Parashas Vayishlach begins with messengers – some say angels – that Yaakov sent to his brother Eisav. The messengers returned to Yaakov and informed him of Eisav’s coming towards him with an army of four hundred men. The Pasuk informs us that Yaakov was dismayed to hear the news, and: “Yaakov was very afraid” (Bereishis 32:7).
The Midrash (Bereishis Rabba 76) explains that Yaakov’s fear was made up of a number of factors. On the one hand, Yaakov was afraid to be killed by Eisav. On the other, he was afraid lest he kill his brother. Beyond this, the Midrash explains that Yaakov was fearful of the spiritual credits that his brother had amassed while he was away: the credit of living in the Land of Israel and the credit of honoring his parents.
We know from the Sages (Megillah 16b; see Rashi, end of Toldos) that upon leaving home Yaakov did not go directly to Charan, as instructed by his parents, but rather learned in the Yeshiva of Shem and Ever for fourteen years.
Yaakov’s lengthy stay in Yeshiva is the source of a law derived by the Gemara. Chazal explain that Yosef was away from his father for twenty-two years, corresponding to the twenty-two years that Yaakov was away from his parents and did not honor them while he was in Lavan’s house. Yaakov was not punished for the additional fourteen years that he spent in Yeshiva. The Gemara cited Rabba in the name of Rav Yitzchak: “The study of Torah is greater than honoring parents – for all the years that our patriarch Yaakov was in the Yeshiva of Shem and Ever, he was not punished.”
In the present article we will focus on this statement of the Sages. What is the halachic implication of the preference for Torah study over honoring one’s parents? Is it permitted for a son to go to a faraway place to study Torah where he cannot honor his parents? Should a son stop learning to fulfill his parents’ wishes? These questions, among others, are addressed below.
The Preference for Torah Study: Even in Parents’ Presence?
The ruling preferring Torah study to honoring one’s parents raises an interesting issue. The general halachah is that if there is a mitzvah that needs to be fulfilled and which cannot be fulfilled by someone else, then one must interrupt his learning and fulfill the mitzvah (Rambam, Talmud Torah 3:4; based on Yerushalmi as cited by the Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 246:18).
Based on this principle, the question is raised: How can Torah study take preference to honoring one’s parents when it is a mitzvah that cannot be done by others?
It is possible that the answer to this lies in a parallel statement of the Sages concerning the mitzvah of honoring one’s parents. Here, too, we find that if a person has a mitzvah to fulfill and his parents request something of him at the same time, the decision of what to do depends on the nature of the mitzvah. If the mitzvah can be performed by someone else, he should tend to his parents. If not, the mitzvah takes precedence, because his parents must also fulfill mitzvos (Rambam, Mamrim 6:13; Yoreh De’ah 240:12; based on Kiddushin 32a).
The two mitzvos, honoring parents on the one hand and studying Torah on the other, thus share the property of being deferred by mitzvos that cannot be performed by others. The question is what happens when one of these comes into conflict with the other. The answer, apparently, is that Torah study takes precedence. Thus, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 240:13) rules: “The study of Torah is greater than honoring parents.”
However, maybe the intention of the ruling is only to permit going away from home to study Torah, as Yaakov Avinu did, even though this will prevent him from honoring his parents. It is still possible that when there is a conflict between the two, for instance if a parent asks his son to get him a glass of water while the son is engaged in Torah study, the mitzvah of honoring one’s parents will prevail.
This is the ruling given by the Peri Chadash (quoted in Pischei Teshuva 240:8), who states that if one is present, and his parents request him to serve them, then he must tend to them and only then return to his learning. Although parents are of course allowed to (and often should) forego their honor in such a situation (see Yoreh De’ah 240:19), if they do not, the son should honor his parents even at the expense of his Torah study.
The Rambam (Mamrim 6:13) notes the precedence of Torah study in the same halachah as the precedence of mitzvos (that can’t be performed by others) over honoring parents, suggesting that Torah study comes first even in the face of a direct request from one’s parents. Nonetheless, the Chasam Sofer (345) also rules in accordance with the Peri Chadash, and this is generally cited as the halachah (see Divrei Halachah p. 58).
Leaving Parents to Study Torah
Rav Achai Gaon (She’iltos, Toldos no. 19) derives from the Gemara which prefers Torah study to honoring parents, that a person may leave his parents in order to go to a place of Torah study. This appears to be the basic halachah that we derive from the case of Yaakov Avinu, who was not punished for his stay in Yeshiva even though it came at the expense of honoring his parents.
This, however, is true of all mitzvos: one is permitted to leave his parents to perform them. What is special about Torah study?
The Aruch Ha-Shulchan (Yoreh De’ah 240:36) writes that there is indeed something special about Torah study. Whereas for all other mitzvos, a person who wishes to leave home must ask his parents’ permission first, for Torah study there is no need for a person to first consult his parents. For other mitzvos, the principle of “one who is occupied with a mitzvah is exempt from other mitzvos” will apply. Somebody occupied with honoring his parents is thus exempt from the other mitzvah, and cannot leave without parental permission. For Torah study, however, one may go away without first taking leave.
However, the ruling of the Aruch Ha-Shulchan cannot apply to those mitzvos that cannot be performed by others for, as we have already seen, the mitzvah of honoring parents is deferred by mitzvos that cannot be performed by others. The ruling therefore must be limited to mitzvos that can be performed by others, for which a person may not leave home without permission from his parents.
Going Somewhere against a Parent’s Wishes
The Terumas Hadeshen (no. 40) discusses a case where someone wanted to learn in a Yeshiva which was located in a place where anti-Semitism was common. The student’s father did not want him to go there, because he was concerned for his son’s safety. Is the son obligated to listen to his father? The Terumas Hadeshen, whose ruling is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 240:25), rules that he is not. The decision is based on two points.
The first point is from the above passage in the Gemara, that studying Torah is greater than honoring parents. However, this point alone is insufficient in the case of the Terumas Hadeshen, since the father can claim that there are many Yeshivos, and his son can surely go to study where there is less of a threat from anti-Semitism.
The response to this is based on the teaching of a Gemara (Avoda Zara 13a) concerning a Kohen leaving the Land of Israel in order to learn Torah, in spite of the fact that the Sages decreed chutz la-aretz to be tamei (see Oholos 2:3). The Gemara permits the Kohen to do so, and according to Rabbi Yosi this is true even if there is a place to study in the Land of Israel, because, “a person does not merit to learn from all.” Not every rabbi is appropriate for every student, and if the Kohen feels that he can gain more from a certain mentor and/or Yeshiva outside of Israel, he may go there.
The Rambam (Avel 3:14) rules accordingly. Therefore, the Terumas Hadeshen concludes, here, too, a son may go to a Yeshiva in a town which is dangerous, even against the wishes of his parent, if he feels that it is best for his growth in learning. Naturally, such a decision should be reached only after careful consultation with both parents and teachers.
The Opinion of Sefer Ha-Makneh
An interesting related question is whether the case above involves an issue of honoring parents at all. The father in the case presented by the Terumas Ha-Deshen did not need his son to serve him, but rather objected to his son’s studying in a place he deemed dangerous. Does going against a parent’s wishes in this way involve a transgression of the obligation to honor parents, or is this obligation present only when a parent requests his son to serve or wait upon him?
The Maharik (no. 166), based on a number of Rishonim (see Yevamos 6a), writes that the concept of honoring one’s parents applies only when the son is required to wait upon his parent, and not to every instruction that a parent might give his son (such as: “Put your coat on!”).
However, a number of Rishonim and later authorities imply that this is not the case, and that the obligation of honor applies even to other instructions. The aforementioned Terumas Ha-Deshen, for instance, implies that the obligation to honor (or to fear) one’s parents applies even to the instruction to avoid a dangerous location. The Rivash (no. 127), in discussing a parent’s instruction to his son to divorce his wife (he rules that the son doesn’t have to follow the instruction), likewise implies that, in principle, the obligation of honoring parents applies to similar cases.
Because the issue relates to a Torah obligation, one should generally be stringent in this regard (see Divrei Halachah p. 90).
A novel approach is suggested by the Sefer Ha-Makneh (Kiddushin 31b). Concerning the question of parental instructions, he writes that although an instruction that does not address the parent’s need is not included in honoring a parent, it is included in the obligation to fear one’s parents. He also writes, in contrast to all we’ve seen, that the Talmudic statement whereby Torah study takes precedence over honoring one’s parents only applies to a parent’s honor, and not to his fear.
Therefore, the Sefer Ha-Makneh concludes that when a parent instructs his son not to go away to study Torah, the son must comply with his parent’s wishes. Yaakov Avinu, he explains, was not punished because he left his parents’ home with their consent and, after he was away, his sojourn in the Yeshiva of Shem and Even did not conflict with any order of his parents, but only with his honoring them. If, however, a son’s wish to study Torah conflicts directly with a parental instruction, the son must heed his parent’s wishes, according to this approach.
This, however, is not the normative halachah.
The Mitzvah of Torah Study
In conclusion, it is important to note that the preference given to Torah study over honoring parents only applies to the mitzvah of Torah study that is incumbent on the son. Where there is no mitzvah incumbent on the son, honoring parents comes before the general concept of Torah study.
For this reason, the Chavas Yair (cited in Pischei Teshuvah 240:23) rules that if a mother left instructions to her son that a room should not be rented out to anybody after her death, he cannot rent the room even to advance the study of a Torah scholar. This mitzvah is not incumbent upon him, and therefore the mitzvah of honoring parents has preference.
