In the last essay, we discussed the meeting between Yaakov [Jacob] and Lavan [Laban], in which Lavan reached a new low by denying any wrongdoing and instead declaring that Yaakov’s entire family and assets all belong to him. Then, while Yaakov was surely seething over the falsehoods and unfairness, Lavan said they should make peace, and Yaakov immediately agreed, showing displays of brotherhood and love. How could he have acted unlike his honest feelings? Yaakov’s virtue was Emess, but as we said, Emess is defined by what is appropriate, not necessarily by one’s feelings.

 

Now I would like to suggest another way of explaining Yaakov’s actions, based on the teaching of R’ Simcha Zissel (Chochmo Umussar vol. 2 Maamar 221). When Yaakov was told by Hashem to leave Padan Aram and return to Eretz Yisroel [the Land of Israel], he sent for his wives and engages in a lengthy speech (Bereishis / Genesis ch. 31). He begins by stating that Lavan was not favorably inclined to them anymore, and then describes his outstanding efforts in shepherding Lavan’s flocks over the years, while Lavan continuously changed the conditions of his wages. Hashem acknowledged Yaakov’s suffering and helped him out by fashioning the sheep’s offspring to match Lavan’s demands. Finally, Yaakov informs his wives that Hashem appeared to him and commanded him to return home.

 

The incongruity of his words is glaring — Hashem told him to return, so he should have simply told this to his wives, and they certainly would have agreed! Was there any worry that our Imahos [Matriarchs] would not have heeded a message from Hashem? And this puzzlement continues with the following verses. Rachel and Leah respond to Yaakov in the same way, agreeing that they have no monetary gain from staying with Lavan (Lavan’s sons would inherit his wealth — Midrash Aggada) — and then concluding, “Everything Hashem said we will do.” What is going on here?

 

Rav Simcha Zissel answers with an amazing insight. By way of analogy, if someone has an expensive item, he will protect it from damage and use it only rarely, for fear of its safety. Similarly, the priceless acquisitions of one’s fear of Hashem and righteousness are best kept hidden, and displayed only when necessary. If a Tzaddik [righteous person] were to show his piety openly, it could cause it to be diminished.

 

This explains the conduct of Yaakov Avinu and his wives. Obviously, the main factor was obeying Hashem’s command, but they cloaked their tzidkus [righteousness] in arguments of logic and monetary gain. They acted as ordinary people, interested in their own benefits, and spoke primarily about mundane and self-serving topics. But both Yaakov’s and his wives’ intentions were solely to do the will of Hashem; “The final matter reflecting the initial thought” (Lecha Dodi). Their external manner, speaking in terms of worldly concerns, concealed their internal holiness — and they knew that all nature is directed by Hashem.—