Stealing Hearts and Minds

 

R. Yaakov Bieler

Parshat VaYetze, 5766

 

While the seemingly unscrupulous manner by which Yaakov obtains his father Yitzchak’s blessing in Parshat Toldot[1] could be mainly attributed to his mother Rivka’s urgings,[2] in Parshat VaYetze, the Tora unambiguously states that Yaakov alone plans and then engages in overt, premeditated deception when he, together with his family, “sneaks” out of Lavan’s encampment without informing his father-in-law beforehand.

 

Beraishit 31:20

“VaYignov Yaakov Et Leiv Lavan HaArami” (And Yaakov ‘stole the heart’ of Lavan the Aramean) when he did not tell him that he was fleeing.

 

Not only does the Tora employ this specific language during its objective account of the events, but when Lavan finally overtakes Yaakov’s family, he invokes the identical terminology when he rebukes Yaakov.

 

Beraishit 31:26-7

And Lavan said to Yaakov: What have you done? You have stolen my heart. You have led my daughters away as if they were captives of the sword.

Why did you flee so secretly, and steal from me?[3] Why didn’t you tell me so that I would have sent you away with joy and songs, with drum and harp?

 

The only other biblical character described in similar terms as engaging in dishonest behavior, is David’s rebellious son, Avshalom, and the parallel language literarily places Yaakov in rather ignominious company.

 

II Shmuel 15:6

And in this manner[4] did Avshalom conduct himself to all of Israel who came to the king for judgment; so Avshalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel.

 

The biblical idiom for what Yaakov and Avshalom are described as perpetrating, “Geneivat Da’at”, ultimately finds its way into Rabbinic literature, where such behavior is roundly disparaged.

 

Tosefta Bava Kama 7:3

There are three types of thieves, and the most despicable of them all is the individual who is “Goneiv Da’at HaBriyot”. (Specific examples of such actions include) a person who implores that another come to his home for a meal when in fact the former has no interest in the latter’s coming (he wishes to receive the credit for inviting the other person, even as he does not wish to make good on his offer), and a person who offers another various gifts, knowing all along that they will not be received…[5]

And not only this, but if it were possible for such an individual to “Goneiv Da’at Elyona” (mislead the One On High), he would do so…[6]

 

Chullin 94a

Shmuel said: It is prohibited “LiGnov Da’at HaBriyot” (to mislead people), including even an idolater.

This view of Shmuel was not expressly stated, but was inferred from the following incident:

Shmuel was once crossing a body of water on a ferry and said to his attendant: Reward the ferryman.

He rewarded him, but Shmuel became angry.

Why was he angry?

Abaye said: Because the attendant had a non-Kosher hen, and he gave it to the ferryman (who was not Jewish), representing it as one that had been ritually slaughtered.

Rava said: Because he told him to give him strong, undiluted wine to drink, and he gave him mixed wine…

 

Sefer Chasidim #51

It is prohibited for a person to regularly employ words that mislead or seduce. And one should not speak in a manner that does not reflect how s/he internally feels, but rather what one says should be consistent with what is within. That which is in the heart should be the same as what is in the mouth. And it is prohibited to steal the mind of people, even of a non-Jew…

 

Particularly in light of Shmuel’s comment in Chullin, as well as the passage in Sefer Chassidim,[7] it becomes necessary to conclude that if Yaakov’s action is not critiqued in the form of some critical Divine Response, the objection against being “Goneiv Da’at” is not necessarily an absolute one, and that under certain circumstances, as in the case of Yaakov’s relationship with Lavan, in contrast to Avshalom’s attempts to influence members of the Jewish people to turn their backs upon the legitimate king, i.e., his father David, “Genaivat Da’at” may be actually permitted.[8]

 

So what mitigating circumstances could have justified Yaakov resorting to deliberately misleading his father-in-law in a manner that ordinarily is so unacceptable? R. S.R. Hirsch speculates that had Yaakov given Lavan even the slightest indication that he and his family were contemplating leaving, it would have proven impossible to get away.

 

R. S.R. Hirsch on Beraishit 31:20

…Jacob’s “Geneivat Da’at” here consisted in his not allowing Lavan to notice by his looks, word or deed that he had observed the alteration in Lavan’s feelings towards him.[9]  But he had to have recourse to such self-control, perhaps even to dissimulation, “because he did not tell him”, could not tell him, because “only as a fugitive could he get away”. Had he (Yaakov) told him (Lavan) that he—as he was fully entitled to—was leaving his service, he (Yaakov) would have had to expect, as he (Lavan) openly told him later on, that he (Lavan) would throw him (Yaakov) out, naked and alone,[10] as he (Yaakov) had arrived.[11]

 

R. Hirsch infers that forcibly repossessing all that Yaakov had was indeed Lavan’s intention in light of his chasing Yaakov together with a sizeable number of men.[12]

 

Beraishit 31:23

And he took his relations with him and he pursued after him a seven day journey, and overtook him at Mt. Gilad.

 

R. S.R. Hirsch

The fact that he took his companions with him shows that he had the intention of using force. Lavan’s lower nature did not recognize, as is perfectly clear in the following verses (see 31:29, 43), in the whole of Yaakov’s possessions anything which he had honestly acquired by the work of his hands—the power of labor is no visible capital—but only goods that he held at the goodwill of the overlord, and which were still at the latter’s disposal, and could only be taken away with his consent.[13]

Although not receiving permission to leave would have certainly been extremely discouraging to Yaakov, and additionally, if, as he told Rachel and Leah,[14] an angel had already appeared to him, instructing him to return to his homeland (31:13), Lavan’s anticipated objections would have interfered with his fulfilling a Divine Commandment, one might nevertheless wonder whether the ends justify the means, i.e., was tricking Lavan a morally justified strategy to achieve Yaakov’s goal, when what was at stake was not necessarily a life-and-death situation? Although one is not supposed to rely on miracles, and therefore it would have been theologically objectionable for Yaakov to have boldly walked up to Lavan, inform him of his intentions to leave, and trust that HaShem would Protect him and his family from any hostility engendered by such a confrontation, does that mean that the only recourse was to sneak away “in the middle of the night”? Just as in the case of Rivka’s Revelation in 25:23, when she was informed of the struggle that will play out between the twins that were in utero, but not what specific measures, if any, she was to undertake in order to assure that the prophecy would be fulfilled,[15] is it possible that Yaakov’s decision to “steal Lavan’s heart” was unauthorized, despite what he believed he had been Commanded to do?

 

In order to remove at least some of the moral ambiguity from this situation, some commentators assume that more was at stake than merely avoiding Lavan’s opposing Yaakov’s departure.

 

Da’at Mikra on 31:20

…This “Geneivat Da’at” is listed among an entire series of subterfuges that the Forefathers of Israel engaged in. And ChaZaL have said, (Yoma 82a) “There is nothing that stands in the way of “Pikuach Nefesh” (saving life)  with the exception of sexual immorality, idolatry or murder.”[16]

 

The assumption that Lavan intended not only to delay and ultimately refuse to permit Yaakov from taking his family with him back to Canaan once his employment was completed, but that Lavan even threatened to murder the family, or at least Yaakov himself,[17] which in turn would justify an act of “Geneivat Da’at” in order to save lives, is suggested by the well-known Midrashic text included in the Pesach Haggada:

 

Come and learn what Lavan the Aramean sought to do to our father, Yaakov. For Pharoah decreed only against the males (see Shemot 1:16, 22) while Lavan wished to “uproot” all, as it is stated, (Devarim 26:5) “’Arami Oveid Avi’ (An Aramean attempted to destroy my father)[18] and he went down to Egypt and sojourned there as a very small group, but became there a great nation mighty and numerous.”

 

Commentators on the Haggada list interpretations of the verse and passage in question that demonstrate Lavan’s nefarious intentions. Here is a singular example:

 

Rinat Yitzchak (R. Avraham Yitzchak Sorotzkin)

In the commentary HaEmek Davar (NeTzIV) on Parshat Ki Tavo (Devarim 26:5) is written,

 

The implication of the verse is that as a result of ‘Arami Oveid Ami’, Yaakov went down to Egypt. But this is impossible to understand! (There was not ostensible direct cause-and-effect relationship between Yaakov’s treatment at the hands of Lavan and his going down to Egypt.) But it can be understood in accordance with a passage in Pesachim 87b.

 

R. Chiya taught: What is meant by the verse (Iyov 28:23) “God Understands the way thereof, and He Knows the place thereof”? The Holy One, Blessed Be He, Knows that Israel is unable to endure the cruel decrees of Aram;[19] therefore He Exiled them to Bavel.

 

So too it would have been appropriate for Yaakov to have remained exiled in accordance with the predictions made to Avraham (15:13. And once he was in Aram for 22 years, it would have been appropriate for him to have remained there. But God Saw the cruelty of Lavan who was “Oveid Avi” (attempting to destroy my father), and therefore He Took him from there and eventually Exiled him to Egypt.

 

And our teacher R. Chayim asked regarding this passage in the Haggada why is it appropriate to mention that Pharoah only decreed against the boys, while Lavan attempted to destroy everyone, if by doing so we seem to be lessening the evil of Pharoah. But according to what we have explained in light of the commentary of NeTzIV, the author of the Haggada is coming to explain the juxtaposition of “Arami Oveid Avi” and going down to Egypt, i.e., that the reason why the Jewish people did not serve out the decreed exile in Aram was because of the evil of Lavan. And although the Egyptians did evil to us, and afflicted us cruelly, nevertheless, Pharoah’s decrees were only against he boys, but Lavan, in his cruelty wished to destroy everyone…

It seems that as long as Yaakov was in Lavan’s house, he tried to kill him, and it was for this reason that Yaakov did not remain, and this is the implication of RaShI on Yeshayahu 46:3

 

“Hearken to me O house of Yaakov, Israel, who are Borne by Me from birth, and who are Carried from the womb.”

 

RaShI

“From the time that you were born in the house of Lavan the Aramean, I Hoisted you up on My Arms, because from that moment on the idolaters have risen up against you in each generation…

 

This is also the implication of Siphre (Midrash Halacha on Devarim) at the beginning of Parshat Ki Tavo (wherein is contained “Arami Oveid Avi”): “This is to teach that Yaakov went down to Aram to be lost/destroyed.” The language of Siphre suggests that as soon as he went down to Aram (as opposed to while he was fleeing from Lavan at the end of his sojourn) he was exposed to destruction. The language of Siphre continues: “…When our father went to the Aramean, he was immediately looked upon as a ‘lost sheep’ (whom no one would miss should it be killed). And he (Lavan) had the power to destroy him with his magic had it not been that the Holy One, Blessed Be He Saved him, and prevented him from doing him any harm…

 

The scenario suggested by Rinat Yitzchak and the sources that he quotes would therefore have Lavan exploiting Yaakov in every manner possible; he serves as the husband to Lavan’s daughters, the father of Lavan’s grandchildren, and also the enricher of Lavan’s herds—see 30:27, 30. But as soon as Yaakov is of no further use to Lavan and his sons, Yaakov might as well be eliminated with all of his possessions being expropriated by Lavan (see fn. 13). Yaakov gets wind of the plan when he overhears his brothers-in-law in 31:1, and suddenly sees Lavan himself in a new and dangerous light. It is at this point that he decides to take matters into his own hands and leave.

 

But it is also possible that the “Pikuach Nefesh” referred to by Da’at Mikra could connote not physical annihilation, but rather the threat of “spiritual death”. Could Yaakov have suddenly become terrified in light of what living among Lavan and his family was doing to his and his family’s values and spiritual identity? Was this why the angel came to him (31:11) and told him that it was necessary for him to leave, similar to the Midrashim that state, that while the Jews may not have been deserving of redemption at the time of the Exodus, had HaShem Left them there any longer, there would not have remained anything to redeem in the future?

 

Ohr HaChayim on Shemot 3:7

…Had they (the Jewish people) stayed there (in Egypt) any longer, they would have entered into the 50^th level of ritual impurity, after which there would never again be the possibility for redemption. For this reason He Redeemed them immediately, not even Allowing them to stay long enough for their doughs to rise…and this was the reason for the Tora stating (Shemot 12:39), “And they couldn’t delay…”

 

In fact “Geneivat Da’at” also plays a significant role in the Egyptian Exodus in terms of the representation to Pharoah that the Jews were only going to journey for three days into the desert (Shemot 3:18; 5:3; 8:23), and that they were “borrowing” clothing and decorations for their sacrifices (11:2-3; 12:35-6), when in fact they never had any intention of turning back and/or returning what they had borrowed. And like in the case of Yaakov and Lavan, not only did the Egyptians pose a physical threat in terms of killing children, preventing husbands and wives from procreating, and demanding quotas of slave labor designed to enervate and kill many of the workers, but the Jews also had become enamored of Egyptian culture and religion, threatening their loyalty and commitment to the traditions of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. Does Yaakov’s tricking Lavan serve as another example of “Ma’asei Avot Siman LeBanim” (the deeds of the Forefathers are precursors for what will occur to their descendants) in light of the future Exodus?

 

In the final analysis, while subterfuge and deception may be necessary under extenuating circumstances, and Yaakov clearly found himself in many such “fixes” during the course of his turbulent life, it must be noted that a person who resorts to this type of behavior on a regular basis, however pressing each individual need appears to be, s/he may become desensitized to the importance of honesty and consistency, and might come to resort to “Geneivat Da’at” even where it is not in order.

 

Shabbat Shalom, and may we merit being able to face the world safely, honestly and forthrightly, if not always, than at least as often as possible.

---