After Yaakov had a dream where he received nevuas Elokim that told him to leave Lavan, why did he seek Rachel and Leah's advice and consent about leaving?Please see his post. While he brings achronei ha'meforshim that address this, I turned back to some of the rishonim:
Ralbag writes that the whole point of the Torah telling us this story is to teach us that one should not impose one’s will on one’s household through coercion, but rather one should try to explain and persuade so that others willingly follow. (Sounds like a good lesson for kiruv, or for dealing with not-yet-religious members of our community -- persuade, encourage, but don't knock people over the head with a rolling pin.) It was only after he first explained why he wanted to leave that Yaakov then added, by-the-way, that a malach also told me to leave. Yaakov did not want that to be the primary reason for Rachel and Leah to listen to him, but he also did not want to omit it entirely because he wanted his wives to also get credit for obeying the dvar Hashem.
(This last point is very interesting as it implies that had Rachel and Leah just agreed to go for logical reasons without knowing the nevuah, it would not have been enough -- they also had to act with deliberate intent to fulfill ratzon Hashem. Tzarich more iyun into this.)
A clue to another possible answer can be found in a Seforno at the end of this episode. Rachel and Leah say to Yaakov, “Kol asher amar Elokim eilecha aseh,” (31:16) whatever G-d wants you to do, go ahead and do it. Seforno comments: “Kol asher amar Elokim – bilvad aseh. N’hag v’leiuch v’al titol reshus.” Meaning, G-d told you to leave, so do exactly and just what G-d said –- leave. Don’t make a goodbye party, don’t ask for permission, just follow the instructions and walk out the door.
I hopefully am not reading too much in, but it sounds to me like Yaakov’s discussion with Rachel and Leah was not about whether they should leave – the answer to that was dictated by the malach -- but rather the discussion was about how they should make their departure. Imagine an angel came and told you to quit your job. Does that mean walk out the door same day, or does that mean give two weeks notice? There is wiggle room to interpret it either way. So Yaakov, being a good husband, especially in this case where the issue revolves around the in-laws, does what any good husband would do – they ask their wife for advice.
Lastly, Abarbanel has a hard to digest comment that he makes not in direct response to this question, but which touches on it anyway. He writes in connection with Yaakov’s discussion with Rachel and Leah that “lo haya lo koach la’leches im lo b’ratzon nashav v’cheftzeihen v’da’atan” – he would not have had the strength to leave if not for his wives’ consent and it being in accord with their wishes. Hard to fathom what he means – Yaakov would not have obeyed the nevuah had Rachel and Leah protested? I don’t see how you can say that about Yaakov Avinu, but that's what Abarbanel writes.
If you do respect my opinion, know that I say without false humility that it is I that should be pleased to find our thoughts in harmony.
ReplyDeleteMoving on:
The Ralbag: Yaakov did tell them about the malach before they answered in 12 and 13. Despite that knowledge, they said that the reason makes sense, so let's do what the Elokim said. So I understand why he wanted to persuade them. I just don't get why they didn't immediately say Lets do what Hashem said.
The Sforno is a great find. Thank you. That's exactly how I understand Shmuel's words when Hashem told him to anoint Dovid. "How can I go? If I go to anoint Dovid, Shaul's going to kill me." Pshat in איך is not "How do you expect me to go, are you trying to kill me???" It's "How should I go." In what manner will I manage to get there without being killed. So Hashem gave him a subterfuge.
The Abarbanel; That's great. Yaakov had a big family, many possessions, and no doubt employees, and he simply couldn't do it all without the active participation of his wives and children. But again, it casts Rachel and Leah as being of little faith.
-- "a malach...told me to leave"
ReplyDeleteat year 14 with Lavan, Yaakov would take his wives and children as his eved ivri's wages for 2 service periods, and go. when the householder agrees to a further work term, he considers any flocks (etc.) that he will acquire as additional wage.
Lavan says 'your wages shall come from the flock' [in his mind, devarim shebelev, the women and offspring are and will remain his]; he will string Yaakov along one way or another for 49 years, until yovel (or his own death, whichever comes first) [and all without an awl].
the >malach< can be said to endorse Lavan! 'you go Yaakov, and only you (even the animals, under Lavan's guardianship, shall remain behind for the women and children)'. and even if you should say, Rabboisei, that Shemos 21:3-4 applies only to thieves sold into servitude, has not Yaakov stolen his brother's blessing? does Yaakov not offer Eisav compensation from the flocks, with 32:22?
-- "Rachel and Leah's advice and consent"
Yaakov, from 31:5 to :13, never challenges the malach's ultimate endorsement of Lavan!
{printed with permission from The Contrarian Society of Greater Dubuque}