by Rabbi Shlomo Goldberg

Al Pi Darko - According to His Way
Insights into Chinuch from the Weekly Sedra

In the bad old days of corporeal punishment of children, a father would often rationalize his actions with the words, "Son, this is going to hurt me much more than it is going to hurt you." My guess is that if this were really true, the father would have come up with an alternative to the potch. Still, the voiced sentiment is a positive one. There are many times when chinuch (educational approach) demands that there be strong consequences, natural or otherwise, for a child's misbehavior. However, as we will see from two interactions between Yaakov and Eisav, if we can remove our ego and personal feelings from our disciplinary actions, they will be more effective or perhaps not even necessary at all.

In the realm of the body, there is a controversy over the efficacy of homeopathic remedies. Homeopathy operates on the assumption that the same substances that cause illness when taken in large quantities actually heal a person when taken in miniscule amounts in a specifically prescribed fashion. In the realm of the spirit, however, homeopathy rules. In Parashas Toldos, the Netziv (Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Berlin, the headmaster of the great yeshiva in Volozhin for 40 years) explains that there are times and places when middos (personality traits) that are destructive when used in their customary doses, become mitzvos when taken under the direction of world-class spiritual doctors, the Torah giants of every generation. Thus, Yaakov Avinu was allowed to use the normally destructive midda of deceit to take Yitzhak's blessing from Eisav, since he used it one time only, and then under the direction of his mother and homeopathic spiritual therapist, Rivka Imeinu. In such cases, says the Netziv, the bad midda or transgression is as great in its time, as a mitzvah is in its time.

Since according to the Netziv, Yaakov used the midda of deceit therapeutically and correctly, it is difficult to understand our Sages' analysis that Yaakov's children were punished for his actions by a descendent of Eisav centuries later. The Medrash in Megillas Esther states that since Yaakov's deceit caused Eisav to cry "a great and bitter cry," therefore, Mordechai in turn cried such a cry at the hands of Eisav's descendent, Haman. Since Yaakov used his deceit therapeutically, under the direction of a prophetess, why was Mordechai made to pay the price years later?

Similarly, we find that as Yaakov is preparing to meet Eisav in this week's sedra, he is concerned that Eisav will want to marry his daughter, Dina. Therefore, Rashi explains that Yaakov decides to hide Dina in a box. For the infraction of refusing to allow Dina to marry Eisav in a permissible fashion, Rashi states that Dina was therefore captured and taken by Schem in a forbidden fashion. For had Yaakov allowed her to marry Eisav, perhaps she would have inspired him to repent. Even granting the tremendous effect that a righteous wife can have on even the most recalcitrant husband, it is difficult to understand the drastic consequences of Yaakov's seemingly innocent act. Firstly, it was only a possibility that Dina could change Eisav. How could that possibility overcome the established certainty of Eisav's evil nature? Secondly, as we know nowadays, it is difficult to find a shidduch (match) for children of all but the finest families. How can Yaakov then be faulted for not wanting his daughter to marry a person who had regularly committed the three cardinal sins?

According to both the Netziv and the Alter of Slobodka, Yaakov's impropriety is found only in the depths of his most hidden feelings and motivations. The Netziv explains that although indeed Yaakov's actions in deceiving his brother were in the category of an aveira leshma, a transgression for the sake of heaven, and therefore permitted, this permission is contingent upon the absolute purity of his motivation. When Yaakov heard how upset Eisav was over losing the bracha, instead of deeply regretting that he had needed to proceed in a fashion that caused such pain, the Netziv explains that Yaakov "samach b'libo" - rejoiced in his heart to some minor extent, over tricking his evil brother. An aveira leshmah must be purely leshmah, and any pleasure or benefit that accrues to the perpetrator is considered a transgression. It was for this moment of almost indiscernible pleasure, at Eisav's expense, that Mordechai was destined to cry in pain at the hands of Eisav's descendent, Haman.

In the same way, the Alter explains that Yaakov Avinu was certainly not punished for refusing to allow his daughter to marry his evil brother, on the chance that she might be a positive influence upon him. The punishment came because of the imperceptible feeling of satisfaction that Yaakov felt as he pounded the nails into the box, knowing that he was getting back at Eisav by denying him the opportunity to marry Dina. Yaakov had the right to protect his daughter from Eisav, but he had no right, even in the smallest way, to enjoy it.

An halachic (Jewish legal) manifestation of this principle is found in the laws of loshon hara (inappropriate speech). Rav Yisroel Meir Kagan, author of the Chofetz Chaim, explains that even in those cases in which it is obligatory to reveal negative information about another, it is forbidden to derive personal benefit or satisfaction by doing so. For example, one must reveal to a potential business partner of Reuven that Reuven had stolen from him in the past. However, his sole intention must be to help the potential victim. It must be seen as a tough job that unfortunately someone had to do. If the motivation is mixed with feelings of sweet revenge, then while being rewarded for the mitzvah of saving his friend, he will be simultaneously punished for deriving personal pleasure from it.

What remains still to be explained is why deriving pleasure from mitzvos that utilize bad middos such as deceit, revenge or loshon hara for a positive purpose must be totally pure? Other mitzvos, while pursued ultimately for the sake of heaven, can be enjoyed along the way as well. I suggest that the reason is because the use of the option of an aveira leshmah is only when there is no alternative. For example, the Chofetz Chaim cited above states, that if one can protect the victim without revealing the negative information, then he is forbidden to reveal it. If one retains personal, egocentric motivation in his disciplinary actions towards another, then there remains the possibility that there was a kinder, gentler alternative that he overlooked.

Both the Sefas Emmes in Parashas Vaeitze and Rav Dessler in the fifth volume of his book, Michtav M'Eliyahu, state this explicitly concerning Yaakov Avinu. Since he had the power of chesed (loving kindness, says Rav Dessler) and emmes (truth, says the Sefas Emmes) at his disposal, Yaakov Avinu could have been brought Eisav closer to a life of Torah, truth, and meaning (says the Sefas Emmes). Alternatively, he could have prayed that Hashem create for Eisav life circumstances that elevate his point of free will, and arouse in him an internal motivation to repent, as the saying goes, "There are no atheists in foxholes (Sefas Emmes). Either way, Yaakov had alternatives to the aveiros leshmah of deceit and revenge that he used. For this, Yaakov and his descendents were punished, and, moreover, Eisav was lost as a potential ally to the Klal Yisroel.

There is a story related about a Rav in Germany who punished his child's misbehavior by serving him plain bread for breakfast, instead of bread with jelly. But on those days when he had to punish his child, the Rav ate plain bread as well. The nonverbal message was clear: I am doing this for your sake, my child, with no personal satisfaction at all. If it doesn't hurt me more than you, at least I share a bit in your pain, and if there was an alternative, we both would be enjoying the jelly. This is the empathetic attitude we need to convey to our children along with our discipline. Similarly, baalei teshuva must make it clear to their non-religious family members that they take no pleasure in excluding themselves from family events held on Shabbos or in non-kosher facilities. It is just a tough situation for which there is no other moral recourse. When children and adults know that our tough stands are absolutely necessary and meant exclusively for their benefit, then the relationship will not only be saved, but also ultimately enhanced through the integrity of our actions.

Parsha-Parenting, Copyright (c) 1999 by Rabbi Shlomo Goldberg and Project Genesis, Inc. Rabbi Goldberg is the menahel (spiritual advisor) of Yeshivas Ohr Eliyahu, and a highly acclaimed and popular speaker in Los Angeles.