Friday, November 27, 2015

Parshas Vayishlach - Angels in the Outfield

~ Thoughts on the Parsha ~
Parshas Vayishlach


Angels in the Outfield
By: Daniel Listhaus

וַיִּשְׁלַח יַעֲקֹב מַלְאָכִים לְפָנָיו אֶל עֵשָׂו אָחִיו אַרְצָה שֵׂעִיר שְׂדֵה אֱדוֹם: וַיְצַו אֹתָם לֵאמֹר כֹּה תֹאמְרוּן לַאדֹנִי לְעֵשָׂו כֹּה אָמַר עַבְדְּךָ יַעֲקֹב עִם לָבָן גַּרְתִּי וָאֵחַר עַד עָתָּה: וַיְהִי לִי שׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר צֹאן וְעֶבֶד וְשִׁפְחָה וָאֶשְׁלְחָה לְהַגִּיד לַאדֹנִי לִמְצֹא חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ

“And Yaakov sent malachim before him to Eisav his brother to the land of Seir, the field of Edom. He charged them saying, “Thus shall you say, 'To My lord, to Eisav, so said your servant Yaakov: I have sojourned with Lavan and have lingered until now. I have acquired ox and donkey, flock, and servant, and maidservant and I am sending to tell my lord to find favor in your eyes.'”

-Vayishlach 32:4-6

            The Torah[1] describes that after Yaakov left Lavan's house, he sent malachim ahead of him to try to determine what Eisav's feelings were toward him. Although the word malachim could mean either messengers or angels, Rashi[2] explains the passuk (verse) to mean that Yaakov sent actual angels for the task.

            How could we begin to understand the fact that Yaakov felt comfortable sending angels to take care of his personal errands when he could have just as easily sent a person to do the job? Malachim are creatures of one-hundred percent ruchniyus (spirituality). How could Yaakov give commandments to such lofty beings?
           
            A few passukim later, the Torah[3] relates that after going back and forth over the Yabok River to ferry his entire family across, Yaakov realized he left a few small worthless jugs behind. When he went back to retrieve them, the Torah[4] relates the fight that took place between Yaakov and the ministering angel of Eisav. After a night of fighting, Yaakov pinned the malach down and would not let go. The malach hurt Yaakov by striking and dislocating his thighbone, but to no avail – the malach was still unable to escape. The malach told Yaakov to let him go, but Yaakov refused until the malach of Eisav would admit that Yaakov was the rightful receiver of the brachos from Yitzchak.

            The S'forno[5] is bothered by the obvious question on this story. How is it possible that Yaakov had the upper hand in a fight against a malach of Hashem? A malach is a purely spiritual being and Yaakov, as great as he was, was only a man. The S'forno, based on a Gemara[6], writes one line: Tzadikkim are greater than malachim.

            This S'forno and Gemara are truly unbelievable. With this approach that tzadikkim are greater than malachim, we could understand why Yaakov had the authority to send the malachim as well as explain how he was able to defeat the malach of Eisav. However, why is this true that tzadikkim are greater than malachim? In no way could we downplay the level of a malach. After all, malachim represent single, direct commandments of Hashem. This is something that is clear throughout chumash[7] as well as from the conversation that took place between Yaakov and the malach of Eisav in this week's parsha. Yaakov asked the malach, “Tell me please, what is your name?” The malach responded, “Why is it that you ask my name?” Rashi[8] explains that the malach was telling Yaakov, “We have no fixed name. Our names change according to the task of the mission upon which we are sent [from Hashem].” Malachim are pure expressions of Hashem's will. So still, how could we understand that tzadikkim are greater than malachim?

            The mishna[9] states, “He [Rabban Gamliel] used to say: Treat His [Hashem's] will as if it were your own will. So that he should treat your will as if it were His will.” What does this mean? Is it a one-for-one game of 'I scratch your back and you scratch mine'? Are we simply supposed to do something Hashem wants in order to be rewarded in turn by Him doing something that we desire?

            Rabbeinu Yonah[10] explains that our job is to literally adopt Hashem's ratzon (will) as our own. We must strive to achieve a level where everything we do, say, think, and want is precisely what Hashem's will is. The mishna is not teaching us how to negotiate deals with Hashem to get what we want, rather is giving a directive to synchronize our ratzon with Hashem's.

            Later on in the parsha, the Torah[11] testifies. “He [Yaakov] set up a mizbe’ach (alter) there and he called to it “G-d is the G-d of Yisroel”. The Gemara[12] says that based on the grammatical construction of the passuk, it seems that the passuk is actually trying to convey the following message: Yaakov set up a mizbe’ach there. And He – the G-d of Yisroel - called to him [Yaakov] 'G-d'. This too is astounding. How could it be that man be called G-d? There is only one G-d and He alone is the creator and controller of the world. However, even with knowing this as a basic principle of our emunah (faith), we must also consider the fact that man was created b'tzelem Elokim and therefore indeed, contained within man is the potential to maximize his one's koach ha'bechirah (power of free-will) to the extent that one has the ability to achieve extremely high levels of G-dliness.

            Many people underestimate chashivus ha'adom. Even those who actually appreciate that man is an incredible being with tremendous potential, still mistakenly rank mankind as somewhere between animal and malach. However, the truth is exactly the opposite. Man is not situated between animal and malach. Rather, man is located on the bookends of the spectrum. On the one hand, man has the ability to choose to do evil and exist on a level lower than the lowest creatures. On the other hand, man has the ability to choose to do good and follow the derech HaTorah and ultimately become even greater than malachim. This is because even though malachim are pure expressions of Hashem's will, they are strictly defined and remain at a status that is in the outfield. People however, have the ability to become so close to Hashem  through using one's bechirah to align one's ratzon to Hashem's. Such an individual is even fitting to have his own malachim do certain tasks for him.[13] After all, carrying out the will of a person who is completely engrossed in avodas Hashem is comparable to carrying out the will of Hashem Himself.

            May Hashem help us discover our ability to be in the infield, close to Hashem, and guide us in using our koach ha'bechirah correctly to achieve this goal.




[1]    Beraishis 32:4
[2]    Ibid. Rashi obviously did not arbitrarily choose this meaning over the other, rather he saw an implication from the passuk to learn this way. (See Sifsei Chachomim there)
[3]    Beraishis 32:24 and see Rashi there
[4]    Beraishis 32:25
[5]    Beraishis 32:27
[6]    Sanhedrin 93a. See Maharsha there who writes that in Tanach we see that man is referred to as an “Elokim” (G-d) whereas malachim are only referred to “bar Elokim” (offspring/an extension of G-d).
[7]    For example see Beraishis 18:2 and Rashi there.
[8]    Beraishis 32:30
[9]    Avos 2:4
[10]  Ibid.
[11]  Beraishis 33:20
[12]  Megillah 18a. Rashi (33:20) brings this in his second explanation but the Gemara explains it with more detail.
[13]  See Pirkei Avos 4:13 which states that every time a person does a mitzva, he is koneh (acquires/gains) a single malach advocate.

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Parshas Vayeitzei - Roles and Rolls: Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, But People I Have No Patience For

~ Thoughts on the Parsha ~
Parshas Vayeitzei


Roles and Rolls:
Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, But People I Have No Patience For
By: Daniel Listhaus

וַיְהִי בַבֹּקֶר וְהִנֵּה הִוא לֵאָה וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל לָבָן מַה זֹּאת עָשִׂיתָ לִּי הֲלֹא בְרָחֵל עָבַדְתִּי עִמָּךְ וְלָמָּה רִמִּיתָנִי: וַיֹּאמֶר לָבָן לֹא יֵעָשֶׂה כֵן בִּמְקוֹמֵנוּ לָתֵת הַצְּעִירָה לִפְנֵי הַבְּכִירָה:

“And it was in the morning, and behold , it was Leah! So he [Yaakov] said to Lavan, ‘What is this you have done to me? Was it not for Rachel that I worked for you? Why have you deceived me?’ Lavan said, ‘Such is not done in our place, to give the younger one before the elder…’”
-Vayeitzei 29:25-26

            After working for Lavan for seven years in order to be able to marry Rachel, the Torah[1] relates that Lavan tricked Yaakov and switched Rachel for Leah. Rashi[2] writes that Yaakov had considered the possibility of this happening and actually prepared for it by giving Rachel a secret sign to use in order that he know that it was her. However, when Rachel saw that Lavan was bringing Leah to him, she told Leah the secret signs to spare her from embarrassment.

            The Torah records that when Yaakov called Lavan out on his evil actions, Lavan responded coolly that there was nothing he could do. He hands were tied. After all, the custom of the land was to marry off the elder daughter before the younger one. As a man of principles, he argued to Yaakov, how could he possibly have meant anything that would counter the custom of the land?

            The problem with this logic is that Lavan himself makes it quite clear that he could not care less about such customs. Later in the parsha when the passukim describe the birth and naming of the shevatim, Rashi[3] points out that Zilpah is the only one who the Torah does not give the description of becoming pregnant before giving birth. Rashi explains that the reason the Torah leaves out the detail only by Zilpah is because she was the youngest of Yaakov’s four wives and pregnancy was not noticeable in her. Rashi goes on to elaborate that Lavan purposely gave Zilpah – the younger of the two maidservants – to Leah in order to trick Yaakov since the custom of the land was to give the older maidservant to the older daughter and the younger one to the younger daughter. We could understand that Lavan was the biggest trickster around, but why couldn’t he at least be consistent with his lies? If he felt the need to give Yaakov an excuse to justify his giving Leah to him instead of Rachel, telling Yaakov that he is a man of principle who would never go against the custom of the land, at least play the lie out fully and wait until right after the marriage and then give Bilhah – the older of the two maidservants – to Leah. Is he a man of principle or not? If you are going to be a liar, you might as well be a good consistent one! Why didn’t Lavan either keep his mouth shut or at least be consistent with his excuse?

            The answer is a simple one. Lavan was not a man of principle in the least. He was a man of principles only when those principles helped him further his agenda. As soon as holding onto a principle held the possibility of hurting his plans, he immediately let go. Lavan wanted to marry Leah off to Yaakov. His excuse was that that was the custom of the land to marry the older before the younger. However, to extend it to the directly related custom of giving the older maidservant to the older daughter, that would possibly interfere with Lavan’s agenda and give away his plans, so for that his “principle” flew right out the window. This is an idea worth thinking about when listening to others as well as when reflecting on one’s owns thoughts and actions. Oftentimes, when someone has an ulterior motive or personal agenda and hides behind a principle, in more cases than not his own “principle” will prove him a liar with a secret scheme.

            There is a certain American legal scholar who specializes in animal protection issues. He boasts being influenced by Animal Liberation, a 1975 book by Peter Singer. Since then he has spent about 30 years putting all his efforts into “speaking for the voiceless and defending the defenseless” by attempting to take legal action on behalf of chimpanzees to free them from zoos and cages across America and around the world so that they could live happily and freely in special Chimpanzee sanctuaries. The fact that he is willing to literally devote his life on behalf of clients who cannot pay, definitely demonstrates his motivation and determination. One might suggest that such a person is tremendously thoughtful and caring – one who is even able to see the best animals; as he says “We know the extraordinary cognitive capabilities that they [chimpanzees] have and they also resemble the kind that human beings have… it’s so terrible to imprison a chimpanzee, especially alone, that’s what we do to our worst criminals….” However, is it possible that such a person is being honest with himself? He believes that it is worth spending years of thankless work to help a couple of chimpanzees and spread his message to the world. His primary argument for his stance is that chimpanzees are like people. However it is his diehard principle itself which is the biggest testimony against him. If one believes that chimpanzees are worthy of investing time and effort into because they are like people, then wouldn’t a person who understands the value of people’s rights to the extent that he wants to apply it to animals similar to people, be the first to make sure that all voiceless and defenseless people are spoke for and protected before moving on to apes?! His own principles unmask the fact that there is a hidden agenda, for if he was purely coming out of love for things similar to humans, imagine how much he should love and go out of his way to help people – perhaps spend even one year helping those in need, instead of decades helping chimps.

            Of course, the idea of taking care of animals is one that is true. We say that Hashem is “ra’cha’mav al kol ma’asov” (Hashem is merciful on all his creations)[4], and we must strive to do the same. There are indeed halachos (laws) regarding tza’ar ba’alei chayim (paining animals), and even a halacha that all things being equal, one must feed his animal before himself.[5] However, that being the case, we must keep in mind not get carried away and think that animals we should care for, but then not be as caring to other people.

            There is a halacha[6] that on Friday night one must cover the challah before reciting kiddush. The Tur[7] offers a reason based on a Yerushalmi that we do so in order to save the challah from embarrassment that despite its chashivus (importance) of being bread, we are passing over it to make kiddush on wine. Of course, bread does not really get embarrassed it does not have a brain nor ears nor eyes to understand or hear or see that you are making kiddush on wine instead, yet we are meticulous to make sure that we cover them. Imagine the following scene: The husband comes home after shul with guests and when he sees that the challahs are not covered and ready for him to make kiddush, he begins yelling at his wife in front of the guests how she never has anything ready on time. Such a person clearly missed the boat. He covers the challah supposedly out of “principle” that everyone must constantly be in-tuned to the feelings of others, and yet when his wife does not have them prepared his “principle” gets thrown out the window, proving clearly that he could not care less about embarrassing anything, rather that there is a different agenda at play – in this case perhaps as simple as just caring of following routine or concerned of his appearance in front of his guests.

We must be honest with ourselves and the principles we adhere to. Are we keeping them because they are intrinsically important to us and good for the world, or are we keeping them as facades to mask our various personal agendas? Sometimes we hold on so tight to the moshol (parable) that we forget the nimshal (lesson), and sometimes we exhibit ourselves keeping principles to hide an agenda – but eventually, if it is not stemming from an honest place, our own actions will reveal to ourselves and to others what are true intentions are.

Earlier in the parsha, the Torah[8] relates that on his way to Charan, Yaakov arrived at Har Hamoriah and spent the night there. He took twelve stones and put them around his head. Rashi[9] comments that the rocks began fighting with one another – each one wanting to be the one that Yaakov rests his head directly on. In response, Hashem made them into one stone. This is further hinted to in the Torah when Yaakov wakes up and the passuk[10] says, “[He] took the stone (singular) that he had placed around his head…”

What does this mean? What were the rocks fighting about exactly? Do rocks really care to be the one chosen to be put under a tzaddik’s head? And why did this quarrel merit a response from Hashem validating the rocks’ argument and answering by turning them into one rock so that they could each participate in serving Yaakov in the best way?

Perhaps the answer is that that is the role of a rock in this world. The role of a rock is to serve man, and the purpose of man is to serve Hashem. As a matter of fact, his is exactly the flow we see from this story. The rocks fought over who will carry out their purpose in the perfect way resulting with Hashem turning them into one rock, and afterwards Yaakov actually took it and used it as a mizbe’ach to serve Hashem. Indeed, everything has its place and its role in this world.

            As the American holiday of Thanksgiving approaches, we are reminded of the yearly presidential custom to pardon a turkey. As animal activists proudly encourage and broadcast – the turkeys did nothing wrong, why should they be killed and eaten? Again, it is the principle itself which shows the falsehood of “keeping to principle” and proves that there must be an agenda behind it. The president could take out time to pardon innocent turkeys from his table but not to pardon the innocent from jail? He could have mercy on the turkeys and watch them live on a few more miserable years while there are starving children? So much time and money wasted on an event which would perhaps be a nice moshol if the people behind it cared as much for the nimshol. An animal’s job is to serve people – or in the turkey’s case: to be served to people. In turn, man’s job is to use the animal to serve G-d in some way whether as an offering, or even to eat to keep us healthy and able to serve Hashem in our best ability. L’havdil elef havdalos, it should be an honor for the turkey to be on the table of the president, and instead it is left to die an unfulfilled life. Even the rocks understand the chashivus of man and will argue out of desire to serve better and be the one put under a tzaddik’s head, and yet we as people pervert the roles of the world and grab onto selective and wrongly applied principles in order to push our personal agendas.

As haughty as we as people are, it is amazing how quickly we are willing to forget the boundaries and different roles of people and animals for the sake of “equality”. However, we should not think for a second that it is genuine care behind these movements because if there was care to animals who are only similar to people then we should be seeing the same efforts being put in to first help people. Rather, like Lavan, these groups hold onto unwavering principles only to push a hidden agenda. Whether it is a simple plan of tricking Yaakov into marrying a different daughter, or for pushing equality rights in order to divert attention or use as a stepping stone for pushing other social agendas, one thing is true – just follow the person or group and if there are inconsistencies with their “unwavering principles”, there is certain to be dishonesty and hidden agendas. No one should be a voice for a voiceless chimpanzee until one is certain that there are no people in a comparable situation who is need of representation and no one should pardon turkeys and confuse the roles of the world while there are people who could use pardoning, just as no one should embarrass a family member for not covering the challah rolls.

When we announce our principles or argue based on our unwavering values, we must be intellectually honest with ourselves if we really believe in the principle we are declaring or if we are just trying to make it fit as an accreditation for our agenda-led actions.
            May Hashem help us understand the chashius ha’adom and where real priorities lay, as well as help us be cognizant of the principles we hold onto dearly and be honest with ourselves if we are truly holding onto the principle or using it as an excuse to further a personal agenda.



[1] Beraishis 29:23
[2] Beraishis 29:25
[3] Beraishis 30:10
[4] Tehillim 145:9
[5] See Chayei Adom 5:11, see also Rambam Hilchos Avadim 9:8
[6] Shulchan Aruch 271:9
[7] Ibid.
[8] Beraishis 28:10
[9] Beraishis 28:11
[10] Beraishis 28:18

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Parshas Vayeitzei - Truth Be Told - - - From the Archives...

~ Thoughts on the Parsha ~
Parshas Vayeitzei

Truth Be Told
By: Daniel Listhaus

וְלָבָן הָלַךְ לִגְזֹז אֶת צֹאנוֹ וַתִּגְנֹב רָחֵל אֶת הַתְּרָפִים אֲשֶׁר לְאָבִיהָ: וַיִּגְנֹב יַעֲקֹב אֶת לֵב לָבָן הָאֲרַמִּי עַל בְּלִי הִגִּיד לוֹ כִּי בֹרֵחַ הוּא

“Lavan had gone to shear his sheep, and Rachel stole the teraphim that belonged to her father. Yaakov deceived Lavan the Aramean by not telling him that he was fleeing”
-Vayeitzei 31:19-20

            In this week's parsha, we continue to follow Yaakov around and learn from his middos (traits) and qualities. We were introduced to Yaakov avinu in parshas Toldos as the “ish tam yosheiv ohalim[1] - the wholesome man who sat and learned Torah. Rashi[2] further describes Yaakov as a person who was real – someone whose actions and speech purely reflected who he was. After learning these things and getting a glimpse of Yaakov's character, a few of the events in this week's parsha should come as a surprise to us.

            When Yaakov reached his destination near Charan, the Torah relates that Yaakov approached a well and saw that there was a crowd of shepherds standing around doing nothing. Yaakov approached them and said, “Look, the day is still long; it is not yet time to bring the livestock in; water the flock and go on grazing”.[3] Rashi[4] explains that Yaakov got upset at them and started giving them mussar (rebuke), “Look, the day is still long. If you are hired workers, then you have not yet completed the day's labor; and if the animals are yours, nonetheless, it is not yet time to bring in the livestock.”

            Who did Yaakov think he was? He was a total stranger in a foreign land. How could Yaakov feel completely comfortable approaching the shepherds and telling them that he caught them stealing? He seemingly walked brazenly right up to them and told them that if they are paid workers, then, by doing nothing, they are stealing from their employers; and that even if the animals are theirs, they are still no better because they are wasting time – stealing from themselves. Why did Yaakov think that it was his business to tell the shepherds that they were no better than thieves?

            Later in the parsha, the Torah relates an additional two episodes during which Yaakov seems to lose his temper. During his stay in Charan, Yaakov lived in Lavan's house. His stay by his uncle was anything but pleasant. Lavan was a selfish trickster with ulterior motives for everything he said and did. After being tricked into marrying Leah and being deceived many times over his wages, Hashem came to Yaakov and told him to return to Yitzchak's house. In response to this, Yaakov called to his wives and started ranting:

“I have noticed your father's disposition is not toward me as in earlier days; but the G-d of my father was with me. Now you have known that with all my might I worked for your father, yet your father mocked me and changed my wage ten countings; but G-d did not permit him to harm me. If he would say, 'Speckled one shall be your wages', then the entire flock bore speckled ones; and if he would say, 'Ringed ones shall be your wages', then the entire flock bore ringed ones. Thus G-d took away your father's livestock, and gave them to me. It happened at the mating time of the flock that I raised my eyes and saw in a dream – Behold! The he-goats that mounted the flock were ringed, speckled, and striped. And an angel of G-d said to me in a dream, 'Yaakov!' And I said, 'Here I am.' And he said, 'Raise your eyes, if you please, and see that all the he-goats mounting the flocks are ringed, speckled, and striped, for I have seen all that Lavan is doing to you. I am G-d of Beis-Keil where you anointed a pillar, where you vowed a vow to Me. Now – arise, leave this land and return to the land of your birth.'”[5]

            What set Yaakov off to give this whole speech to Rachel and Leah? Was Yaakov complaining? What purpose was he accomplishing? Let Yaakov just tell them to pack their bags because Hashem told him to go back home. Why did Yaakov need to give his own personal reason to leave, that he was fed up with Lavan's dishonesty?

            There is yet another time when Yaakov seems to lose his cool. Yaakov and his family had already been running away for a week when Lavan caught up to them. After yelling at Yaakov for running away, Lavan accused him of stealing his idols. Yaakov patiently let Lavan check through all of their belongings for his idols. When Lavan finished rummaging through everything and did not find the idols, Yaakov became furious at Lavan. Once again, Yaakov pulled out his speech and starts screaming at Lavan:

“What is my transgression? What is my sin, that you have pursued me? When you rummaged through all my things, what did you find of all your household objects? Set it here before my brethren and your brethren, and let them decide between the two of us. These twenty years I have been with you. Your ewes and she-goats did not miscarry, nor did I eat the rams of your flock. That which was mangled I never brought to you – I would bear the loss, from my hand you would exact it, stolen by day or stolen by night. This is how I was: By day heat consumed me, and snow by night; my sleep drifted from my eyes. This is for me twenty years in your household: I worked for you fourteen years for your two daughters, and six years for your flocks; and you changed my wage ten countings. Had not the G-d of my father – the G-d of Avraham and the Dread of Yitzchak – been with me, you would surely have now sent me away empty handed. G-d saw my wretchedness and the toil of my hands....”[6]

            Here again, Yaakov seems to get all emotional and angry, pointing out Lavan's faults, this time to his face. Why did Yaakov think it was necessary to do so? Why not just keep quiet? Let Lavan have his fun poking around the tents and then everyone will just peacefully be able to continue on their own ways?

            Once we understand who Yaakov was, then we will realize that these three events were not cases of Yaakov losing control of his temper and acting out of character. Rather, Yaakov's response during these events represented a true reflection of Yaakov's persona and was very much a part of his character. Yaakov symbolized emes (truth). He could not tolerate any resemblance of sheker (falsehood). When Yaakov came and saw that the shepherds were either stealing payment from their employers or wasting their own time, he could not just stand by and watch. Similarly, his time spent with Lavan might have seemed normal to others, but Yaakov recognized the lifestyle dependent on sheker. Again, Yaakov could not just let Lavan continue on his merry way. As a representative of emes, it was Yaakov's job to bring emes into the world and point out any and all sheker. Therefore, it was indeed Yaakov's task to give mussar to the shepherds as well as to point out to his wives, and even Lavan himself, the sheker revolving around Lavan's life.

Now that we have a better understanding of Yaakov avinu, there is a difficulty that must be dealt with. As aforementioned, Yaakov and his family ran away from Lavan's house. The Torah describes that after Lavan caught up to them and accused Yaakov of stealing his idols, Yaakov confidently cursed, “With whomever you find your gods, he shall not live...”[7] Of course, however, as the Torah continues, “And Yaakov did not know that Rachel had stolen them”.[8] Why is it, though, that Yaakov did not take this into consideration? Lavan had just come to hunt them down because he had reason to believe that someone in Yaakov's family had taken his gods. Obviously Lavan thought it was a reasonable accusation to make, so what could make Yaakov so sure that indeed no one in his family had taken them? Did it not enter Yaakov's mind that perhaps his wife had taken the idols to stop her father from doing avodah zarah (idol worship)? Certainly someone as calculated and clear-minded as Yaakov could not overlook such a possibility. So, why was he so confident to the point that he cursed whoever had taken them?

            Perhaps, we could explain this as well based on our understanding of Yaakov. Yaakov avinu, being a representative of emes, understood that upholding emes demands acting aggressively when it comes to fighting sheker. Just as Yaakov considered it his duty to approach the shepherds at the well and just as he was quick to give his two cents to Lavan to let him know precisely what he did wrong,  so too Yaakov knew that if someone in his family had taken the avodah zarrah to prevent Lavan from continuing, it would not have been done secretly. Instead, it would have been taken care of the way his grandfather, Avraham, would have dealt with it: make a complete mockery[9] and destroy them.[10]

Perhaps this is why when Lavan came and accused Yaakov of stealing his gods, Yaakov felt confident that it was no one from his family. He probably thought something along the lines of, “Hmm, destroying his avodah zarah would have been a nice thing to do, but, oh well, too late. It could not have been anyone from my household that took it, because certainly no one would take them to worship, so the only reason to take them would be to try to stop Lavan from continuing; and that cannot be because if that were the case then they would have, and should have, made a whole big stink about it. The sheker should have been confronted – grabbed and destroyed in front of his face.” Someone on the level of Yaakov avinu who took the responsibility of bringing kiddush Hashem into the world rightfully expected those fighting for the emes to do so in the way he was taught. From the fact that such a situation did not occur, Yaakov was sure that no one from his family had taken the idols.

            However, as we know, someone of Yaakov's house did in fact steal the idols – Yaakov's wife, Rachel. Unfortunately, as Rashi[11] tells us, it was indeed Yaakov's curse which caused Rachel to die on the road. What went wrong? If Yaakov's logic was correct, then it was indeed not probable that Rachel took the idols. After all, as Yaakov assumed, if she had taken them then she should have made a raucous about it. Yet, she did steal them and did so without making a whole scene about it. Where was Yaakov's error in calculation, which ultimately caused him to unknowingly curse his wife?

            In order to understand this, let us focus on the small time frame from when Rachel stole the teraphim (Lavan's idols) to, just minutes later, their great escape. The passuk[12] states, “...and Rachel stole the teraphim that belonged to her father.” Rashi[13] explains that Rachel did so because she intended to separate Lavan from idolatry. The difficulty with this is why did she wait so long? She had been with Yaakov living there for many years already. Why did Rachel suddenly wake up and decide to stop her father from worshiping idols, only minutes before she was to leave forever? Why did she not try to stop him from worshipping avodah zarrah years before?

            In parshas Chayei Sarah, the Torah describes that when Eliezer, the servant of Avraham, came to Lavan's father's house to find a wife for Yitzchak, Lavan came running out to meet him. He said to Eliezer, “Why should you stand outside when I have cleared the house...?”[14] Rashi[15] comments that Lavan was hinting to Eliezer that he had cleared the house of idols. Lavan was evidently smart enough to realize that someone from the house of Avraham would not want anything to do with a house full of idols. Knowing this about Lavan’s personality, it is safe to assume that when Yaakov came to Lavan's house, Lavan once again cleared his idols from sight. While Yaakov was living in Lavan's house, Lavan suppressed his temptation to serve idols. Perhaps this is why Rachel never felt the need to approach Lavan during all the years Yaakov was living with them, because he indeed had his idols temporarily out of service.

However, Rachel knew that as soon as Lavan would realize that Yaakov and his family left, the first thing he would do would be to dust off his idols and start worshipping them once again. Therefore, it was only at the last second that it was necessary to dispose of Lavan's idols. Before then, Lavan had them stored away because he did not want to take them out in the presence of Yaakov.[16]

            This might explain why Rachel waited so long to confiscate Lavan's idols. However, still, why was it that she did not make a public scene of it as Yaakov would have expected?

            There is an extremely intriguing passuk (verse) that the Torah uses to describe Yaakov's escape: “And Yaakov deceived Lavan the Aramean by not telling him that he was fleeing”.[17] There are two elements in this passuk which are quite difficult to understand. First, it is extremely bothersome that the Torah calls Yaakov a deceiver[18]. Second, the passuk seems to take Yaakov to task for not telling Lavan that he was running away. This makes no sense. If the Torah would be upset at Yaakov for fleeing, we might understand. However, the Torah is not blaming Yaakov for running away, instead the Torah is troubled over the fact that Yaakov ran away without letting Lavan know. What kind of accusation is this? If Yaakov did the right thing by running away, then, by definition, he did the right thing by not telling Lavan. It is impossible to secretly run away from someone if you tell him when you are leaving!

            The Ohr HaChayim[19] comes to address these issues and explains as follows. After Yaakov had amassed wealth as a successful shepherd and had a family of eleven of the twelve shevatim, he asked Lavan, “Give me my wives and my children for whom I have worked for you, and I will go.”[20] Rashi[21] there says that Yaakov told Lavan that he did not want to leave without first asking permission. Yaakov said this to trick Lavan into thinking that he would ask before leaving. This would give Yaakov the opportunity to leave whenever he wanted, steering clear out of Lavan's way – who was expecting to be asked permission first. For this, the Torah calls Yaakov a deceiver.

            Yaakov had many good reasons to run away from Lavan's house, and Hashem agreed to his calculations. As a matter of fact, Hashem Himself actually told him to go back to Yitzchak and Rivkah. However, to go so far as to first tell Lavan that he would never think of leaving without asking permission, was a little too much. Being on the incredibly high level that Yaakov was on, he should not have transgressed even on this slight form of geneivas da'as (deception) from Lavan. Yaakov was expected to just run away, without playing mind games with Lavan first. The tremendous level of greatness that Yaakov had achieved came with the responsibility of being extra careful and judged k'chut ha'sa'arah[22].

            Had Yaakov not asked the “fake permission” that time from Lavan then Rachel could have said to Lavan, “At some point we are going to run away. This is obvious and you have probably considered this already. When we do so, I know that you will go right back to serving your avodah zarah.” Then, Rachel could have given him a whole speech and gotten rid of the avodah zarah right then and there. However, because Yaakov first told Lavan that he would ask before leaving, Rachel was stuck. If they were not going to leave anyway until Lavan's say-so, then it made sense for her to wait until Lavan granted them permission in order rebuke him and take the idols. To do so before hand would have been unreasonable because Lavan was not worshiping the idols while they were still living in his house. Therefore, had Rachel in fact given Lavan the avodah zarah mussar shmooze, then it would be a dead give-away that they were planning on escaping, and that Yaakov had tricked him. It comes out that it was because of the slight untruth that Yaakov told Lavan originally, that Rachel was forced to play along.

            Perhaps this was the slight mistake which ultimately caused Yaakov to miscalculate when it came to cursing the one who stole the teraphim (idols). When Rachel went to take the teraphim she could not make a whole scene of it because she had to play along with the delusion that Yaakov had fed to Lavan. Had she given Lavan a whole speech while taking the idols, Lavan would have suspected that Yaakov had tricked him and that he had been planning all along on leaving without asking permission.

            Although Yaakov did not necessarily do anything wrong by originally tricking Lavan, by doing so he ended up miscalculating. He figured that had anyone of his household taken the idols, they would have made it into a whole mussar shmuz. However, the fact that he failed to consider was that because of his tricking Lavan, the rest of his logic became flawed. All it took was this minor entry of trickery into Yaakov's head that resulted in such a grave outcome.

            Yaakov was the one who was picked by Hashem to be the one to bring emes into the world and fight the sheker of Eisav and Lavan. Yaakov took this responsibility to heart and did in fact uplift the world by being someone who people looked at and realized what emes is[23]. However this came with a tremendous responsibility and when Yaakov fed Lavan with his slight piece of untruthful information, it back-fired and flawed his own logic-flow, ultimately causing him to unknowingly curse his wife.

            Although we are far from the tremendous levels of kedusha and middos tovos of the avos, we could learn from Yaakov what it means to be someone who fully represents emes, and at the same time recognize that slight untruths are sheker; and although because of his level it backfired harshly on Yaakov, we could hopefully see for ourselves how pure the middah of emes must be kept and what it means to really stay away from sheker. May Hashem help us achieve the highest levels of emes and help us stay away from sheker so we could understand His ways and become closer to Hashem.



[1]    Beraishis 25:27
[2]    Ibid.
[3]    Beraishis 29:7
[4]    Rashi Ibid.
[5]    Beraishis 31:4-13
[6]    Beraishis 31:36-42
[7]    Beraishis 31:32
[8]    Ibid.
[9]     The Medrash relates that when old men came to purchase idols at the shop, Avraham would make fun that they – 60 and 70 year olds – were dumb enough to worship something man-made less than a week ago. When a person came in saying he wanted to purchase an idol that he could feed, Avraham smashed all their heads and gave the ax to the biggest one and mocked how they were all “fighting over the food”.
[10]  See Kli Yakar 27:1 who writes that the Torah says that Yitzchak became blind and Rashi explains that the cause of this was the smoke from the wives of Eisav who would offer incense to avodah zarah. The Kli Yakar asks that how could it be that Yitzchak and Rivkah tolerated avodah zarah? They came from the household of Avraham and would have been expected to protest the avodah zarah as Avraham used to do? According to this, it is safe to assume that the Kli Yakar would expect no less from Yaakov and Rachel.
[11]  Rashi Ibid.
[12]  Beraishis 31:19
[13]  Rashi Ibid.
[14]  Beraishis 24:31
[15]  Rashi Ibid.
[16]  One could ask that perhaps only in Eliezer's case did Lavan care enough to hide his idols, because he was interested in making a good impression on Eliezer who had come with a lot of money. Yaakov, however, came being dirt poor after being robbed by Eliphaz. Even considering this, I would still argue that Lavan still wanted to make a good impression on Yaakov because he knew that his family was wealthy, even if Yaakov was mugged on the way.
[17]  Beraishis 31:20
[18]  The passuk actually uses a word with the root of ganav – that Yaakov “stole the heart of Lavan”.
[19]  Beraishis 31:20
[20]  Beraishis 30:26
[21]  Rashi Ibid.
[22]  Literally: like a strand of hair. Meaning, Hashem is very strict and scrutinizes every detail because of the higher expectation.
[23]  Yaakov had a tremendous influence on places, even by just being there. This could be seen from the first passuk in this week's parsha (28:10), which says, “And Yaakov departed from Be'er-Sheva and went to Charan”. Rashi there explains that the passuk mentions this to teach that when a tzaddik departs from or arrives to a city, there is an impression that is felt.