The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash
Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion
PARASHAT VAYETZE
By Rav David
Silverberg
We
read towards the end of Parashat Vayetze of Yaakov's escape from the home of
his father-in-law, Lavan, after a period twenty years of work. Three days after Yaakov and his family's
departure from Padan
The
Ba'al Ha-Turim (31:22) notes the similarity between the Torah's
formulation in this context "It was told to Lavan on the third day that
Yaakov had fled" and a verse in Sefer Shemot (14:5), which tells that
after the Exodus from Egypt, "It was told to the king of Egypt that the
nation [Israel] had fled." The Ba'al
Ha-Turim cites a comment from the Midrash that it was Amalek who informed
Lavan of Yaakov's escape, and Amalek likewise brought the news to Pharaoh of Benei
Yisrael's departure from
Conceptually,
the association between Amalek and these two incidents would appear to depict
Amalek as the force that attempts to resist Benei Yisrael's process of
redemption. Yaakov's travails in Padan
Interestingly,
consistent with the theme of "ve-nahafokh
hu" that characterizes so
many aspects of the Purim story, Haman, a descendant of Amalek, had the precise
opposite effect upon the Jewish people.
The Jews in
******
The Torah tells in
Parashat Vayetze that upon the birth of Yosef, Yaakov's eleventh son, he
expressed to Lavan his desire to return to
Rav Menachem Bentzion
Zaks, in his work Menachem Tziyon, offers an explanation for the symbolism of
the "fire" of Yaakov and the "flame" of Yosef. Confronting evil requires the balance of two
generally conflicting characteristics: patience and calculated thinking on the
one hand, and, on the other, youthful passion and energy. The Midrash here teaches that spiritual
success requires a combination of slow, disciplined planning, and raging
emotion and energy. Generally speaking,
people in their youth possess the "flame" of Yosef, the emotional
energy and passion to achieve, but lack the small "fire" of Yaakov,
the patience and discipline that comes with maturity. Conversely, many adults develop proper
discipline, but at the expense of their youthful, idealistic passion. Yaakov understood that triumphing over evil
requires both elements, that only with the maturity and wisdom of Yaakov,
alongside the emotion and passion of Yosef, can Esav be once and for all
defeated.
******
Among the more famous
approaches taken in understanding the meaning behind Yaakov's mysterious dream
of the ladder and angels is that of the Midrashic works Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer (35) and Midrash Tanchuma (Vayetze
2). According to this approach, the
angels ascending and descending the ladder represent the powerful nations of
the world that, throughout history, have risen to prominence and then
ultimately declined. The significance of
this vision, as the Ramban explains (though he himself suggests a different
understanding of the dream), lies in God's promise to Yaakov that He will
protect his descendants throughout their experiences among these fearsome
nations. The Ramban adds that according
to this approach, this vision beheld by Yaakov parallels the prophecy of berit bein ha-betarim, wherein Avraham was informed of his
descendants' subjugation to foreign nations.
In both these prophecies, God promises the patriarch that a great,
successful nation will descend from him, but that this nation will have to
endure periods of hardship and persecution along the road towards realizing
their national destiny.
As Seforno briefly notes, this understanding of the dream sheds light on the word
nitzav used by the Torah in describing the Almighty "standing" over
Yaakov: "Behold, there was a ladder stationed in the ground, and behold,
angels of God ascended and descended it; and behold, the Lord was standing over
him
" (28:12-13). This term, nitzav, denotes not merely "standing," but standing firmly,
resiliently and defiantly. For example,
in Sefer Devarim (29:9), after Moshe describes the dreadful calamities that God
threatened to bring upon the people should they disobey the Torah, he declares,
"Atem nitzavim hayom" "You stand here." As Rashi explains, Moshe sought to encourage
the disheartened nation by reminding them that despite their having sinned
against God in the wilderness, they have nevertheless survived and continue to
"stand" as a large nation.
Similarly, the Hebrew overseers in Egypt are described as "nitzavim" "standing" outside Pharaoh's palace to express
their objection to Moshe and Aharon after their efforts had worsened the
slaves' plight in Egypt (Shemot 5:20).
They stood with a stubborn defiance, prepared to reject Moshe and Aharon
as representatives of the Hebrew slaves.
Accordingly, the image
of God nitzav standing firmly over Yaakov is intended
to sharply contrast with the constant motion of the world powers. This dream demonstrates that nations come and
go, the realities of the world continuously change, but the relationship
between God and Am Yisrael remains constant. And this constancy is manifest in two ways,
corresponding to the two directions of the ladder: from the nation towards God,
and from God towards the nation. From Benei Yisrael's perspective, we must retain our firm, unrelenting devotion to the
Almighty regardless of who currently climbs the ladder, irrespective of which
nation has risen to prominence and exerts its political and cultural influence
on the rest of the world. And, in
response, God guarantees Yaakov's descendants that His protection remains
constant under all conditions, regardless of the viciousness and cruelty of the
nations in power. Nations come and go,
but Am Yisrael's devotion to God, and God's promise to
shield His nation from harm, remain intact forever.
********
The first section of
Parashat Vayetze tells of Yaakov's departure from Canaan and his journey to
Padan
Commenting on the
words, "and [if] I return safely to my father's home" (28:21), Rashi
writes that this refers not to Yaakov's physical return to Canaan, but rather
to his spiritual well-being: "'Safely' perfect, without sin, that I do
not learn from Lavan's conduct." Yaakov
conditions his vow not only on God's physical protection, but also on his
spiritual survival in the corrupt environment of Lavan.
What might have
compelled Rashi to advance this interpretation of the verse? Why did he prefer this seemingly homiletic
reading over the straightforward meaning, whereby Yaakov refers simply to his
safe return home?
The Maharshal, in his
work on Rashi's commentary entitled Yeri'iot
Shelomo, suggests a surprisingly
simple answer. In formulating the terms
of his vow, Yaakov mentions all the conditions in reference to God: "If
God shall be with me and protect me
and give me bread to eat
"
(28:20). When, however, he comes to the
condition of his safe return home, he does not attribute this to God: "and
I return safely to my father's home."
Rather than saying, "and He returns me safely to my father's
home," attributing his return to God, he speaks of returning himself, with
his own efforts. Thus, whereas
protection and the provision of needs are attributed to the Almighty's
providence, his return home is attributed to himself.
This subtle but
significant distinction, the Maharal claims, led Rashi to adopt the novel
reading of the phrase, "and I return safely." Yaakov understood that spiritual success, his
religious and moral survival in an environment of paganism, superstition and
deceit, depended, first and foremost, on his own efforts. ("Ha-kol bi-dei Shamayim chutz mi-yir'at Shamayim.")
His physical and material well-being can be attributed to God, but his
ability to withstand spiritual challenges lay within himself, and hinged upon
his own hard work and struggles.
Therefore, when Yaakov speaks of God offering protection and providing
him with food and clothing, but of himself "returning safely," he
must refer to the kind of "safety" that depends mainly on his own
efforts and initiative, namely, his success in withstanding the corrupt
influences of his unscrupulous father-in-law.
******
The Torah records in
Parashat Vayetze a tense exchange between Yaakov and Rachel concerning the
latter's inability to conceive. This
exchange begins with Rachel turning to Yaakov to express her frustration:
"Give me children, for otherwise I shall die!" (30:2). Yaakov angrily replies, "Am I in the
position of God, who has withheld from you fruit of the womb?"
The Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 71) sharply criticizes Yaakov for his harsh response to his embittered
wife: "The Almighty said to him [Yaakov]: Is this how one responds to
those who are in anguish? By My life,
your sons shall stand before her son!"
While it is unclear how exactly the authority of Yosef (Rachel's son)
over his brothers served as a punishment to Yaakov Yosef was, after all,
Yaakov's son, as well the Midrash clearly disapproves of what it perceived to
be Yaakov's insensitive reaction to Rachel's frustration.
At first glance,
Yaakov's response to Rachel was a perfectly logical one. She spoke to him as if he were to blame for
her infertility, as if this power lay in his hands: "Give me
children." One can easily detect an
element of accusation in Rachel's remark, casting upon her husband the
responsibility for her inability to conceive in contrast to Leah's bearing by
that point four sons. In response,
Yaakov, quite reasonably, refuted the accusation, noting the obvious fact that
it is God, not he, who holds the key to conception. Why does the Midrash react so harshly to
Yaakov's response, asking, "Is this how one responds to those who are in
aguish?"?
Rav Avraham Pam
explained that an additional degree of patience and tolerance is required when
responding to those experiencing pain.
Rachel's comment was certainly irrational and unwarranted, but she spoke
out of pain and anguish. In this
context, a rational response is an insensitive response. Rachel did not require a theological
discourse regarding the Almighty's exclusive power over childbearing; she was
in desperate need of compassion and understanding.
This Midrash thus
presents a basic but critical lesson that can and must be applied in everyday
life. People experiencing pain,
frustration or anxiety often say things that they later regret, words that they
know to be untrue or illogical but emerge from the mouth in an emotional
outburst. It is the responsibility of
those to whom these words are directed to take them in context and respond with
compassion and understanding, rather than pouring salt on the wound through
anger and resentment, which can only intensify the feelings of pain. Such remarks must not be taken as a personal
assault, but rather for what they are: an expression of frustration. Learning and applying this simple lesson, Rav
Pam noted, could help avoid much of the tension and friction that often develop
among family members and friends during stressful periods.
******
Towards the end of
Parashat Vayetze, the Torah records the fiery exchange of words between Yaakov
and Lavan, and their ultimate reconciliation.
After Lavan searches through Yaakov's belongings in vain looking for his
missing terafim (statues, or oracles), Yaakov frustratingly
complains to his father-in-law, noting his impeccable integrity over the last
twenty years of service and his tireless devotion to his job as shepherd. Lavan responds by claiming that everything
Yaakov has including his family and his wealth had all been given to him
from Lavan, and Lavan therefore had every right to chase after Yaakov and
search through his belongings. Lavan
then offers a truce, and Yaakov and Lavan indeed pronounce a mutual treaty and
erect a monument testifying to their agreement.
Why does the Torah
elaborate in such great detail on this dispute between Yaakov and Lavan and
their eventual reconciliation?
Rav Yehuda Leib
Ginsburg, in his work Yalkut
Yehuda (
This ongoing conflict
is very clearly manifest in the bitter exchange between Yaakov and Lavan. Yaakov argues that he has worked tirelessly
for his wives and fortune, and Lavan therefore has no right to restrain
him. Lavan, for his part, observes that
Yaakov had come to his home empty-handed and now leaves with a large family and
vast assets, all of which he received from Lavan. This exchange thus encapsulates the age-old
struggle between labor and management, between workers and their employers.
The Torah recognizes
both the rights of the workers as well as those of the employers. Halakha strictly forbids withholding wages and
delaying full payment for services rendered.
Furthermore, as the Gemara (Kiddushin 22a) indicates in discussing the
laws relevant to the eved ivri (indentured servant), employers must treat their
workers with respect and ensure their comfort during their period of
service. By the same token, strict
guidelines apply with regard to a worker's obligations towards his employer, to
the point where day workers were allowed to recite an abridged text of birkat ha-mazon so as not to deprive the employer the time needed for the recitation
of the full text. As the Rambam famously
discusses in the final passage of Hilkhot Sekhirut, workers are obligated to
work every moment of the hours for which they are paid, and to invest maximum
effort in performing their duties.
According to Rav
Ginsburg, the truce between Yaakov and Lavan is to serve as an eternal reminder
of the mutual responsibilities of employers and employees, the agreement that
employees must provide faithful and devoted service, and employers must treat
them with respect and dignity and pay all the workers' wages in full and on
time. The Torah found it necessary to
eternalize this account due to its importance and ongoing relevance, in underscoring
the need for mutual understanding and respect between workers and their
employers.
******
We read in Parashat
Vayetze of Yaakov's marriage to his two cousins, Rachel and Leah. Many writers over the centuries have
addressed the question of why or if Yaakov was permitted to marry two
sisters. Marrying two sisters is
explicitly proscribed by the Torah in Sefer Vayikra (18:18), and the question
thus arises as to why Yaakov, who, as is commonly assumed, observed all the
Torah's commands, married both Rachel and Leah.
Among the more famous
answers to this question is a bold theory posited by the Ramban, in his
commentary to Parashat Toledot (26:5), where he asserts that the patriarchs
observed the mitzvot only in Eretz Yisrael. During the periods Avraham and Yaakov spent
outside the
One question (among
several) that arises with regard to the Ramban's theory involves the status of
Yaakov's marriage to Rachel and Leah upon returning to Eretz Yisrael. Even if Yaakov was entitled to
marry Rachel after having married Leah, given that this occurred in Padan
The Ramban addresses
this question in his commentary to Sefer Vayikra, where he claims,
astonishingly enough, that for this very reason God saw to it that Rachel would
die along the road upon the family's return from Padan
Aside from the obvious
philosophical issues that arise from this theory of the Ramban, we might ask a
more basic question: why did Yaakov not divorce one of his wives before
crossing the
Rav Yaakov Kopel
Schwartz, in his work Yekev
Efrayim, suggests, very simply,
that Yaakov did not divorce Rachel and Leah because his observance of the mitzvot was purely voluntary by nature.
Before Matan Torah, no one including the patriarchs was
bound by the commands of the Torah. The
patriarchs observed the mitzvot voluntarily, understanding the immense
spiritual value of Torah observance.
Voluntary measures of piety that a person takes upon himself may never
come at the expense of another human being.
Even the most admirable customs, practices and personal stringencies
must give way to the overriding concern for the welfare and respect of other
people. Therefore, Yaakov did not allow
his commitment to Torah observance in Eretz Yisrael to come at
the expense of his responsibilities to his wives. He was not prepared to abandon Rachel or Leah
for the sake of voluntarily observing the Torah's ban on marriage to sisters,
before the commandments became binding.
Since he observed the mitzvot on a purely voluntary basis, as they had
yet to become obligatory, he afforded preference to his commitment to his
wives, over his commitment to the mitzvot.