RITSS HIGH SCHOOL

PRESENTS A D`VAR TORAH

ON VAYAITZAI

By Rabbi Moshe Heigh

TWO SONS-IN-LAW CHASED; TWO DIFFERENT REACTIONS

"Yaacov was angry, and he argued with Lavan. Yaacov replied and said to Lavan, 'What is my crime? What sin did I commit that you were in such hot pursuit of me?'" (31:36). We know that this dialogue occurred after Lavan chased Yaacov, following Yaacov's quick departure from his land. Lavan had accused Yaacov of stealing his idols (31:30), and he proceeded to search thoroughly for them without success (31:33-35). Afterward, Yaacov expressed his disapproval at Lavan's vicious behavior.

A Midrash Rabba analyzes these remarks of Yaacov. One would prefer to endure the anger - the indignation - of the forefathers, rather than the humility - the tolerance - of the children (Beraishis Rabba 74:10, using the Matnos Kehuna's interpretation). In other words, the avos, even at times of great emotional stress, kept their calm and continued to act in a dignified manner. Such was not the case with their descendants, even the most righteous of them. The greatest people of these later generations, even when saying appeasing words, combined with them hints to violence - in stressful situations.

A circumstance warranting outright rage on the part of Yaacov instead yielded a relatively calm and polite rebuke from his mouth to his father-in-law. The midrash continues to explain: Yaacov was displeased and he argued with Lavan, and he wondered to him what crime of his had precipitated Lavan's unfair treatment of him. What would we expect to occur in such a case? Wouldn't there be some physical violence and a beating in store for the wicked Lavan? What son-in-law would tolerate years of abuse followed by an unjustified chase almost to the death?

Rather than lashing out violently at his wicked father-in-law, Yaacov's words were meant to appease Lavan, says the midrash. Yefai Toar remarks that when our pasuk mentions Yaacov's "anger" and "argument" with Lavan, it is trying to PRAISE Yaacov's middos - his character traits and treatment of other humans. "It is not speaking in a derogatory way about Yaacov, rather in his praise. Even in his moment of exasperation, he spoke appeasing words." He did not react the way most people would, with outright fury. This is the meaning of the midrash, that one would rather experience the annoyance of the avos, because even such moments of theirs were highlighted by calm, polite, humble words. This is not so by later generations, as we will soon demonstrate.

To elaborate on this point, the midrash continues by interpreting another pasuk. "..You have felt through all my vessels; what did you find from all the vessels of your house?" (31:37). Lavan had conducted a very thorough search, but he found NOTHING of his among Yaacov's possessions. The midrash comments that usually, a son-in-law living by his father-in-law would be EXPECTED to benefit from his father-in-law's possessions at least a little bit. Wouldn't it be understood, normal, and perhaps even acceptable if that son-in-law leaves his in-laws' house with just a small utensil or two - a knife or something similar? [True, the son-in-law might eventually return the items when he realizes later that he has inadvertently taken them. Or the midrash means that most fathers-in-law view their sons-in-law as sons, and the love they have for them prevents them from becoming upset about relatively trivial matters such as these. Experience shows that parents often feel that their items to belong to their children as well. There are surely different opinions and approaches to this matter, but these are a few comments to explain this midrash.] But here, Yaacov pointed out to Lavan that not even a pin or needle of Lavan's could be found among his belongings! Yaacov proved his innocence, but he did it in a non-violent manner.

Now we can study the end of this midrash. One would prefer to encounter the displeasure of the fathers over the tolerance of the children. Of course, the term "fathers" refers to Yaacov Avinu, as the midrash has already explained. Yaacov's moment of mild anger was a far cry from the rage which could have been expected in his situation. It was also much less violent than even the APPEASING words of Dovid Hamelech, who lived so much later. When Shaul, Dovid's father-in-law, was pursuing him almost to the death because of his jealousy and paranoia at Dovid's immense success as a leader (and Dovid's status as the upcoming king), the pasuk says that Dovid came before Shaul's son, Yonasan, with some heavy questions. "What did I do? What is my transgression? What is my sin before your father, that he seeks my soul?" (Shmuel Alef, 20:1). The midrash comments that even in the middle of Dovid's words of pacification, he mentions bloodshed - the topic of murder. Dovid refers clearly to the fact that Shaul seems to have been pursuing him to take his life. This is in stark contrast to Yaacov's above mentioned words. Think about it, says the midrash. In both cases, the father-in-law was chasing the son-in-law. In both cases, the chase was meant to be to the death. Despite the similarities in circumstances, the reactions of the sons-in-law were so different. Yaacov did not even mention bloodshed. He simply asked Lavan why he was "in such hot pursuit" of him. Dovid, on the other hand, referred clearly to Shaul's attempt at his life.

The Maharzav comments that the Midrash Tanchuma 13 shows another difference between the reactions of Yaacov and Dovid to their violent fathers-in-law. [Incidentally, please know that Shaul - Dovid's father-in-law, and Lavan - Yaacov's father-in-law, cannot generally be compared. The former certainly possessed a holy, Jewish soul, he started out as an awesome tzadik, and he earned Olam Habo after death (Brachos 12B based on Shmuel Alef 28:19; also see Meam Loez on that pasuk). Lavan, however, is known as an idolater, swindler, and an evil individual. The comparison is only that they both pursued their sons-in-law.] We never find that Yaacov pronounced any type of curse on his father-in-law, although Lavan's actions could have warranted such treatment. In contrast, Dovid DID hint to Shaul suffering some type of bitter end. When Dovid and his men had the opportunity to kill Shaul before Shaul would do so to them, Dovid prevented them from this. "Do not destroy him...rather, Hashem will smite him, or his day will come and he will die, or he will go down into battle and perish" (Shmuel Alef, 26:9-10). The Midrash Tanchuma points out that Dovid DID, in a certain sense, curse his father-in-law. This pronouncement was in the midst of Dovid's words of APPEASEMENT, when he was persuading his men not to lay a hand on Shaul! Thus, in the middle of his calming words, Dovid mentioned a curse. No such expression is found by Yaacov and Lavan.

The lesson is clear. Just as the level of prophecy attained by the forefathers was superior to anyone else's (Miriam's & Aharon's supposition in the Sifri 99, quoted in a footnote of the Chofetz Chaim - laws of loshon hora 8:1 under the very bottom line), their middos - character traits and values, were unmatched. Chazal revere Dovid Hamelech as the paragon of humility and righteousness. Even so, his attainments did not approach those of Yaacov Avinu. May we be inspired by this to emulate all the pious deeds and accomplishments of our avos and imahos.

If you wish to sponsor the weekly D`var Torah please e-mail RABBI KIBEL

Send comments or suggestions to webmaster@kicc.org

reach us on the web at www.kicc.org