Q&A: Therefore a Man Shall Leave His Father and His Mother
Therefore a Man Shall Leave His Father and His Mother
Question
Why is this command not included in the enumeration of the commandments?
Answer
Because the wording is not that of a command but of a description. For something to be included in the enumeration of the commandments, it needs to be phrased as a command or a prohibition (for prohibitions this is stated explicitly in the Talmud: “beware,” “lest,” and “do not”).
However, there is one exception that is included in the enumeration of the commandments despite being phrased this way, and that is the sciatic nerve. There too it says, “Therefore the children of Israel shall not eat the sciatic nerve,” and nevertheless it is counted as a prohibition among the 613. As I recall, Rashba in his novellae on the aggadot to Berakhot comments on this and does not give a good answer. Apparently there is a tradition from Sinai that despite the wording, this is a commandment.
Discussion on Answer
Yes, but with a Hebrew maidservant it is a bit different. There it is not talking about guidance that is not halakhically binding. There it is a fully halakhic verse, except that it does not command anything; it only excludes the law of emancipation through loss of extremities from applying to a Hebrew maidservant.
They wrote about this:
Scholar 1 noted that “therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother” is only an introduction to the main act of “and cling to his wife,” and not to another man’s wife. So the Sages do derive a law from this.
My answer: the question was why this is not included in the enumeration of the commandments, not whether a law is derived from it. The Sages also derive a law from “she shall not go out as the slaves go out.”
What law do they derive from “and cling to his wife”?
See the comment above yours.
So is it like the verse regarding a Hebrew maidservant, where it is not a command but a description, which still indicates God’s will?