Advanced readers: skip material marked “introductory”; proceed directly to material marked *.

Kabbalistic/Inner Meanings of the stories in the Torah (Introductory)

The actions of our forefathers/mothers were archetypical, and set up spiritual channels for their descendants for all generations. Our own history is therefore a reflection of theirs, and so the events in the stories are of direct relevance to our lives. The Torah does not tell us of every event in their lives, but rather recounts those events which have this special significance.

• It’s important when reading the Torah to pay attention to connections made between the stories: they are indications of deep undercurrents and of repeating patterns in the history of our ancestors and therefore in our own collective history and private lives.
• The connections are often made via an uncommon word which appears in both  stories.
• Undercurrents are highlighted by repeated usage of a particular word or phrase in a story;
• Since the meanings or messages of these patterns are sometimes obscure, but the existence of the pattern is significant in of itself, I will point out connections I have noticed even if I do not offer an explanation or interpretation for them. ^[1]

Yakov’s Vow: Summary (Introductory)

After the mystical dream Yakov says: [28:20-21] “If God will be with me, and watch me on the way and will give me bread and clothing and I will return in peace to my father’s house, then God will be my God and this monument will be the house of God.” After the mystical experience of the dream it is remarkable that Yakov makes what sounds like a conditional vow, implying that his connection to God depends on what God does for him! On the one hand we must not Ramban’s commentary that the wording may not necessarily imply conditionality: the word translated as “If” is “im”, and it is used in a different sense (28:15) in the very dream Yakov is responding to! So, it is reasonable to assume that Yakov means it in the same sense. However there are echoes nevertheless of the negative implications of this loaded phraseology.

Yakov’s Karma*  (AR)  ^[2]

Echoes of his “vow”
We can see that Yakov is haunted throughout his life by echoes of the words in his (seemingly conditional) vow. His life tragedy is the disappearance and presumed death of his son Joseph and the words of the vow mirror these events:

• “If God will be with me”: As a result of his sorrow at the loss of Joseph he is not capable of receiving the divine presence (there is no communication between God and Jacob all those years) – effectively God leaves him.
• “and watch me on the way”: Joseph (and then Benjamin) disappears “on the way”.
• “will give me bread”: The brothers eat bread after selling him; also, there is a famine and therefore no bread, and he is convinced to send his children to Egypt for bread, where they encounter trouble;
• “will give me ….. clothing”: The brothers smear Joseph’s clothing with blood to make it look as though he was killed by an animal, and bring this ‘evidence’ to Yakov.
• “and I will return in peace to my father’s house”: Eventually instead it is Joseph who must be “returned in peace to his father’s house”.

Echoes of his deception of Isaac (AR)
Yakov is also haunted throughout his life by echoes of his deception of his father, even though it was justified. In a previous parsha we saw how the deception by Lavan regarding the switch of Leah for Rachel was an echo of this deception by Yakov: the same is true regarding the switching of Leah for Rachel via the flowers: the theme is identical:

• 25:29: Yakov purchases, from his sibling rival (Esav), a birthright (access to Yitschak’s blessing);
• 30:16 Leah  purchases, from her sibling rival (Rachel), a right (access to Yakov) leading to a birth.

(Clearly Yakov, Rachel, Leah and Esav are connected in various ways.)

the timing is the same:

• Yakov is approached by Leah when he returns from the field:
• Esav is approached by Yakov when he returns from the field.

even the means is similar!

• Yakov uses (cooked) vegetation as payment.
• Leah uses (aesthetic) vegetation as payment.

Firstborns are involved:

• Leah’s oldest son Reuven - the firstborn - gives her special flowers, which were used in barter.
• Yakov gives Esav -  the firstborn - a porridge, as barter for the birthright.

In fact, even the words are the same:

• 30:15 Leah says to her sibling rival: “you took my husband and now you want to take my flowers!?”
• 27:36 Esav says about his sibling rival: “he took my birthright and now he took my blessing!”

If Yakov behaved properly, why was he haunted so by his actions?

AR: In any given situation there is an optimal mode of conduct, but it is our responsibility not only to do what is right given the situation, but also to make the given situation the best possible. If as a result of non-perfect behavior the situation is far from optimal, then even correct deeds may have negative ramifications.

The relationship between Yakov, Rivka, Yakov and Esav was clearly not optimal. The same for the situation between Yakov, Rachel and Leah.  It may or may not be that Yakov could have done more – not that WE could have in the same situation, but perhaps he was so great that more was expected of him. Even if he could not possible have done more, events were divinely arranged to constantly remind him not to feel too comfortable with his previous actions, however justified.

If harsh action is necessary and justified, we must do it, and not be deterred by the harsh necessities; but we must execute our responsibilities not with smug self-satisfaction, but rather with sensitivity even to the enemy we must hurt. And we must also always be willing to question whether somehow perhaps additional sensitivity could also change the situation, and thereby also change the necessary actions.