli Yakar and ties everything together nicely.  (This person actually said it before hearing the Kli Yakar.)  She said the reason nobody understands why Kibbud is in the first group is because of a true, but imperfectly phrased assumption.  Everyone asks why kibud av is in the first five dibros, when the first group involves Man's duties to Hashem.  But it's a mistake to categorize the first group as bein adam la’makom.  The first five Dibros are bein adam le'yotzro, between man and his creator.

In short: Why is כיבוד אב ואם on the first luach, which otherwise focuses on בין אדם למקום, and not on the second, which deals with בין אדם לחבירו?  Because the first five are not בין אדם למקום, they are בין אדם ליוצרו.

After reading this, you might think the answer is obvious.  It's interesting, though, that it wasn't obvious at all until you read it.  This is another example of
ויפקח א־לקים את עיניה. — א״ר בנימין חכל בחזקת סומין עד שהקב״ה מאיר את עיניהם, שנאמר: ויפקח א־לקים את עיניה.    (ב״ר נ״ג)  ג. 

*   *

*

Here's a brief summary of existing discussions about the issue of whether Kibbud Av is called  בין אדם לחבירו or בין אדם למקום.  I already mentioned the Ramban in this parsha that groups it with בין אדם לחבירו. 

Minchas Chinuch discusses this and presents two possiblities: that our obligation to others is to refrain from hurting them and to help them under the rules of Tzedaka.  The greater obligations towards our parents are בין אדם למקום.  Or, that the fact that it involves our relationship with another person means that it is automatically בין אדם לחבירו.  He says that one difference would be in a case where a person failed in his obligation of Kibbud Av.  Would he have to ask mechila from the parent, or would teshuva suffice.  Remember, it's the Minchas Chinuch, so everything he says opens a whole avenue of possibilities.

The Maharam Shick (YD 346) says that since the Gemara in Kiddushin 31b says that the obligation remains after a parents' death, it must be  בין אדם למקום.  Again, there are numerous reasons to disagree with this proof.  Even assuming the validity of the logic of his proof, many Achronim discuss whether kibbud after death is real kibbud (Noda Be'Yehuda II Even Ezer 45, R' Akiva Eiger Teshuvos 68, Lechem Mishna 6 Mamrim 11.)

Reb Boruch Ber in his Birkas Shmuel Yevamos 3 says it's a machlokes between Tosfos in the end of Eilu Metzios who holds it's בין אדם לחבירו and Tosfos Yeshanim in Kesuvos 40a who presents both possibilities. 

Devorim 2:5. What Does Kibbud Av Ve'Eim Have to Do with Tisha Ba'av?

In this week's Parsha, we are told that Hashem enjoined the Bnei Yisroel from any infringement upon the territory of Eisov, the land of Sei'ir, because, the passuk says, their land was granted to them as an inviolable heritage-- and we had no right to take it from them. The Medrash Rabbah 1:15 here explains how Eisav merited this unique divine protection: Rav Shimon Ben Gamliel says that it was Eisav's exemplary "Kibud Av Ve'eim - the honor Eisav showed his parents, that protected his lands from being conquered. When serving and caring for his parents, Eisav would wear the same regal garments that he wore when he went out in public in his capacity as King of Sei’ir and when conducting his business. This illustrated Eisav’s philosophy that his behavior and appearance when he served his parents should express the same meticulous focus, respectfulness, and stateliness as he expected from his supplicants-- and as was expected from him-- when he held court in his royal chambers.

Note that Eisov’s kibbud was most likely, to some extent, duplicitous or self-serving, and Eisav’s legacy is primarily one of strife and imperialistic war, but the fact remains that he honored and brought happiness to Yitzchok.

One thing is evident from this Medrash. The specific Zechus of Kibbud Av Ve'eim strengthens one's bond and one's connection to his ancestral land. It was because of Eisov's mitzvas Kibbud that Hashem told us to leave him alone, to let him remain at peace in his homeland.

Now, see the Gemora in Kiddushin 31b that discusses the gentile Domo ben Nesinoh: his mother, who evidently was demented, used to publicly assault him, and he would just say “Da’yeich, Imi,” enough, my mother. The same gemora brings the story that Domoh’s father was sleeping on top of a key that would give him access to a gem he could have sold for a vast profit, but he refused to wake his father, and so he missed the fleeting opportunity for the great profit. The next year, Domoh was rewarded with a unique opportunity for an even greater profit.

Harav Rabinovich za’l, of Chicago, once pointed out that everyone knows the story on omud aleph, that Domoh got a reward of a great fortune, but nobody remembers the Gemora on omud beis that talks about R’ Avimi bar Avuho.

R’ Avimi bar Avuho was another exemplar of perfect kibud av ve’eim. His reward was the divine inspiration to understand the meaning of “Mizmor Le’osof, Elohim, bo’u goyim benachalosecho....”

R' Avimi's reward of an insight into a chapter of Tehillim may seem much less interesting than Domoh's reward of great wealth. In fact, however, the story of R' Avimi is far more important and, indeed, teaches a lesson that is relevant to our unbearably long Golus.

Rashi says that R Avimi's inspired pshat was the one which is brought in the Medrash in Eichoh Perek 4. The Medrash asks, this perek of Tehillim talks of the churbon, “Elokim bo’u goyim b’nachalosecho, tim’u es heichal kodshechoh, somu es Yerusholyaim l’iyim.” Mizmor means "song of gratitude"; why say a mizmor on the destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh? It should say “Kinoh (Elegy) Le’osof”! But the explanation is that Hashem expended his anger on earth and wood, on inanimate objects, and thereby allowed Klal Yisroel to exist and have another chance to achieve their (our!) sublime national destiny.

Tosfos says that it was a different pshat that R' Avimi understood: he brings a different Medrash that 'Osof' was a descendant of Korach, and Osof was happy when he saw that the gates of Yerusholayim sank into the ground, because he then realized that just as we know that ultimately the ground will open up again and the gates of Yerusholyim will reappear, his ancestor, Korach, will also be brought back.

The Mahrsho says that according to Tosfos’ pshat, we see a connection between R' Avimi's mitzvoh of kibbud Av and the pshat he was given to understand, since Osof was concerned about the kovod of his ancestor. But according to Rashi’s pshat, it seems that R' Avimi's interpretation has no thematic connection with his kibbud Av. However, with the Medrash on this week's parshah, we can say that Rashi’s pshat is also connected to kibbud av: As we see in the Medrash with Eisov, kibbud strengthens a nation's bond with their ancestral land. R’ Avimi was shown a pshat that illustrates our unseverable bond to the land of Israel. Despite the terrible churbon, our national identity and our connection to Eretz Yisroel remains firm. Hashem expended His anger on the Beis Hamikdash, but the time will come that we return forever to the land and rebuild an even greater Bayis Shlishi.

The Mitzvah of Kibbud Av, in the Aseres Hadibros, is followed by "le'maan ya'arichun yomecha...ahl ha'adama asher nishba Hashem la'avoseichem...." The Netziv asks, why is "ahl ha'adamah" appended to the guarantee of arichus yamim? He answers that although kibbud is a mitzvah sichlis, the Torah teaches us that it, like all mitzvos, should be fulfilled not because of the sichli aspect, but instead because it is a divine commandment, and this is underlined by stating that the primary locus of this mitzvah is in the land of Israel, as is the case with all mitzvos. According to the Netziv, Kibbud is dependent on Ha'adamah. However, with this Medrash, we can give a new answer to the Netziv's question. The reason the Torah says "ahl ha'adamah" is because the Mitzvah of Kibbud is directly tied to our ability to safely and confidently dwell in the land of Israel. According to the Netziv, Kibbud is talui on Ahl Ha'adama. According to this pshat, Ahl Ha'adama is talui, dependent, on Kibbud!

On the most basic level, the relationship between the inviolable right to a homeland and kibbud av is straightforward: The most fundamental patrimony is ancestral land. If one properly respects his parents and their legacy, he is entitled to enjoy their patrimony, the land they made their own for themselves and their children. If one disrespects one's parents, he undermines the legitimacy of his own claim to a heritage.

Perhaps there is a deeper relationship between kibbud Av and deserving Eretz Yisroel. The underlying middos of Kibbud Av are hakkoras hatov and anivus. In Yeshi’ah 47:8, Klal Yisroel were called “adinah...ho’omeres Ani v’afsi ohd.” The idea of “Ani v’afsi ohd” as a yesod of the Churbon bayis rishon, might also underlie the sin’as chinom of the times of the bayis sheini. A person who thinks “Ani v’afsi ohd” will not even perceive what others have done for him, and he certainly will not be makir tov for it, whether through kibud ahv or ahavas Hashem or ahavas Yisroel, and he is also fundamentally incapable of doing chesed for other people.

And perhaps we can also add another point. What is the middoh k’neged middoh for Kibbud Av? The answer is, if you treat your father like a father, you will be treated like a son. So the Ribbono shel Olom told R Avimi, since you showed gadlus in Kibbud Ahv, I’m going to show you how my relationship with Klal Yisroel is like that of a father to a son. When I had to punish them, I made sure to do it in a way that inflicted the least possible permanent damage on them, and I did it by destroying eitzim v’avonim. This is because I am their father, and I am treating them like a son.

During the Nine Days that culminate in Tisha Ba'av, it is very important to remember the lesson taught by the Medrash and the Gemora of R' Avimi. They illustrate that along with the other things we need to do to end the golus, honoring our parents is essential to our claim to a homeland. On Tisha Ba'av, perhaps we should think about our personal relationship with our parents, and our relationship with the tradition they represent. Kibbud Av Ve'eim is the bedrock of our claim and our bond to Eretz Yisroel. It protects against Golus and it can hasten the coming of Moshiach.

Vayigash, 46:1. Honoring One's Grandfather

Leilokei oviv Yitzchok. Rashi says that a person is chayov more to be me’chabed his father than his grandfather. See the Torah Temimah, who brings the machlokes of the Ramoh and the Maharik as to whether there is any chiyuv of Kibud at all to the grandfather, and the shittah of the Gaon as to ben habas, and the Torah Temimah’s sevoro to be mechayev in kvod z’kaino.

The question remains, though, why couldn’t Ya’akov have been mispallel in the name of both his father and his grandfather. Just because he had a greater chiyuv for his father does not mean that he may not be mechabed his grandfather, and certainly doesn’t mean that he should not invoke his grandfather’s zechus. Why did he davka say Elokei Yitzchok?

Harav Dovid Zupnik (shlitah) zatzal, niftar Erev Shavuos tof shin samach zayin, a talmid of Mir in Europe, has an excellent pshat in this possuk. He points out that in Bereishis 12:8 and 13:4 we find that Avrohom was makriv on a mizbeyach between Bais El and Ai. Yitzchok, on the other hand, as we see in 26:25, was makriv in Be’er Sheva. More importantly, not only was Yitzchok makriv there, it also says that “vah’yiven”. When Ya’akov went to Mitzrayim, if you will look at a map, you will see that he could have passed Avrohom’s mizbay’ach, but he davka went to Yitzchok’s and was makriv there. Since it was Yitzchok’s mizbay’ach, it was proper that when he was makriv there that he call Hashem in the name of the one who established the mizbay’ach there, Yitzchok.

Harav Ahron Eisenberg (shlita) Zatzal, HKM, niftar Rosh Hashanna tof shin samach ches, of the gedolei talmidei Slabodkeh, pointed out that the Yerushalmi in Yevomos (2:6) says that the reason Bilodon had a din of a meyuchos was that he was mechabed his grandfather. [This means that Yichus only matters if the m’yuchos is mechabeid his past, if the m’yuchos is mis’yacheis.. If a m’yuchos is indifferent to his history, then he is not a m’yuchos at all.