<HTML>In reference to the issue of ethics and parshat hashavua, i'd like to
relate something i heard from Rav Aharon Lichtenstein in a sicha (speech)
given at a shabbat meal in yeshiva 2 years ago.
Rav Lichtenstein suggested trying to imagine ourselves in Rivka Imeinu
Yaakov Avinu's position. By this point in the story, the birthright
already belonged to Yaakov as a result of a sale which occured earlier on
the parsha. Therefore Yaakov knew that there was no actual lie, trickery,
or theft involved in trying to get the blessing intended for Esav. Rivka
as well was aware of Yaakov's rights to the blessing from one of 2 ways
(or both). First of all she was told in a prophecy "the elder shall serve
the younger"("v'rav yaavod tzair")-as the Rashbam points out. Second of
all, considering her close relationship with Yaakov her son, he probably
told her at some point about his acquisition of the birthright.
The question at this point is- even if there was no actual lying involved
why couldn't Yaakov and Rivka just approach Yitzchak in a sraight and open
fashion instead of going behind his back? Rav Lichtenstein explained that
rivka was actually being very sensitive to her elderly and sick husband by
preferring to "get" Yaakov the blessing without having to explain to
Yitzchak all the bad deeds and traits of his beloved and favorite son
Esav. Another example of this sensitivity is found in the continuation of
this story where Rivka, while trying to convince Yitzchk to send Yaakov
away, prefers to tell Yitzchak that it's because she is disgusted with the
"daughter's of Heth-the daughter's of the land" rather than telling him
the real reason that Esav, his favorite son, wants to kill Yaakov. Rather
than understanding that Rivka and Yaakov resorted to mere trickery-we see
that they went with the best option possible in what was a complicated and
sticky situation.
As for Rav Yair Kahn's point that we needn't be frummer than the Ramban in
our approach towards criticizing the actions of the avot, I'd like to
relate another point made by Rav Lichtenstein in the same sicha. The above
sicha was given as a response to a dvar Torah given by a student in the
yeshiva which was very critical of Yaakov Avinu's behavior, and, in turn,
chazal's attributing to Yaakov the virtue of truth. Rav Lichtenstein
explained that even chazal were critical of the avot in specific
situations. However, their criticism was given from a specific point of
view. Firstly, they accepted the greatness of the avot. Secondly, they
were overwhelmed by the specific virtues of each of the avot which they in
turn attributed to them respectively-the truthfulness of Yaakov and the
kindness of Avraham. Rav Lichtenstein felt that people who apply their own
moral standards -- their standard of truth in judging Yaakov's actions or
their standard of kindness in judging Avraham's willingness to slaughter
his son at the akeida -- are out of place. Avraham Avinu acted out of
outstanding fear and love of God not out of lack of kindness for his son.
One who finds Avraham Avinu's action troubling by his standard of kindness
must realize that Avraham's standard was "1,000 squared times higher"(it
sounds better in Hebrew) than his. The same goes for Yaakov Avinu's
standard of truth.
So, with that in mind, I don't think that it is an issue of being frummer
than the Ramban but rather of being at least as careful (if not a little
more careful) as the Ramban in our criticism of the avot, considering our
level of scholarship in understanding the stories and our moral standards
in comparison to those of the Ramban and of course those of the avot
themselves.
Hayyim Zweiter
Alon Shvut</HTML>
