INSIGHT 5767 - #10 DIN V'CHESHBAN Rashi, Bereishit 28:9 states that
Yosef was away from Yaakov Avinu for 22 years as
punishment to Yaakov for being away from his parents for
22 years. Rashi further explains that Yaakov was so
punished for by remaining in Lavan’s house and
building a family during this time, Yaakov effectively
barred himself from fulfilling the mitzvah of
honouring his parents. Yet, Yaakov, during this time was
actually acting in accord with Yitzchak and Rivka’s
directive to him to escape from Esav and to choose a wife
from the daughters of Lavan;1 how could he,
therefore, be culpable for staying away? Sefat Emet,
VaYeitze 634.states that, in reality, Yaakov’s
entire sojourn with Lavan can be compared to the
punishment of exile that is meted out to someone who
kills accidentally. He adds that this was because Yaakov
really had the power to reach out to Esav and draw him
closer to God. Yaakov, though, did not recognize his own
spiritual strength and, as such, adopted a different path
in his relationship with Esav, maintaining a distance --
which would, in fact, have been a correct path for anyone
else. The result was the friction that ensued and,
eventually, the need for Yaakov to escape to Lavan’s
house. All that occurred was the result of Yaakov’s
mistaken perception that he had to maintain a distance
and, so, Yaakov’s separation from Yitzchak and Rivka
really was comparable to one who kills by mistake.2
This presents a most interesting perspective on
understanding the flow of life and the changing nature of
the decisions that we are called upon to make. Clearly,
Yaakov’s decision to flee to Lavan’s house was
a correct one. Furthermore, given the facts at this point
in time, the action and subsequent separation from his
parents was not, in any way, a direct violation of the mitzvah
to honour his parents. Yet, this specific situation arose
as a result of decisions made years before which the Sefat
Emet describes as incorrect decisions. Yaakov was
still to be held responsible for his prior mistakes even
as he made proper decisions given the circumstances
before him now. This is the nature of life. As much as we
wish to correct our mistakes and make correct decisions
in the moment, there is the reality of the circumstances
in which we now find ourselves, the result of previous
decisions. We still must make decisions given these
circumstances yet that does not mean that, even as we
make the proper decision given the circumstances, the
decision is really, within the broader perspective, the
correct decision. We often create these circumstances as
a result of previous, incorrect decisions and may still
be held culpable for having created these circumstances.
In a strange way, Yaakov had to do something that was
wrong within the broader perspective because the
circumstances now deemed it to be correct within the
current given perspective – and he was thus still
culpable for having to be away from his parents for so
long.
Rabbi Moshe Friedman, Thought of the Week, Or Torah,
Vayeshev defines this reality as reflected in the
term din v’cheshban, judgement and
evaluation. He explains that often what one does is
clearly proper given the parameters of judgement as it is
before him/her in the moment. Still, in terms of the
broader evaluation with consideration of one’s life
as a whole and the decisions previously made, with
consideration of how this person found himself/herself in
these circumstances, we may draw a different conclusion
about our level of responsibility and culpability. But,
still, is there nothing we can do? Are we now victims of
our conclusions subject to continue to pay the price for
previous mistakes and destined to continue to make
decisions given the circumstances albeit that they are
still negative in the broader perspective? The answer is
oftentimes yes and this it what occurred in Yaakov’s
life. The story of Yosef and his brothers and the story
of Chanukah, though, inform us that sometimes we can
affect the broader perspective of life and re-create the
circumstances.
Many question why Yosef waited for his brothers to come
to him rather than immediately informing Yaakov, when he
became viceroy, that he was alive. Similarly, many
question why Yosef initiated this charade in response to
his brothers’ request for grain. Yosef did not wish
to simply make the proper decisions given the
circumstances. He wished to change the circumstances.
This cannot always be done. Even when it can be
attempted, it must be recognized that such an undertaking
is not an easy one and must be carefully considered and
can also have its consequences. His plan demanded years
in order to come to fruition and focused on the essence
of what needed to be corrected, not just the outer shell
of behaviour – and in the end he still was not sure
if he accomplished this goal.3
Chanukah, similarly, has this theme of not simply living
by the circumstances but attempting to change the
circumstances. When only one small jar of oil was found,
the circumstances deemed it impossible to fulfill the mitzvah
of lighting the menorah properly; it could only
now be lit for 1 day until new, pure oil could be
delivered in 8 days. And the people acted within the
parameters of the circumstances even though, from the
broader perspective, the mitzvah would still be
lacking. The miracle that occurred was that God
miraculously intervened to change the circumstances and
allow the mitzvah to be fulfilled even within the
broader perspective. In the world of din
v’cheshban we also have another alternative; we
can ask God to intervene, not only to not hold us
responsible on the level of cheshban, but to
somehow affect the circumstances so that the cheshban
is also proper. The great challenge, and this is perhaps
part of the lesson of the sad final chapter of the Chashmonayim,
is that we cannot always rely upon this intervention
– it is God’s decision to act above nature, not
ours – and so we must make decisions based on the
circumstances within the parameters of what we can do
given the natural facts.
Life is dynamic and builds from one moment to the next.
One of the great tragedies of existence is hindsight
– recognizing that with the knowledge that one has
now, he/she would have made a different – better,
more righteous – decision in the past. This is part
of the process of teshuva, but nonetheless we
often still find ourselves bound by the parameters of
these decisions, these incorrect decisions. Teshuva
cannot generally change the circumstances and, sadly, we
often find ourselves bound by the parameters created by
these incorrect decisions. The answer cannot be to simply
ignore this reality. The call of Torah is to make the
best decision today given these circumstances – even
as these decisions may reflect the continuation of our
past mistakes. That, according to the Sefat Emet, is the
lesson of Yaakov. Yet, the story of Yosef informs us
that, sometimes, there is the possibility to also affect
the circumstances although this is often a difficult
undertaking and must be recognized as such. It is not
always an alternative and, even when it is, it demands
much consideration and thought. We, though, do have an
alternative that always exists. We can, even as we act
within the circumstances, always pray to God for a
miracle – to intervene and bring about a change in
the circumstances. Perhaps God does, perhaps He does not
– that is His cheshban; but the reality is
that He can. This is the story of Chanukah. Rabbi Benjamin Hecht e-mail Notes (1)
See Bereishit
27:42-28:6. Return to top |
© 2006 NISHMA