@@@@@@
Jealous!
Rachel said to Yaakov ‘Without children I feel dead!’ She was jealous of her sister Leah, who had children. Leah had children, and she had none.
Did she feel better or worse because of what Leah had, when she had stayed the same?
Perhaps although she had no children, she never focused on it. Now that Leah had children, she felt her own loss.
Another suggestion is that jealousy – not childlessness! – made her feel dead. Jealousy is a fake feeling, created by comparing badly to others. Had no one else any children she would have felt excellent!
What does this teach us about jealousy?
***
@@@@@@
A Love Of Labor
Yaakov said to Lavan ‘Were it not for the G-d of Avraham and The Fear Of Yitzchak (=noun, as in; “he was the Terror of Chicago”) you would have sent me empty-handed. He has seen my servitude and work and intervened for me’
The Midrash comments that Hashem appreciates work over parental merit: Yaakov attributed saving his money (’empty-handed’) to Zchus Avos, but his own salvation was because of his ‘servitude and work’.
What intrinsic value is there in work? Should one work even if he has money?
Man’s mandate is: ‘fill the world and conquer it’. This is an expression of what Adam was commanded in Eden: ‘work the world and watch it’. The fulfillment of Man’s basic job is greater than Zchus Avos. Development of the universe is a goal unto itself. The ‘work’ Yaakov referred to was progressing and advancing the earth.
(There’s lots to say on this subject, I am thinking now about the Ginai river telling Rav Pinchas Ben Yair (beginning of Chullin) that he is doing Hashem’s service by running to the sea…)
***
@@@@@@
‘Three Days’
Lavan put a three day distance between Yaakov’s sheep and his own. We find the ‘three day’ measure elsewhere in the Torah, for instance the Aron traveled ‘three days’ before the people preparing a camping ground for the people. Moshe asked Paroh for a ‘three day’ journey into the desert.
We were wondering if ‘a three days’ journey’ is perhaps a figure of speech, indicating a substantial journey, – something that takes time, – not a 1-2-3 trip. I don’t have hard evidence either way, but the number of times it is used makes me wonder if it isn’t a figure of speech. (Yaakov told Rochel and Leah ‘I see your father’s face and it isn’t as it was yesterday and the day before’ This is a figure of speech, obviously meaning ‘it isn’t as it once was’. Tanach also frequently uses ‘as yesterday and the day before’ to express ‘as usual’. Maybe ‘three days’ journey’ is of the same genre…
We say in our t’fillah that Hashem remembers the kindness of fathers and brings redemption to their grandchildren – 3 generations. Per this discussion, perhaps this means all future generations. Three means ‘many’.
***
@@@@@@
G-d Of Yitzchak?
Rashi asks; Hashem called Himself ‘G-d of Yitzchak’ when introducing Himself to Yaakov in the beginning of the parshah. Rashi explains that although Hashem ordinarily does not confer His Name on a living tzaddik, that’s only because he may sour, but Yitzchak was not much corruptible: he was blind and confined to home, so Hashem associated His Name with him.
Yaakov spoke to Lavan about ‘G-d of Avraham, the One Yitzchak feared’, why didn’t he say ‘G-d of Avraham and Yitzchak’? Rashi says Yaakov feared associating Hashem’s name with a living tzaddik. But didn’t Hashem Himself do so?
Perhaps although Hashem may take the liberty of risking a connection with a living tzaddik, we are NOT entitled to take those same risks. Hashem had taken that risk, but Yaakov was afraid to do so.
Another thought is that it was disrespectful for Yaakov to infer that his father Yitzchak was done for, – a has-been – someone who can no longer sin. Even when it involved something as positive as associating Hashem with Yitzchak, it implied Yitzchak’s impotence. Yaakov could not do that.
A final thought is that although Yitzchak was an exception, Yaakov was speaking to Lavan. To Lavan it would seem that Yaakov was taking liberties with Hashem’s name.
***
@@@@@@
Finding Reasons
Hashem told Yaakov to come home. He called together his wives and told them that Lavan isn’t friendly with him anymore. He also cheated him one hundred times. Also, Hashem told him to leave. They answered ‘What do we have from our father; he treats us like strangers for he sold us, and even stole our money. So all that Hashem tells you, do it!’
If they had an explicit directive to go, why seek reasons?
Part of serving Hashem is to sell ourselves on that His directives are worthwhile and pleasant. We need to develop a positive attitude towards Mitzvos. Thinking of the benefit we have from doing Mitzvos will do that.
Suppose someone needs a paperweight, and improvises, using a hammer instead. Hammer manufacturers have absolutely no intent that their hammers be used as paperweights. But that does not stop us from appreciating a hammer for its weight. Our appreciation of something need not have any connection to its real meaning or purpose!
Similarly, we find personal value in Mitzvos. That means we appreciate the Mitzvah for such and such a reason. No harm in that.
Rav Moshe Feinstein z’l told of Jews who groaned about keeping Shabbos. The attitude that their kids received is that Shabbos is difficult. Although the parents personally kept Shabbos despite all hardship, their kids stopped keeping Shabbos.
Yaakov and the Imahos were going to keep Hashem’s directive regardless. But they wanted to make it sweet to themselves, something they appreciated, not a sacrifice.
Put it this way: When a person acts on faith alone, the willpower he uses weakens with each use. So does his commitment. He expends his energy in overcoming his objections. But when that man acts out of conviction and understanding, he grows closer and more committed the more he observes. Part of serving Hashem is to recognize the benefit he gains by serving Him. Not because he serves for gain, but his attitude will be that Mitzvos are in his own interest too.
We also suggested that Yaakov and the Imahos considered every directive of Hashem as a principle with far-reaching implications and lessons. They wanted to analyze and understand the directive thoroughly so as to be able to apply it in parallel cases; what were the factors involved and what did Hashem say to do. That is what they were doing: defining the meaning in Hashem’s directive.
Hashem told them to leave, but it seemed as if Yaakov had come to Charan, pocketed all of Lavan’s money, and was now making off with it. They were explaining how what Hashem commanded was in agreement with His own principles of justice. They were saying was that taking the money was justified.
Another answer is in the Torah itself: the parshah tells that Yaakov had become very successful and built himself a fortune. He heard Lavan’s sons complaining that all that wealth really was theirs. And he saw that Lavan was not friendly to him as he once was. Hashem came to him and told him to go back to his homeland.
So what the Torah is saying, in other words, is that there was many things going on – the time was ripe for returning and also Hashem told them to do so.
Yaakov and his wives were people of truth. Had they said that its time to go back because Hashem had said so they would imply that their reason for going back was solely to do Hashem’s will. It was not true.
The time had come anyhow.
They would not piously act like they were sacrificing l’shem shamayim if it were not true. So they laid the cards out on the table.
Acting too frum is also a lie…
***
@@@@@@
Fooling Around
Lavan, it is rumored, fooled Yaakov into marrying Leah. Why? What was his gain?
Perhaps he was afraid he could never marry Leah off, for her eyes were soft. So he fooled Yaakov into doing so.
Another suggestion is that when Lavan saw the success Yaakov brought him, he wanted that Yaakov stay on as long as possible. He might gain this by fooling him into taking Leah, so that he would stay another seven years for Rachel.
And perhaps Lavan was so crooked that he could not deal straight. Even had there been nothing to gain he wouldn’t be honest. If he wouldn’t fool Yaakov he’d feel naive!
***
@@@@@@
Thank You, Really
Leah gave birth to Yehuda and said ‘This time I’ll thank Hashem’. Why now? For she had more children than her fair share. (Rashi)
What of her other children: weren’t they something to thank Hashem for too? Indeed, need we thank Hashem for our children?
The truth is that we do. It’s all a gift. Everything we receive is something to thank for. However there is wonder when one receives a gift as a surprise, something unreckoned for.
Leah had been thanking Hashem all along, but now she thrilled with thanks. Now she truly thanked Hashem. There was no ‘So what? It’s normal, everyone get this!’
How much more exciting would life be if we held this attitude?
***
@@@@@@
Get Mad, Don’t Get Even
‘Yaakov was angry and quarreled with Lavan etc.’ The Rambam writes that although by each middah we seek the middle path, the two exceptions are pride and anger, with regard to which we deviate to the opposite – humility and forbearing. However although in the Yad the Rambam puts the two together, in Avos 4:4 he indicates that a person should be humble in the extreme, however anger is sometimes justified.
At any rate, here we have an example – Yaakov’s behavior as the Torah presents it – that a person ought not be unfeeling as a rock.
Personally I think the issue is that human personality characteristics do not exist in a vacuum: a person who never gets angry will not pray with fire either, he simply is impassionate. A person needs to be emotional. Killing anger is killing personal warmth.
A maimed person is not a good one.
***
@@@@@@
Narcissist!
Lavan’s first conversation with Yaakov is ‘But you are my flesh and bone’, and he put him up for a month. And then Lavan said ‘Are you to work for me just because you are my relative – tell me your wage!’ – implying that Yaakov ought to get to work and not sit around.
Is the only reason to put up a penniless individual – far from home – that he is a relative? What about caring for another human? And had Yaakov offered to work for him for free because he was a relative? What was Lavan referring to?
Later on Yaakov cut a deal with Lavan that he is asking for nothing more than the ability to extract his fortune from Lavan’s sheep by keeping the speckled and banded ones. Lavan agreed, yet later on he was angry with Yaakov for taking ALL his money, when in fact Yaakov had not taken anything of Lavan’s – not even a wage, rather the baby lambs and goats that were born speckled and banded were his.
Rachel and Leah said to Yaakov ‘Our father has sold us like strangers, and then went and took our money from us’. And when Yaakov confronted Lavan with this inconvenient fact he answered ‘The daughters [Rachel and Leah] are mine, the children are mine and all that you see is all mine’. What was he thinking – was Lavan out of his mind?
I suspect that Lavan was more than simply evil – he was severely narcissistic. He was the center of his world and all others barely existed, except as where and when they intersected with his life. He cared for Yaakov only because he was able to see himself in Yaakov – ‘You are my flesh and bone’, and was willing to assume that therefore Yaakov ought to work for him for free. He was simply being generous in offering him a wage.
Later on Lavan made himself at home with fiddling with the terms of his agreements to Yaakov and helping himself to Yaakov’s money. It was all about him anyway, you see.
And when Yaakov finally became outraged at his behavior Lavan couldn’t
see the point: after all ‘The daughters are mine, the children are mine and all that you see is mine’. Lavan saw himself, and only himself.
One of the kinderlach asked that if this is the case then Lavan is simply ill, emotionally unwell, and cannot be faulted for his behavior. Can we consider him evil? I think on the contrary, this is the very essence of evil. But I’m unsure exactly how to resolve the dialectic between a person’s responsibility for his actions and the neurosis that push him.
Any thoughts?