Yaakov’s Dream and the Ethics of Divine Refinement

 

"He had a dream: he beheld a ladder standing firmly on the ground and sloping upward, its top reaching up toward heaven. Angels of G-d were ascending it and descending it. He had a dream: he beheld a ladder standing firmly on the ground. And behold, G-d was standing over him. He said, “I am G-d, G-d of Abraham your forebear, and G-d of Isaac. I will give the land upon which you are lying to you and your descendants" - Bresheet 28:12-13.

Who has not read or heard of Yaakov’s famous dream which is one of the main themes of this week’s Parashah, “Vayetze,” described in Bresheet 28:10-22?

It is theologically and symbolically one of the most defining moments for Yaakov and Am Yisrael. Up until then, the Covenant belonged to Avraham and Yitzchak. The dream transforms Yaakov’s spiritual identity and establishes him as one of the three patriarchs of Am Yisrael and the Jewish People.  It is not merely a dream. It is a blueprint for Jewish destiny.

Naturally, Yaakov is overwhelmed by the dream. He is aware of his own history. He is running away from Esav after having deceived him and Yitzchak. Whether justified or not, the act created a spiritual tension. Yaakov is alone, in the world and afraid for his life. The ladder in the dream symbolizes connection, the opposite of deception and, as it seems, provokes deep self-reflection in Yaakov. 

The sages believe that Yaakov feels this burden- and fears that he may have lost G-d’s protection. In the midst of moral uncertainties, comes the dream where G-d reassures him, “I am with you….I will guard you.” (28:15). Yaakov realizes that he is now a vessel of Divine purpose and must consider his own responsibility in carrying out G-d’s plan.

What follows is a series of events that are aimed at preparing Yaakov for this very important destiny. In a way, the dream marks a transition from the “manipulative act” to a life of responsibility and suffering where the deceiver becomes the deceived, by Lavan, his uncle and future father in law who circumvents him (by replacing Rachel with Leah, his oldest daughter) and repeatedly cheats him in wages.

Our sages seem to grapple with the tension between Yaakov’s identity as a righteous, straightforward man and the chain of deceptions he undergoes later in the Parashah. Here are some of their commentaries on this pradicament. 

Chaza”l explain the dilemma in terms of middah keneged middah (measure for measure). Bresheet Rabbah (70:19). It teaches that Yaakov’s deception of Yitschak leads to his being deceived by Lavan.  G-d wants to “educate” Yaakov through an experience that mirrored his earlier act. It is not vengeance or punishment. Rather, they assert, it is for the purpose of moral refinement and spiritual growth. Yaakov must confront his own behaviour through Lavan's deceit and grow from it.

Rash"i conveys the same underlying idea. While he does not explicitly claim that Yaakov was punished for deceiving Yitzchak, he hints at it. This is reflected in Lavan’s response when Yaakov protests, “Why have you deceived me?” after discovering that Leah was substituted for Rachel. Lavan’s remark, “In our region,giving a younger daughter in marriage before the older is simply not done” (29:25-26), serves as a pointed allusion to Yaakov’s own earlier deception involving Esav, for the purpose of repairing his own earlier deception.

Siftei Chachamim (A commentary on Rash"i's commentary on the Torah and the Five Scrolls, by Shabtai Bass 1660-1680), likewise suggests that Yaakov needed to experience what deception feels like to grow into the moral stature of “Yisrael.” Again, the purpose is to cleanse, refine and elevate him.

Malbi”m (Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michel Wisser 1809-1879) echoes a similar message. Yaakov’s earlier successes come through cleverness; Lavan forces him into a situation where only faith, patience and righteousness can succeed. The deception, according to him, teaches Yaakov to let go of manipulation. 

According to Zohar (Vayishlach 21:221), Yaakov’s departure from Eretz Yisrael to the house of Lavan is not simply a physical escape from Esav, but a descent into a spiritually dark place for the purpose of elevating holy sparks.  “Just as gold is refined in fire, so Yaakov is refined in the house of Lavan.”  Lavan’s deception is the fire that purifies truth. 

The story of Yaakov’s years in the house of Lavan confronts us with one of the Torah’s most morally provocative reversals: the deceiver becomes the deceived. Having secured the blessing through disguise and misdirection, Yaakov now meets in Lavan a master of manipulation whose schemes far surpass his own. It invites us to consider whether the Torah is offering a subtle critique, a lesson in divine justice, or a portrait of spiritual growth forged through uncomfortable self-recognition. I believe it is the latter.

Yaakov and the Birthright: Deception or Destiny?

 

"And the boys grew; and Esav was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Yaakov was a quiet man, dwelling in tents" Bresheet 25:27

Birthright (bechorah) in the Ancient Near East, the setting for our Parashah, was very important, socially, legally, economically, and religiously.  One of the privileges of the first born, as stated in legal texts and documents such as the Hammurabi Code (18th century BCE, laws 170-171) or the Nuzi Tablets (Hurrian culture, 15th century BCE), state that the firstborn son typically received a larger share of the inheritance, often a double portion. This was meant to maintain the family estate and ensure stability. Bechorah also meant assuming responsibility and family continuity. In some of the Ancient Near Eastern cultures, it meant a sacred status. Moreover, in most of these societies, the birthright was fixed by birth, and could not easily be sold, traded or taken away.

Understanding this background helps explain why the story of Esav and Yaakov in Toledot, in the context of Bechorah, is so dramatic.

A bird’s eye view of the bechorah episode, in the Parashah, shows that it is driven by acts of trickery, most notably Rivkah’s scheme to have Yaakov receive the patriarchal blessing meant for Esav, which Yitzchak grants due to his blindness. Several specific verses in Toledot clearly hint at, describe, or imply Yaakov’s deception of Yitzchak (and by extension Esav). 

The initiation of Rivkah’s plan of deception is evidenced in Bresheet 27: 6-10. There, Rivkah tells Yaakov, “I heard your father speaking to Esav… Now, my son, do as I command you.” 

Yaakov hesitates because Esav is hairy and he is smooth, “Perhaps my father will feel me, and I shall seem to him as a deceiver.” The verse explicitly uses the word, מתעתע (metaatea, “a deceiver”), acknowledging the deceptive plan. Yaakov fears being caught. 

Rivkah takes responsibility for the guilt when she responds by saying, “Upon me be your curse, my son” (27:13). Naturally, Rivkah understands the morally dangerous nature of the scheme. She disguises Yaakov, “She put the garments of Esav… on Yaakov… and placed the goat skins on his hands" (Bresheet 27:15-16).

However the most explicit hint of deception and statement of impersonation can be found in the following exchanges:

Yitzchak : “Who are you, my son?”

Yaakov : “I am Esav, your firstborn” (Bresheet 27:18-19).

Despite his condition (old age and blindness), Yitzchak gets suspicious. “How did you find it [the prey] so quickly?” he asks. Yaakov invokes G-d: “because the Lord your G-d caused it to happen,” to which Yitzchak responds, “The voice is the voice of Yaakov, but the hands are the hands of Esav” (Bresheet 27:20-22).

While Yaakov’s actions are debatable and raise a theological and ethical problem, especially in light of his eventual emergence as the father of the twelve tribes of Am Yisrael, there seems to be a silver lining in this narrative, as Rabbi Joel Mosbacher suggests. “The Torah,” he asserts, “is full of complex characters. You would think that in a sacred text, the personages would be perfect and morally pure-but the people in the Torah are far from that…. We see ourselves in their strengths and foibles, flaws and humanness. If they were perfect," concludes Mosbacher, “we could hold them as paragons but not relate to them. A parent can relate to Yitzchak and Rivkah. A sibling can relate to Yaakov and Esav. They are very human characters.” Personally, I am happy to see that our forefather was human just like us. At the same time, though, I could not fathom them engaging in illicit deeds.

This tension and the need to reconcile Yaakov’s righteousness with his deception has been discussed for over 2000 years. Jewish sages did not see Yaakov as “stealing” the Bechorah in the simple moral sense. Instead, they offered several explanations, legal, moral and spiritual, that show why Yaakov’s actions were justified or at least not a sin in the conventional sense. Here are some of these approaches.

Ramba”n and Rash”i, for instance, suggest that the verse “The older shall serve the younger,” (Bresheet 25:23) implies a Divine prophecy which Rivkah received and thus know that Yakkov is the chosen heir. According to them, Rivkah’s plan ensures that G-d’s will was fulfilled. She is planning the consummation of G-d’s plan. 

Chaza”l offer another explanation to the move by Rivkah and Yaakov. They  emphasize that since “Esav despised the birthright,” (Bresheet 25:34), treated it lightly, sold it of his free will and was unworthy of it. Midrash Tanchuma and Bava Batra 16b (which lists Esav’s sins on the day he sold his Birthright) describe Esav as impulsive, spiritually uninterested and engaging in immoral behaviour. Thus, according to them, Yaakov did not steal. He simply valued what Esav scorned.

Rash”i takes his defense of Yaakov one step further. His assertion is that Esav misrepresents himself to Yitzchak. Rash”i bases it on his interpretation of Bresheet 25:28, specifically on the Hebrew phrase “tzayid befiv” which literally means “game in his mouth” (referring to Esav’s hunting, trapping skills). Rash”i construes it as Esav using speech to manipulate Yitzchak.

It seems that to justify Yaakov and protect the moral standing of a patriarch, most sages elevate Esav’s guilt. Their portrayal of Esav provides a moral framework in which Yaakov’s act is not a betrayal but a correction of a long-standing deception.

Unlike the above-mentioned Jewish scholars, Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks does not focus on Esav’s demerits.  He takes a more psychological and ethical approach, showing how the story reflects deep truths about identity, destiny and family. Sacks asserts that Yaakov is not naturally deceptive. He notes that he is gentle, studious and responsible. His mother, Sacks believes, forces him to act like Esav to get a blessing that ironically was meant for his own true self, “This is the story," concludes Sacks, “of a young man forced to wear someone else’s clothes, hiding his true identity.” This is not theft. It is a crisis of identity.

Sacks, along with other commentators stress that the blessing Yaakov receives by deception is the material blessing. The Covenantal blessing, the Avrahamic promise, one that is meant for him is given openly, with full awareness, by Yitzchak later (Bresheet 28:3-4).

The blessing, as all sages agree, is not a personal prize. It is meant for the future of the Jewish People and the fulfillment of the covenant. Esav, as the text shows us, does not value it which leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the blessing was rightfully Yaakov’s and what he does is rightfully reclaiming what is already his. In the words of Sacks, “A birthright cannot be stolen from someone who does not value it.”

Kedoshim - The Equality of Holiness

 

“Speak to the Whole Yisraelite Community. Say: ‘Be holy, for I am holy; I, the Lord your G-d,’” Leviticus 19:1-2

 

These verses which open Kedoshim, this week’s Torah portion, convey an unequivocal directive which states that all members of Am Yisrael belong to the level of holiness. Every member of the community can equally reach it, if only they wish.

“What we witness here asserts Rabbi Sacks, ZT”L, is the radical democratization of holiness. Priesthood, in the ancient world, was not exclusive to Am Yisrael, as the Torah shares with us on several occasions. Whereas in other societies, it was reserved to the elite, in this parashah, according to Sacks, “for the first time, we find a code of holiness directed to the People as a whole.” Religion is no longer hierarchical as was prevalent in the idolatrous ancient world.

The designation of Am Yisrael as a “holy nation” was mentioned by G-d already in Exodus 19:5-6. There He says, “And now, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, then you will be a special possession among the peoples, even among all earth.”  In Kedoshim, however, that proclamation has become an order. Each member of the community is formally sanctioned and commanded to “be holy,” to fulfill the vocation that G-d destined for them in Exodus.

What follows this directive is a long list of laws and rituals which include some of those chronicled in the Ten Commandments. These, naturally, are aimed at guiding and helping every Yisraelite live a life of holiness.

Our sages differ on the course of reaching “holiness.”  While Ramba”m and Rash”i believe that it can be achieved only by performing the mitzvot (commandments), Ramba”n asserts that it can be obtained by abstaining from an opulent way of life. According to Ohr Ha’Chaim, the only way to attain it is through enduring harsh experiences. Whatever the means all three sources (and many others) suggest, they are all based on the same premise of “holiness” that is expected of Am Yisrael.

Rebbi Berel Wein offers a different perspective at viewing this parashah. According to him,  “Kedoshim is not exclusively meant to represent holiness in the common usage of the word.” Those who are well versed in the Hebrew language would know that the root K,D,SH could also suggest dedication or devotion, in this case, to G-d and to the covenant that was entered between Him and Am Yisrael at Mount Sinai.

As our sages point out, some of the mitzvot which constitute that covenant are what Rabbi Sacks terms as “chok, ‘a statute,’ often understood as a law that has no reason, or at least none that we can understand.”  Adhering to and performing such commandments is a confirmation of our devotion and ongoing faith in G-d. “This is a cardinal principle in the relationship between G-d and us,” explains Rabbi Mendi Kaminker. “We must perform Mitzvot out of devotion and obedience to G-d even if we do not grasp them because this is His will.” He further elaborates that when it comes to mitzvot which we do understand, we should not observe merely because we know their underlying reason, but rather aspire to reach the G-dly, the holy component which is above our rationale.

 

Rabbi Berel Wein further suggests that in G-d’s relations with Am Yisrael, His dedication and devotion is reciprocal. “The Lord, Himself,” proposes Wein, “so to speak, describes His own Being as being not only holy but also being dedicated - dedicated to fulfill His Will,” to educate the world and teach His values system and code of ethics, “through the People of Yisrael, their behavior, events and destiny.”

Chaz”l, also comment on these verses. Their interpretation stems from the words, “for I am holy: I, the Lord, your G-d.” Since the purpose of performing the mitzvot, they believe, is to purge and sanctify us, we, in turn, sanctify G-d. What Chaza”l are teaching us is that, apparently, G-d’s holiness depends on that of Am Yisrael (Torat Ha’Kohanim Kedoshim, 1).

Whichever way we understand these verses, they all lead, in my view, to the conclusion and the lesson that is derived from Rabbi Sacks’s lucid essay on the parashah. His commentary brings to light the revolutionary notion that holiness is not reserved to a selected few, as was the custom in the ancient world. Each member of Am Yisrael, not only has the potential to be holy but, also, has the duty to strive to achieve holiness. As representatives of the one and only G-d, their holiness will directly affect the presence of His level of holiness in the world.

The Fifth Commandment – Man’s Compelling Interaction with G-d

 

In my last article, I mentioned that the Fifth Commandment, the Mitzvah to “honour thy father and mother” is a subject that has engaged many commentators. The core of that deliberation rests on the question as to whether that directive relates to Man’s interaction with his fellow Man or to that between Man and G-d.

I also pointed out in that article that it is the only Commandment which carries a reward, a Divine reward, “So that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your G-d gives you.”  Moreover, in D’varim (Deuteronomy) 5:15, the Divine incentive for following that commandment is expanded. Not only will one live a long life for honouring their parents, but they “will also prosper” on the land that G-d gives them. Hence, it, further, reinforces the concept that this Mitzvah is not only restricted to the realm of humans but is closely connected and anchored in our relationship with G-d, its author.

The importance of revering our parents has been stressed by numerous Jewish scholars. Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, for instance, asserts that G-d favours honouring one’s parents over exalting Him.

Both Ramba”n and Rabbi Shlomo Ephraim of Lutschitz rationalize the importance of this Commandment by asserting  that just as we are required to revere G-d, our Creator, so should we honour those who are His partners in our creation. In the words of Chaza”l, “there are three partners in the creation of Man: G-d, his father and his mother. When a Man honours his mother and father, G-d said: ‘I consider it as though I live among them and am respected by them”” (Kidushin 30:51). As Rabbi Sacks ZT”L points out, “G-d is seen in the Torah as a father, a parent, ’My first born son Yisrael’” (Shemot 4:22).

In his attempt to summarize parent - child relationship, Ramba”m suggests that our parents are in a sense our Torah. Our parents’ authority is akin to the word of G-d. They are the source of our heritage and code of conduct in the same way that the Torah is the foundation of our Divine legacy (Hilchot Mamrim).

Ramba”n, who links the Fifth Commandment to the first four ones which solely address the relationship between Man and G-d, proposes that the ways to honour our parents are “too numerous to count.” On one issue, however, scholars agree. Though children are obligated to help their parents with any chore, they should refuse to partake in any activity which offends G-d. Ramba”m adds that even when disagreeing with a parent, the child should do it in a dignified manner.

Rabbi Shlomo Ephraim of Lutschitz elaborates on this point.  In his book “Kli Yakar,” he notes that the proximity between the Fourth Commandment to “Remember the Shabbat” and the following Fifth one proves that the will of G-d precedes the directive to honour our parents. At the heart of both these commandments, though, rests the duty to honour G-d. Shabbat reminds us that G-d created the world and thus we should honour Him. Shabbat teaches us that there is one big Father in the universe and that His wish surpasses that of our small father, our physical one. These two commandments are further linked in Vayikra (Leviticus 19:3), “Each of you must respect your mother and father, and you must observe my Shabbats. I am the Lord your G-d.”

Additional support and confirmation of the unique and discernable interconnection between Man and G-d, in the Fifth commandment, is provided in this week’s Parashah, “Mishpatim.”

In it, the Torah elaborates on the forms of punishment for two forms of transgressions against one’s parents. The first is “Whoever strikes his father, or his mother shall be put to death” (Shemot 21:15). The second, “Anyone who curses their mother and father must be put to death” (Shemot 21:17). The kind of execution differs between the two, again, pointing at the interconnectedness between the Fifth Commandments and Man’s relationship with G-d.

The Gemara (Sanhedrin 66:71) asserts that death by stoning is the punishment for the first sin. In contrast, the punishment for the second one is death by strangulation (Sanhedrin 84:72). Judging by the four forms of biblical death penalties, stoning, burning, beheading and strangulation, the first is the most painful whereas the last is the least.

Ramba”n reasons that the act of cursing is more severe than that of striking in two ways. The first, it is more common thus the severe punishment is used as a deterrent to prevent it from deteriorating to a physical attack. The second, which again stresses the interrelation between the Fifth Commandment and the first four, is that cursing is not only a transgression against one’s parents but against G-d as well since, in the Torah, a curse includes the mentioning of  G-d’s name in vain which goes against the Third Commandment.

Honouring one’s parents is a practice that should go without saying.  It is a logical one, a basic moral debt which is consensual the world over. Am Yisrael, though, is the only People for whom it is a Commandment, one which is decreed by G-d!.