PARSHAT VAYETZE – WEILDING INFLUENCE
Yaakov (Jacob) fled from his parents’ home in Israel because his brother Eisav (Essau) was plotting to kill him. Following the advice of his parents, he took up residence in Haran at the house of his uncle, Lavan (Parshat Vayetze 28:7), whose daughters (Leah and Rachel) he then married. Yaakov eventually became the father of a large family. After twenty years had passed, Lavan’s sons suddenly became openly hostile to Yaakov. This indicated to Yaakov that he was suddenly less welcome at Lavan’s home and that it was therefore advisable to return to Israel. Hashem (G-d) then appeared to Yaakov and instructed him to return to his homeland.
Yaakov then called his wives together and discussed with them why it seemed like an appropriate time for them all to leave. He then later mentioned to them that Hashem had also commanded him to return home.
The way that Yaakov presented his arguments seems peculiar. Why didn’t he simply relate that Hashem had specifically commanded them to leave Haran for Israel? Surely, that would have elicited their wholehearted cooperation – they surely would not have disobeyed Hashem’s overt command.
The Commentary of the Ralbag (by Rabbi Levi ben Gershon, 1288–1344) deals with this question. He explains that if someone is seeking to influence family members to act or act in a given manner (as Yaakov was), it is inadvisable to compel them. Rather, one should endeavor to bring them to the point of independently deciding the same. That was why Yaakov first dialogued with his wives. It was to get them to independently arrive at what he already decided. Only then, to yet further deepen their commitment to the plan, Yaakov added that Hashem had commanded them to leave.
This is saying that coercion is not the most effective method for influencing others — even where force is available. Rather, it is preferable to bring people to the point where they will arrive at a hoped-for decision on their own. When this occurs, the conclusion and commitment to that conclusion is more profound. Yaakov therefore first spoke to his wives about why he thought it best to depart, hoping that they themselves would choose to depart. It was only afterward, in order to further strengthen their commitment to his plan, that Yaakov added that this was also Hashem’s explicit command.
These words of the Ralbag require further elucidation. Every period of Jewish history is replete with examples of righteous Jews hastening to fulfill every commandment of the Torah. Yaakov’s wives were the mothers of the Jewish Nation. They attained prophecy, and they were no doubt supremely righteous and G-d fearing. Seemingly, to for such sanctified individuals, there is no higher imperative than obeying the specifically stated Word of Hashem. Seemingly, their commitment to Hashem’s Command would know no bounds. Every fiber of their beings, conscious and subconscious, would be dedicated to the task. Why then wasn’t it enough for Yaakov to simply relate that Hashem had commanded them to leave?
An unavoidable circumstance of humanity is that every individual has a distinct disposition and leaning. Furthermore, however spiritual one may be, his or her inclination will not always necessarily be one and the same as that of Hashem. When one has a ‘built in’ difficulty with performing a given action, a certain internal hesitancy can arise. This remains true even if when ‘holy people’ are complying with the stated dictate of Hashem.
Yaakov recognized that his wives might have harbored an inner trace of resistance to leaving their family and homeland. He therefore initially avoided mention of Hashem’s command. Yaakov knew that they would certainly never overtly disobey Hashem’s Order. Yet, Yaakov recognized the additional devotion that Rachel’s and Leah would have had to their own autonomous determination…It would have even exceeded their commitment to an outright directive of Hashem that ran contrary to their personal inclinations. Even in this type of situation, an independently formed conclusion remains preferable to a state of consent gained through external pressure. It becomes the change of heart to which one is most deeply committed.
Daily living includes frequent conflicts of wills. The concept of the Ralbag has obvious application to the conduct of these struggles. Parents and children, employers and employees, co-workers, siblings, friends, and spouses are always attempting to influence each other’s thinking. The Ralbag teaches that getting the other person to decide “my way” on his or her own accord is far more effective than “Please do this because I asked you to.”
Speaking anecdotally, a cardiologist recently remarked that most of his patients need to make significant lifestyle changes (i.e. diet and exercise) to increase their chances of recovery, Yet, the doctor said that only one in seven of them end up actually making the changes. Based on the Ralbag, a more effective approach might be to hand the patients articles with statistics on the relationship between lifestyle and cardiovascular health. Then, if they opt on their own for a healthier way of living, their decisions would be more likely to endure.
Another particular scenario comes to mind. A very critical period in one’s development is that of adolescence and early twenties. People then make seminal decisions on school, career and marriage — choices that will profoundly impact upon the direction of their lives. Parents, relatives, or rabbis often become heavy-handed “advice givers” who overwhelm these young people with what they assume to be the correct choices. (A common rationalization for this intrusion is that the young people are unprepared to decide alone on these weighty matters.)
The Ralbag indicates that the matter will likely not be best resolved by external pressure – even if it is in the form of absolutely correct advice. The young person will only be truly committed to decisions that are arrived at autonomously. The most powerful influence one can wield is to somehow bring that other person to correctly decide the issue — independently.
An interesting corollary to this application is that pressuring the young individual toward a given decision might not only fail to accomplish its goal, but it can be a recipe for future failure. This is because real success in marriage and career, even under ideal circumstances, is never automatic. Herculean exertions are often necessary to triumph over the difficulties that these areas present. Realizing this triumph will be incomparably more daunting for one who never fully embraced the choice of what the specific challenges would be.
(This Dvar Torah was adapted from Rabbi Ganz’s volume on Sefer Bereishit, “Defining Humanity.”)
To help defray the cost (in time) of its production, and as a way of supporting our Jewish outreach organization in Cambridge, we are asking people to consider sponsoring this weekly email Dvar Torah. It is a meaningful way to note an occasion such as a graduation, birthday, anniversary, yahrzeit, etc.The “cost” is $120, but amounts greater than $120 will of course be gladly accepted. The sponsorship will be noted in the Dvar. Thank you in advance!(Should the situation arise, we consider it acceptable to have more than one sponsor per Dvar. If you would like to be sole sponsor, please let us know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dear Rabbi Ganz,
ReplyDeleteThank you for this thought-provoking insight into the parsha.
It seems to me that you have highlighted the internal struggle that every person has between his own inclination and the dictates of the Almighty. As I understand it, you indicate here that it is preferable for a person to be "brought on side" in terms of his personal inclinations than to act contrary to his own (short term?) inclinations when fulfilling Hashem's commandments. (NB: I say short term because of the idea that every Jew deep in his soul wishes to fulfil Hashem's will).
But is a person not more praiseworthy if he fulfils a commandment contrary to his own immediate inclination? Does the internal struggle that such a person has to engage in (and win) not elevate his deed (and himself?) to a higher spiritual plain than that of the person who need undergo no such struggle because he was already inclined to do that which Hashem happened also to command?
Many thanks again for this stimulating dvar.
Shabbat shalom,
Anton Eriera
London
If two people who did the same mitzvah are compared, with all other factors being equal, the one who had to work harder to accomplish the same result is more praiseworthy. Hashem recognizes, takes into account, and rewards people for their inner struggles needed to observe the Torah – not just for what they actually do.
ReplyDeleteWhat if however those two people began at a state where they had equal difficulty with performing a mitzvah. At that point, seeking to better his relationship with Hashem, one of them then began pondering and studying the matter and finally came to the realization that the mitzvah is utterly appropriate and just. From then on, for that person, the mitzvah was no longer a struggle. In this instance, the one who struggles less is more praiseworthy, notwithstanding the fact that the other one continues to perform the mitzvah despite the difficulty.
This was the case of the Parsha. Yaakov’s wives would have done Hashem’s Will, no matter how difficult or counter-intuitive it might have been for them. Yaakov, however, understood that if their compliance were further buttressed by their own independent conviction that such was best, their commitment to the course of action would be more profound. He therefore contrived to have them first arrive at that same conclusion on their own before disclosing that such was also Hashem’s Will.
This email was sent to me privately by someone who was having trouble posting it publicly.
ReplyDeleteDear Rab Berish,
I was not able to post a comment because I have no idea what to log on as. So I'll send it to you directly:
And what if the decision the person arrives at autonomously is the polar opposite of the one you hoped for and think is "right." Once you have rejected coercion and opted for self determination, you cannot very well renege and resort to coercion, can you? Are you willing to go along with whatever the person concludes? Or only when the person decides what you think best?
-Shavuah tov,
Jerry
Dear Dr. Jerry,
Your point is that opening the door to self-determination means that they could decide differently. And what should then be done?
Following is a fairly literal translation of the Ralbag:
"…when a man wants something from the members of his household, it is not proper that he coerce them, but he should rather endeavor to ultimately sway them toward what he wants, so they will be inspired [to that same decision] on their own. For this is better than if they would [be brought to] do it through force. Therefore you will find that Yaakov spoke appropriately to bring them [to the point of wanting] to listen to him and to depart from their father. And he informed them when concluding his words that Hashem commanded him to go and to return to his father’s house, so that they [his wives] would additionally agree to this [decision to leave] so as not to defy the word of Hashem, for they believed in Him, as we have explained previously."
The text seems to indicate that Yaakov was so clever and confident in their wisdom, that he KNEW that they would make the correct decision on their own. Yet, in order to strengthen their resolve, Yaakov went through the steps needed to get them to decide on their own. (The point of the Dvar was to demonstrate how significant it is that someone arrives at a conclusion independently. In that case, it made them more committed to the choice than they would have been had they “only” known it to be Hashem’s Specific Command to them.)
But we do not know what the Ralbag would say about a situation where allowing someone to decide could lead to a bad choice.