Some Poilish pilpul for you: Rashi on last week's parsha quotes that we learn from אִ֣ישׁ אִמּ֤וֹ וְאָבִיו֙ תִּירָ֔אוּ וְאֶת־שַׁבְּתֹתַ֖י תִּשְׁמֹ֑רוּ אֲנִ֖י הֹ׳ אֱלֹקיכֶֽם that if a parent tells a child to be mechalel shabbos, the child doesn't have to listen. R' Aryeh Leib Tzintz in Meishiv Nefesh (16:5) asks why we need this din -- we can learn the same chiddush from elsewhere. There is a din that a father can be meifer the nedarim of his daughter. If hypothetically the mitzvah of kibud av were to be doche other issurim (like shabbos, or like the mitzvah to keep a neder), then there should be no need for hafarah. Once the father expresses his displeasure with his daughter keeping the neder, kibud av would require her not to fulfill it. Since the Torah does in fact require hafarah, QED that kibud av alone cannot override an issur.
That assumes that the mere fact the father is displeased with something means that kibbud av is implicated. That is not so. Kibbud Av has a specific defined meaning in halacha. Not every neder or shevuah implicates that.
ReplyDeleteSay the girl takes a shevua not to eat apples, or a neder not to eat this specific apple. Hard to see how that implicates kibbud av. She can still serve her father and do all the other requirements of kibbud av.
Take a look at the teshuvah -- that gufa is part of the point he is addressing.
Delete