ments: filial respect and aliyah to the Holy Land. If the son capitulates to his parents” demand he will be prevented from observing the precept of dwelling in the Land. If, in spite of their pleading, he does emigrate, it would appear that he is not honoring his parents.
The Mabit responded that“he neither has to fulfill his vow nor is obligated to obey his father and mother, who told him not to go on aliyah,” just as he is not obliged to observe their command to violate any other commandment. The Mabit uses the same argument as the Maharam of Rothenburg that the honor due to God and the mitzvot of the Torah must be preferred over filial respect. The Rabbi of Safed finally resolves this conflict with a creative halakhic verdict:
Both son and father are commanded to dwell in the Land of Israel. The son is not liable for not observing the mitzvah of honoring his parents(by remaining in the Diaspora), because they can also go on aliyah with him and thereby both the commandments of dwelling in the Land and filial respect will be fulfilled(Responsa Mabit 1, no. 139).
Although this radical solution would not seem appropriate to the question before us, it does reflect a major line of halakhic reasoning. It would appear that the parents of the young man in our case have an unexpressed agenda. They are fearful that their son will be lost to them. The reality is that many daughters and sons who live abroad are closer to their parents than are others who live in the same city. With modern transportation and communications they can maintain close contact. It is not the physical closeness alone that determines the quality of a relationship, but rather the
187