|
Parshat Vayaitsai
Rav Haim Lifshitz
Essays and Articles:
|
Why Did You Steal My Gods?Lavan: AWorshipper of theoretical gods.
Translated from Hebrew by S. NAthan l'ilui nishmat Esther bat mordechai Did Lavan know he was a liar? It seems not. How deeply offended he would have been had he know the Torah sees him so: Lavan – King of the Liars. There is no area of life in which he does not deceive, no subject on which he tells the truth, including truth. "God's praises are in his throat, and a double-edged sword is in his hand." Religion, too, is drafted to his cause; just another means to pull the wool over peoples' eyes. A liar from beginning to end, he was King of the Thieves as well, as Rachel tried to prove by stealing his idols. Society must reckon with three types of thieves. The small thief – he gets caught before he has even managed to steal. The intermediate thief – he gets caught after he has stolen, and the greatest one of all: He steals – and then you are accused of stealing from him. This was Lavan: "The daughters are my daughters and the sons are my sons and the sheep are my sheep, and everything that you see – is mine." Yes, no less. Such powerful confidence in the rightness of his cause. It confuses the victim: Maybe justice is on his side? ...A doctor came to a rich man. After hearing how bad things were financially he felt guilty for not offering the poor rich man any money... Instead, Yaakov is the guilty one: "You robbed my heart...why did you sneak and run away and rob me...why did you rob me of my gods"? When theory detaches from reality, and feels no need to address the question of whether something actually happened, it falls under the same category as bracha she'aino overet la'asiyata, a blessing said over an action that is never carried out. It is worse than a blessing recited in vain; one has uttered falsehood. This applies to every theory – even one that deals with ultimate truth. There is always a danger of preferring the Idea to the reality, of presenting the Idea instead of the reality. This eventually empties the idea of its meaning, and severs it from its real purpose. "Kol hagadol maihavero..." Whoever is greater than another runs a greater risk. The greater a person is, the greater his danger of detachment. A modest and simple person does not consider himself a philosopher. He does not deal in great ideas. He "suffices" with checking the truth, with asking the experts at every step. His only ambition is to apply truth to practical, halachic reality. Lavan had idols. He had theories that had been written in books. For him they were the urim ve'tumim,, the direct word of God. So he publicly proclaimed, for he wished to impress upon the entire human race that his preoccupations were of a sacred nature. He conveys to Yaakov that he has always turned to his idols for guidance and counseling at every turn. Now, he has been robbed of them, and he feels lost in a bewildering reality. Lavan – and all who serve theory – is expressing contempt for the rules of logic inherent in the real world, and ignoring the fact that objective needs result from objective actions, theory notwithstanding. He is compelling reality to obey rules that he himself has decided are valid because they fit a theory that is the product of the delirious mind of its believers. Putting this theory before human needs demonstrates an arrogant contempt for life's fundamental sanctity. This is why a theory that deals with ethereal concepts of morality can supply material for the most cruel and brutal distortion of morality. Social theories, without exception, have provided society with ways to deprive individuals of their rights. Right-wing political parties, their banners emblazoned with the sacredness of the national homeland, carry out the most sweeping, leftist, counter-to-the-national-interest, detached-from-reality platforms. Lavan represents this human tendency to turn reality into theory, with all that this implies. It is the way a liar can succeed at in looking good, and fair, and even idealistic, while brutally ignoring the trembling touch of emotion-soaked reality. It is the way a theorist steps around the "risk" of identifying with another, of getting personally involved. He turns life's confrontations into "meaningful discussion" – small talk around the table, an encounter over tea... Yaakov cleverly directs Lavan toward his own cup of tea, by evading any real confrontation with him. A ceremonial feast, a farewell party, a covenant – they photograph well. Lavan exits well satisfied and all ends well. A contract (thoroughly publicized – a media event) has been signed. The devoted father, overcome with anxiety for his beloved daughters – "if you dare afflict my daughters" he chides, with staggering hutspa, after having abandoned them: "For he has thought of us as strangers. For he has sold us and he has truly devoured our money." Earlier, Lavan says to Yaakov: "Tell me what your salary should be". Justice personified. So morally sensitive. Yet sensitive turns sinister all too soon. In the field of real practice, Lavan is exploitation personified. How dedicated he is to law and order and method. How respectful he is of tradition: "It is not to be done so, in our place, to give the younger before the older". The very epitome, the very symbol of consideration, he is willing even to risk his own good name, his honest, sterling reputation. Nectar and ambrosia. It is with this prettied duplicity that Yaakov must cope. Yet Yaakov is "an innocent man, a dweller of tents". Yaakov too would seem to be a theorist. Immersed in the spiritual atmosphere of the study halls of Shem and Even, everything is determined by ideas – what is proper, what is the law. But Yaakov is innocent, or perfect, in relation to ideas, which means the only actions he considers possible are those that actualize true ideas. It never occurs to him that there are liars who are capable of taking advantage of his innocence by clothing themselves in his mantle, proclaiming his ideas while really locking them in the four walls of the beit medrash, never letting them out to govern the practical world. A whole human being must confront this dangerous tendency in order to expose deceit. It is not only an external confrontation. Yaakov must penetrate to the source of the act of deceit. He must enter its private home. He must risk absorbing its toxic fumes into his lungs. He must transform evil into good, and false into true, all the while strictly guarding his purity of spirit. "With Lavan I have dwelt, and 613 mitsvot I have kept and I have not learned from his evil acts". It is an inward struggle as well. In his relationship with his wives, one is beloved and one surely must be hated because of the distortion that was forced on him by manipulation of his trusting nature. Yet nevertheless, despite the fact that heaven seems to have cooperated with that liar, and created a new reality, and bestowed upon Leah the best possible compensation – "Now my husband will be always in my company for I have born him three sons", and if that were not enough "now I will give thanks to God," for I have born him four sons, nevertheless Yaakov remains true to his heart's choice. God has shut her womb, in order to test Yaakov's vow to Rachel to remain faithful to her forever. Yaakov withstood the test. He lived permanently – "he fixed his bed" – in Rachel's tent and not in Leah's tent. Only in one instance did Yaakov appear to diverge from his warm and loving relationship with Rachel, responding to her harshly when she approached him with a request that was also a threat: "Let me have children, for if not, I die". "And Yaakov's wrath burned against Rachel...'Am I instead of God Who has kept from you fruit of the womb"? "He has kept from you, not from me". (Bereshit Raba) "This is the way you answer sorrowing women?" the Master of the Universe demands of Yaakov. How can it be that Yaakov denies Rachel his loving compassion? It seems that the love Yaakov cherished for Rachel was not "tluya badavar", not dependent upon the stimulation of external circumstances, not dependent upon stormy emotional upheavals that come from ego, that are detached from the values of truth and justice. Yaakov's claim – and comfort – to Rachel is that she must pray on her own behalf, since God hears the one who cries out directly from his own pain more than He hears the one who prays for his friend. Yaakov intended a therapeutic harshness, in the sense of "whom He loves, He rebukes", rather than an attempt to avoid helping her. All his intention was to strengthen her faith in her own ability to connect directly to the source of blessing, and not to hang her hopes on another, even if it is her great husband. "This is how you answer sorrowing women?" was apparently a criticism at the tactical level. In other words, even your good intention would have been more appropriately said with tenderness and compassion. Yaakov reasoned that since he was totally identified with Rachel, she must be required – as had been decreed upon him – to learn the hard way. They were both required to learn how to cope with a reality of trials from a posture that was "on an equal footing" with God. They were not to cope with struggle as though they were a beggar at the door. "In pleading speaks the destitute man" did not apply to them. You see Rachel, you who are a part of my own self: You and I do not occupy a reality that is separate from God's presence. We ourselves – our very hearts and bodies – personify the reality of God in this lowly world. We are not to stand like a beggar at the gate, but rather to connect to God's source as His representative on earth. That is why there is no room here for self-pity. Just as a soldier can demand ammunition from his commander because he must carry out his order, so we must raise a generation that will continue our path. There is nothing personal here. You are not asking a favor of God. "Am I instead of God"? How does this answer Rachel's plea for children? Would someone as righteous as Rachel perceive in Yaakov an autonomous force of deity, no matter how great a tsadik he was, no matter how much perfection he had attained? Was Rachel's faith like the limited faith of those primitive people whose must hold onto an object that can be grasped and touched because their capacity for imagination and abstract thinking is so limited? (See Kli Yakar, on Rachel's envy of her sister: This envy created a barrier that separated her prayers from the source of blessing. Yaakov felt this was why both of their prayers had not been accepted. By giving her maidservant to Yaakov, Rachel was repenting of her envy.) It is still difficult to explain why Yaakov expressed himself in this way: "Am I instead of God"? Perhaps Yaakov, who had prevailed over trial by transforming Godly theory into tangible Godly presence, had attained a state of perfection that was close to being a complete actualization of God's presence within his own being, as the "merkava lashechina", the "chariot of the shechina" to the extent that God Himself calls Yaakov God. In other words, it was an understandable mistake. It was necessary for Yaakov to restrain an overwhelming tendency to attribute Godly powers to him. Allowing this tendency is not something Yaakov can do. It belongs to cheaters like Lavan who separate theory from reality, who heretically deny the reality of the tangible world, and view it as a theory. The owner of the theory can do with the theory as he wishes. The words he utters create their own reality. Thus Lavan: "I have in my hand a godly power to do you harm, but the God of your fathers last night said to me...". Implying – one theory versus another. It is just Lavan's theory against Yaakov's theory. This is how cheaters ultimately cheat themselves, to the point of believing their own lie and living by it. Such is a cheater's punishment. Lavan, who turned reality into theory, lost his power in actual reality, in favor of Yaakov who strove to turn theory into reality. Yaakov applied the tangible power of reality to his theories, thereby creating a tangible idea, spiritual values that could be touched and felt, a practical reality empowered by Godly truth, to the extent that his own physical being became a tangible embodiment of Godly truth. The Torah demands a confrontation with practical reality. One is required to apply spiritual values to physical existence. This can be bewildering to those of weak faith and narrow horizons. They can tend to skip from Lavan's position to Yaakov's position, losing perspective and gaining confusion. They view themselves as having transcended reality, as having attained lofty spiritual heights. Yet they simultaneously ignore their duty to actualize God's presence, instead growing intoxicated in the high altitude of their sublime vision, viewing themselves as a Godly presence. They never bother to inspect their own tsitsit, meaning, they never confront a real object. Leaping into the inner mysteries of the Torah when they cannot understand a text's basic meaning, when they are ignorant of Halacha, they are certain that they are giving the Torah anew, only better and easier. They express contempt for true Torah scholars, for the great power of Torah insight that is wielded by one who has acquired Torah through personal toil. While "haTorah munahat bekeren zavit vekol harotseh yavo veyitol" – the Torah lies in the open market, and whoever wishes can come and take" – this does not mean that understanding the Torah requires no effort. Yaakov closes the circle of heaven and earth, uniting them into one perfect Godly whole. This circle begins in the kingdom of ideas, in the study halls of Shem and Ever, where life is clean and free of the need to cope with the creature urges, which prowl outside of the private space. They cannot enter into the private space, for here is the abode of creativity. By being creatively occupied one is freed from the harassment of the creature urges, as is well known, for when expressing one's qualitative self one does not express ego. Only upon going out of the study hall is God's servant exposed to the dangers of the creature urges. Hence the emphasis on Yaakov's leaving Be'er Sheva. The Torah teaches that Yaakov's descent from the heights of the spiritual conceptual realm was undertaken in order to close the circle, in order to impose his ideas upon material reality. He dreams, yet does not go mad. He sees "Yaakov's ladder". Only then does he realize that it is a dream of truth: He has been shown the perpetual connection between heaven and earth, as heavenly messengers rise up and descend the ladder. They rise up, raising reality to the level of ideas, and they descend, bringing down ideas to become tangible on earth. Now Yaakov realizes that the dream is intended to guide him, to aid him in a confrontation that will ultimately bear the tidings of perfection on earth. Yaakov paves a new path that is the completion of his fathers' path: Avraham confronted the realm of principles – this is Avraham's mountain. Yitschak dealt with unveiling the godly potential dormant on earth – this is Yitschak's field. Yaakov was charged with a duty more difficult than any that had preceded it. He was to make tangible everything that his sacred forefathers had discovered and bequeathed to him – this is Yaakov's house. Yaakov's strange reaction to God's generous promise should be understood in this light. Yaakov is promised everything that has been promised to his fathers, plus more. It is perplexing that Yaakov does not seem to address the explicit content of the promise. In his modesty he suffices with the least possible minimum: "If God will be with me, and guard me on the road...that I walk, and will give me bread to eat and a garment to wear and I will return in peace to my father's house..." That's all? Nothing more? What of all the promises of land and descendants? Even more perplexing is Yaakov's peculiar promise to God: "If...then Hashem will be my Elokim". And if not, God forbid? Then not? Yaakov apparently realizes the new role he is to play in closing the circle of his fathers. His fathers' task was to unify God's name, by joining Hashem – the measure of compassion represented by Avraham – to Elokim – the measure of judgment represented by Yitschak. Yaakov must now see to it that God's unified name strikes roots in the reality of physical matter. This will be the fulfillment of his fathers' path. It is what Yaakov means when he says "and I will return in peace to my father's house" – meaning the closing of the circle. Go to top
|
|