Leah Feinberg- Middot of our Avot part 3- Nov 25, 2025

We are continuing our series with the mida of Yakovino. And I I have to tell you, oh, I just did this. Okay. In all honesty, I had like a funny um sort of entree to thinking about the mida of Yakovinu because when I was in college, I minored in English literature and I remember very clearly that I I don't remember I actually don't remember the book but I remember the feeling very clearly that I was reading some assigned work and I was confronted for the first time with the image of Yakov the way that he is portrayed in literature that is written by Christian authors sort of according according to Christian thinking about Yakovinu which is very different from ours. And I I remember the feeling of like shock like no wait a second you have it all wrong because in Christian theology Yakob is presented as deceitful. He's sly. The the the sly deceitful person personality who, you know, tricked his brother into selling the birthright and then deceived his father in order to steal the blessing that was really due to his brother and uh then again deceived his uncle and father-in-law Lavan into handing over to him a significant portion of his wealth. you know, never mind that YaKob was due a salary after working for him for 14 years. But Yakov was portrayed as this sly, deceitful character. And I remember that sense of shock as like really what? This is so not what I know about Yakovinu. We were always taught Yakovinu is the personification of emit of absolute truth and honesty and uprightness. So how could this be? So that that started me on a journey of thinking about sort of Yakov and who he is really and how it is that Khazal present him so differently from the way that people seem to have misunderstood him just from reading the text without any explanation. So that's that's where that's what sort of prompted this this discussion this thinking about this uh reality. Um, Yakov of course we know the the primary source for him as a paradigm of MS. One of the sources the para that we just read parasot when Rifka suggests to him that she's going to I mean first of all he's presented as an ish Tam Yosh ohim. So Tam here is from the lash of Tamim like perfect perfectly upright innocent um refined Yosh ohim kazal say in the tense of shame he in the tense of Torah he was steeped in Torah study and then when Rifka suggests to him that he disguise himself as go in and receive the blessing from Yakov that she knew was due him was to Jacob, even though Yeitzk had been misled um as to Asov's character and and to what he might need in order to serve Hashem. Uh Rifka says, you know, she tells him, "Go out. I'm going to prepare food for you and and we'll put the goat skins on your hands." And and Yakov is reluctant and he says, "ASV is hairy and I'm smooth. My father might feel me and he'll realize that I'm not Asov and I will be in his eyes as if I were deceitful. So the Rashi comments there on I will it will be as if I am deceitfully misleading him. as if not really I because you and I both know that I'm not doing something wrong that really this braha is rightfully mine however in his eyes it might appear deceitful so this is one of the sources that we always learned that Yakov was so careful about the mida of truth about sticking to absolute honesty that he was reluctant to even give the appearance and it's only beav init's eyes no one else is going to think ill of him. It's really only a question of will he be considered deceitful in the eyes of until it will be cleared up. So it's a you know very temporary thing and that will undermine the the says to him I'll take responsibility for any consequences and she says you just listen to me which basically turns it into a matter of like it's a question do as I tell you and ask no questions because you have an obligation to listen to me and then in that uh in in that frame within that framework he he then accepted her plan and acted accordingly. So what how how is this how does this mida of emit fit with Yakov and and what really is truth? So in order to really understand this we're going to look at two fundamental approaches going all the way back to the creation of the world. And the the first source that I brought is the Rambam in Morenovim. The Rambam says that he was asked the question by a very scholarly man, a peer apparently, a fellow scholar, a wise man. And he says as follows. This is what the the questioner said to me. He says, "It appears to me from a superficial reading, if you just read the text, it seems like the initial intention was that man be created just like all other creations without intellect and without the ability to think intelligently." and and he wouldn't be able to distinguish between that which is good and that which is bad because Hashem told him don't eat from the right we generally just but it's very specific to there's something about this tree that's going to impart knowledge that's going to allow you to distinguish between tove and rah good and evil. So it seems man was born with was created without this knowledge and when he sinned when he rebel when he rebelled against Hashem he benefited from his sin because that's what brought him the the thing that distinguishes man from the animals intellect. He gained intellect from sinning. And he and says the the questioner that that's an amazing thing. I'm skipping a little bit. That in consequence in as punishment for his rebelliousness, he was given this elevated quality that set him apart from the animals. So, how could it be that man benefited from his sin and knew something after the sin that he didn't have before? He was he was sort of gifted with intellect as a consequence of his sin. Doesn't make sense. So, the Rambam says, listen very carefully to my answer. And it's a lengthy answer. I just brought a small piece of it. Listen very well. This it is not at all how you think like your thinking is completely wrong here. If we look carefully at this, the intellect that Hashem gave to man and this is absolutely what completes me, what makes him certainly more elevated than of all the creations. And this came to man before his sin, before his rebellion. And we know this because Hashem commanded him something. First of all, there are two things. So man is created elohim. Man is created in the image of God. Clearly he's not an animal. Clearly he has a quality way above the animals. And that is the ability to think clearly as many of the commentators discuss. What does cameloim mean? When Hashem says we'll we will create manu or betella and that he was created in the image of God. Certainly that includes intellect. Secondly, man is commanded things. He's commanded miluar. He is commanded not to eat from the tree. In order to be commanded something, you have to be able to think and respond. Animals behave instinctively. They eat because they're hungry. They sleep because they're tired. Something is something is prompting them to sleep. It's very very basic fundamental behaviors. They don't have philosophical discussions about like what is our role in the world? What am I here to accomplish today? And this is it's not uh you know that's that's something that's clear from the beginning and the fact that Adam Harishon could be told do this don't do that that's already a choice and to be able to make that choice he had to have already had intellect so what changed what's what is this tovara and I really just brought the introduction to this whole piece that the Rambam then gets into at greater length Um, but the last line it's sort of second to last line, the end of the second to last line. That was before the before the choice was very clear. choosing between what's true and what's false. And everything that was true appeared good and everything that was false appeared bad. So I usually use the example of like the old black and white western movies. How did you know who the good guys were and who the bad guys were? The good guys were white and the bad guys were black and it was very clear in those days. The world in general was clearer in the days when there were black and white movies before everything became colorized and then the good guys became the bad guys. And I I really I think that the movie that changed all that was Oceans 11 where you were like rooting for the bad guys, right? I mean, okay, you're choosing between one set of criminals and another, but it's you're like really rooting for the for the bad guys to win. Might have been one of the last movies I saw also. So, it could be that that impacted the way I think. But these are the uh you know the world has changed and that's that's the kind of shift that occurred when Adam ate from the eight hadat that what's good no longer appeared good and what's bad no longer appeared necessarily bad. Bad could be disguised as a very good tasting fruit a very attractive looking good tasting fruit and yet it was wrong. So that kind of moral choice between good and evil as opposed to is what changed in the world and Jacob's mida is sort of going back to the pre you know pre world in ganeden where he lived in a world of truth of absolute clarity this is this is true this is right and than knowing what was anything that wasn't true was evil or false. Um so basically again and sheer become hidden after the that can't necessarily be ter be determined by what we see. It's something that we have to explore that we have to understand is this really as it appears and that's a challenge that was introduced into the world with the that's the roundabout. The second idea that relates to this is the midrash it's even earlier the midrash in brachi raba very famous midrash uh source number two wrote when Hashem decided to create man and he consulted with the with the angels. Right? That's the Hashem what's he even though he made man himself he consulted with the angels. What do you think I'm should I create man? And they were divided. They formed groups. Some said, "No way. Bad idea." And others said, "Yeah, sure. Let's let's bring man into the picture." And where do we find the source for this idea that they were divided? Shalom. That's the argued here is like they met in a debate and shalomish and shalom took up arms against one another said absolutely create man. Man is going to do amazing acts of that's going to bring really real goodness into the world. and truth said, "Do not create man. He's full of lies." Similar argument to sed he's bring man into the world. He's going to do amazing acts of charity. Shalom. Shalom takes the side of a do not create man. He is full of argument that the world is going to just become full of division and and and argument. So what we then have is a standoff. It's a tie. You have two advocating for the creation of man and two saying absolutely not really bad idea. So what does Hashem do? Fascinating midrash he took and threw it down to the earth. very esoteric concept. What does that mean? We'll see in a second. And we see this reflected in a you threw truth to the ground. When the Malim saw what Hashem had done, that he took truth and threw it down to the earth, they got all upset and they said, "You you are debasing your own like value. You are identified with truth completely. There's a we have an understanding that truth is the seal of truth exemplifies Hashem. How could you throw truth down to the ground? And Hashem responded to them and most say that Hashem was became angry with the Malikim and responded to them. Let truth spring forth from the earth. As it says again, truth will sprout will grow from the earth. There are many many questions about the sagata. It is very esoteric. What does it mean that the these values were were arguing against one another? We're going to look at two of the questions that are perhaps most relevant to our discussion. One is why did truth say man is kulo sheer man is full of li completely lies kuloskarim don't create man because he is kuloskarim how could that be we're we're not I mean okay we're not perfect but we're not all bad either like that that is not Jewish theology we have just as much potential to be good as to be bad so what is this kulo karim He is completely full of lies. Better not to create man at all. Secondly, I mean obviously the the whole question of throwing emit to the ground. What does that what does that mean? And then why emit specifically? You have two values arguing against the creation of man. Emit and shalom. So what what is to be gained? Why does Hashem single out emit and throw Emit out of the group and say, "Okay, now everything is resolved." Right? And now we have a majority two against one and arguing four. Shalom is the only one objecting. EMTT is out of the we we threw out you know it's like it's almost like a teacher throwing out but you know a teacher throwing a kid out of class because the kid said something the teacher didn't like right anyone who's in knows that's a really bad plan like it just it it's it's so old school and it it doesn't work because it just fermentss more you know bad feeling among all the kids like the the teacher couldn't handle it. So she threw so and so out of the class. So this whole idea of throwing out and then why emtt specifically. So there are many who explain this in different ways and many explain it in a similar way. I chose the emmed leakov for I guess obvious reasons because revakim kamineski zatal and this is our the subject of our discussion emit leakov. So what is what does reacki say? Again he's this is one expression of an idea that appears in many on this midrash. He says it appears to me we can explain this very simply simple straightforward truth says that man is full of lies. We have a principle that just as no two people look exactly alike, right? You could say, "Oh, you're a carbon copy of your mother." But there's always something of the other parent in there, right? Like a little uh something around the mouth, something around the eyes. Nobody is an exact carbon copy of anyone else. Just as no two people look exactly the same, so too no two sets of opinions are exactly the same. It's almost like, you know, we have uh coalitions where people uh form groups to work together. It's not because they share their their ideals are exactly the same as one another, but you choose to align yourself with those who are most like yourself. So no two sets of opinion are exactly the same. And that's what EMTT said meant when he saidim man is full of lies because you can't ever have two human beings who are going to be exactly the same. Not in appearance, not in externals and not in internals. That's just not the way Hashem created man. Hashem created man in and in such a manner. And that's what Hashem was saying to the to the malim. This is my plan. This is what I want to do. What do you think? I want to create man who is unique and every single person will be distinct and every person will have a unique and every person is going to have a unique set of qualities that's going to enable them to fulfill that. And EMTT is saying but that that stands counter to the principle of truth. What is truth? truth means is one clear right way to be and man can never match up to that. So that's kuloskarim and in terms of shalom if we take that objection out of the picture then shalom becomes that his argument becomes less strong because his argument this man is full of argument full of of disagreement. So if we take EMTT out of the picture and say there's not only one way of looking at things then yeah there may be disagreement but it's not as terrible like there's legitimate disagreement right there's which is a good thing. So that argument is close. So Hashem took and threw it to the earth. What does that mean that Hashem threw it to the earth? I'm two lines from the bottom. Hashem created a new reality with regard to truth. Truth became subjective. There's one objective truth from Hashem's perspective. But if we look at truth as as it exists in our world, truth is subjective. It's constantly changing because the reality is constantly changing. So in his safer in his gives the example of you know one day the comes into and says today in we need to say we're no longer saying and that's the right thing to do but six months later the comes back and says no don't say you're you're feel is invalid if you say what changed the reality changed. The date changed, the season changed, the law didn't change, Torah didn't change. So, it's in our world, things are constantly changing and shifting and that creates a difference in the way that we look at absolute truth. It's different perspectives. Um, the fact that there's absolute tr that there is relative truth allows for different possibilities. So, this is true both in limood and in life. That's that's an example of from life. But let's say in limu hatra. So you find in in parhatmok this is perhaps the most famous example the that you know kids the the first question when you're teaching this the kids always ask the youngest kids will always ask when we say in inmote the Torah tells us there arose a new king who didn't know Yseph right and that's when the sheep began and all the decrees he started to issue all the decrees and Rashi brings a famous meladash ram Well, one says kadash mamash he was there really was the old parro died and a new king arose and the other says no wasn't a new king at all but panim right he he acted as if he were new and had and didn't know anything about who y was and how he functioned absolute truth it's got to be one or the other right absolute truth it happened one way or the other either there was a new king or there wasn't the new king. Relative truth allows for different possibilities and the fact it enables us to understand something about the way history works. Even if there was that you know maybe there there was not a new king but he acted because even if even a new king Rashi goes on the next one to say like even if he were a new king what yeah Shery Yseph Yoseph was a he was Mishnell he saved the entire country. It's not possible that even a new king wouldn't have known of Yoseph and what he did for the country. So it it gives us the the fact that you can allow for this kind of disagreement allows us to understand kind of the workings of history. And you know from our perspective we say it's not so important. Do we really need to know was it a was it a new really a new king? Was it not a new king? It doesn't doesn't matter so much as what we learn from the different possibilities. So that's in the in the theoretical world. >> I think that true em is sometimes the fuel that fires a lack of shalom. Everyone thinks oh this is the and it goes on and on and so I understand throwing down because many times it's the enemy of it's the cause. >> Exactly. lack of shalom, >> right? Which is why once a met is thrown to the ground, shalom can remain in place because once you allow for this relative truth and and the idea that human beings should understand that anything that I perceive as truth is not black and white and there are shades of gray post, right? Because in in the world of human beings, in the realm of human beings, this is the post world. That's our reality that there are shades of gray and we have to allow for differences of opinion. Then shalom should be >> think is a shade of gray. There's black and white as well. >> Yes, there's certain thing. Look, there are certain parameters with the Torah, right? You're either within the or not. But within the there's gray because reality shifts. electricity is invented. How does that how does halaka re relate to this new invention of electricity and can we you know even though this is a big uh even before electricity the whole idea of of the the kayim who do not have any pre-existing even pre-existing flame burning on Shabbat and and Khazal did allow pre-existing flame on Shabbat. There's a there there's gray. There's definitely gray. The people who use the a people who don't use the people, you know, does that mean that the people who use the are are shabas? Like the people who don't use the should they relate to the people who do use the asab if there's basis for. So it it's it gets complicated. Um, relative truth allows for also like ethical decisionmaking in terms of truth. When do you when in what case do you have to tell the truth and in what case should you perhaps not tell the truth? So a classic example of this is given is that a a person is let's say running away from a bandit who attacked him and wants to kill him and he takes shelter in a house on the side of the road and he runs in and hides under the bed and the the the wouldbe murderer comes in after him and says to the Balhabay, "Where is that person? Did did this person come into your house and where is he hiding?" And the person says, "I cannot tell a lie. He's hiding under the bed." Is that the right thing to do? Is that the ethical thing to do? He's telling the truth. I can't tell a lie. So, this is a classic ethical quandry. You know, like the shades of truth. I didn't make that one up. Um, that that's that's one. And in general, that's the subject. You know, philos philosophers debate what's right. And this is the the really going back to the Rambam. That's the difference between emit and sheer and tov that sometimes what's to is not what might seem to us as what's true because do I tell the truth and we see this in in in Torah as well there are two occasions where um that are mentioned that come up in halakic literature and discussions where it's permissible to not lie outright but like certainly lie by omission or telling a little white lie in order to preserve shalom. So for example, when when Sarah laughed, right? And she said and my husband is old and I also am too old to bear a child. And when Hashem told Abraham that Sarah laughed, he left out the part when she said that and he just said she laughed and said I'm too old to have a baby. So it's leaving something out. and and and Kazal say that Hashem wanted to preserve shalom between husband and wife and therefore he didn't say that she said anything disparaging about Abraham and she only spoke about herself and later we see with with Yoseph and his brothers that his his brothers came to him and they said to him after Yakob died our father told us that we should ask that you know you need to forgive us like please forgive us and our father said that you should forgive us and and there should be shalom between Y Jacob didn't say any such thing. There's no record of Yakov ever saying such a thing. But they they wanted to bring about peace between themselves and Yoseph. So like a little a white lie and and Kazal say that's permissible for the sake of shalom. So there are there is the introduction of gray areas. So what in terms of Yakov, how does this all come back and and relate to Yakov? This Yakov lived in a world of absolute truth. That's his mida. He sees things in that very black and white, very clear. This is what Hashem wants of me. And the rest of us see things a little bit more um blurry like in it. We live in the alikra it's called in a world of lies in a world in which things are not necessarily to be taken at face value. So Destler explains this in in source number four. This is what happened with Jacob. When Yakov walked out and Asov comes in and Yitzk realizes that he gave the braha to Yakov and not to Asov. But he also realizes in that moment like that was what was intended to be. That's when he sort of gets a kesh that really Yakov was supposed to receive the braha. And he he trembled in fear, in great fear. And the midrash says the the walls of the house started boiling and it seemed like, you know, they were going to bake here. Meaning it it's all a metaphor. It's figurative that it became like extremely hot and and Yeitzk says in essence, who's going to burn for this? Who who's going to pay for this this miscarriage of justice that seems to have occurred here? Am I at fault or is Jacob at fault? He felt that there was something deceptive that took place here. This is Rabbel explaining the midrash. He he asked who is for this apparent deception that took place here. Did Yakov perhaps perform an act of deceit or trickery? Oh, whoa. Or is it himself who is responsible? Because he allowed himself to be tricked. And what does that mean? He allowed himself to be tricked saysler um that really he had not been forced into this deception when in that moment when he felt arms and he said I have a conundrum here. It sounds like Yakov and Kazal say it sounds like YaKob the tenor of the voice but also the fact that he was mentioning shame Hashem. Hashem made me successful in the field and that's how I was able to bring you your your meal so quickly. Right? the whole mentioning everything giving credit to Hashem that didn't seem didn't sound like as so it sounds like Yakov but at the same time it it feels like as so what's what's more a more profoundly sense like he's left with this conundrum he has to choose between his sense of hearing what he's hearing and his sense of touch and he chooses the sense of touch he says as it must be And then afterwards he says maybe I I wanted to think that I I I allowed myself to be fooled. What's interesting about this I allowed myself to be fooled is that later Raf Hersh will come along and explain brilliantly like really if the Rahers on parat is one of the most outstanding um perushim ever and it's a holding in terms very very important piece his approach is that the whole deception why did Rifka do this in the way of in a manner of deception why didn't she just confront Yeetszak so we talked about last week there some, you know, dissonance between Yitzk and Rifka and she didn't feel as comfortable with confronting him as the other wives of the Avote felt with their husbands. But Ravhurst says she wanted to show him how easily he could be deceived so that he would see that he had been deceived all along in the character of Asab. So she was deceiving him in order to undeceive him. Are Rehers's words there. So Yitzk feels all of a sudden this sense of whoa I is it me? Was I really that easily misled? The midash continues. Hashem said to your neither neither you nor Jacob is the problem here. Asab is the one who entrapped you. Asab is the one who is kitsai defe. He's the one with hunting in his mouth, entrapment in his mouth. Everything he says is a trap. All of his, you know, do we have to give maser on salt? Like it's false piety. Yes, he was the one who was misleading you all along. Rebes explains they're not the liars. between you and what just happened. You're giving him the you restored things to the way they're supposed to be to absolute truth. The who is the tricky one. He's been trying all along to take something that doesn't rightfully belong to him. continues and he says really Hashem revealed to us here. What is the definition of truth and falsehood? Maybe Jacob performed an act of overt deception. He did it very unwillingly. He was crying and he was forced to do it. This is the key phrase. He did not his intentions were not to benefit himself. What convinced him to to go through with this whole subtrifuge is because he knew he was going to achieve the outcome desired by Hashem. And that's Jacob is his yard stick was always Torah. What is the desired outcome according to Torah? What does Hashem want? Who says Raesler? Lies of that nature that lead to ultimate truth are truth. it it retroactively as is still around today and and this idea of like the colorizing the the painting things with different colors than they appear to be. Ravhers compares Asov to politicians of today. is this is diplomacy where you color things in ways that make them sound more appealing but really are very underhanded who is the one who in initiated this behavior where you could do every reprehensible act in the world gentlemen You could be a perfect gentleman, no trace of scandal, and yet be committing every sin in the book. Right? We I mean we don't have to name names, but if you think of certainly political figures, you know, you this is this is rampant where you have political figures who present themselves as they are handsome and put together and you know what they're doing behind the scenes. You don't want to know. It's uh this is but the that's asab that's the mid of Asab also like look at at the Nazis perfect gentlemen at home they were the ideal husbands right the perfect home we there are so many stories of how when they went home they were such good husbands and fathers and and and yet committed the most highest acts of cruelty things that man couldn't have imagined before that How can you be that? How can you live with that kind of contradiction that shouldn't that be like you you how do they sleep at night? Because that that's as the mida of asab is you can be one thing and present yourself as another and live comfortably with that. That's the mida of Asab. Yakov is truth. Yakov is there's no scandal and there's there you're a gentleman because that's who you really are. The fat elaborates very similarly to Rebesler just a different world. Rael was in the world of Muser in the world of the the whole who seems to have taken the through a deception and yet it was good in the eyes of Hashem. and he changes the word a little bit. Notma but cleverness. You have to be clever in order to do the will of Hashem. When it comes to you have to be a little bit clever. So what does that mean? What's the discussion in Kazal? There is a little bit like examples that are given are you have to come up with clever ways of fulfilling Hashem. If is that we say a certain amount of in a day, right? 100 a day. What happens on a fast day? You have to be ar you have to come up with with clever strategies to enable yourself to say more without eating. So a lot of the are we we say during davening but we're still left with a certain void. So how do you fill that void? So some examples are given like we know the the example of bam right you pass around some minhug to pass around bam on yam kipper. Why? It's not to revive people who are feeling faint. That's like the reason we smell is for the opportunity to make but there are others who go further and say like when you go to the bathroom and you know you have to say sorry afterwards. So walk home to go to the bathroom instead of going in. And on your way home, make sure you pass by a fragrant area and you have it an opportunity to say on on your way. So you create opportunities to do hashem with cleverness with like that's that's the be a little sly. That's what meant when they say that we have to come up with all kind, you know, be be clever, be a little bit tricky and trick oneself in order to fulfill the mitzvah. This is this will fix the the world of lies. He knew. So then he he the next piece is a little bit complicated where he says if somebody says I'll sin and I'll do chuva then what happens then that chuva is invalid. So he says the flip is also true. If if if that can be true that you invalidate chuva because your intention from the beginning was to sin then if your intention is to do something good and it comes through doing something less good that invalidates then it work the same principle applies and it invalidates the bad in order to achieve the good. Obviously, you know, this is something that has to be this is a very very deep suga and it has to be um handled very very carefully. It's not a blanket uh permission to behave immorally. But the the the point that he arrives at is that if man's primary driving force is is this desire to do things because that's what Hashem wants then that can obiate a lot of falseeness a lot of sheer this is a famous um quoteim sheer the word sheer does not have legs upon which it can stand firmly. The letters of the word sheer shin k and re all have one point. So they wobble. They stand you can't stand firmly on one leg. Whereas emmet the letters alf all have firm legs on the ground. So emmet stands firmly and shear is always going to wobble. It's always g you're never going to somebody starts a little my kids used to have a book when they were little. It's called Ellie's little white lie. Something like that. The little white lie. And the little white lie started out as like a little cute little thing like fluff ball like a little ball of cotton. And it grows and it grows and it grows because one lie leads to another because you have to cover up the first lie. So you tell another lie and another lie another and all of a sudden it becomes this monster that uh you can't you you keep you can no longer easily just flick off your shoulder. That's the the olam of sheer sheer. You're always going to have to cover up. It wobbles you. It leads you into more and more and more trouble. Emit is firm foundation. You'll stand strongly and you won't have to introduce new problems. Jacob's mida of emit is inextricably linked with Torah. As lady was saying before that the there is a clear line. There is at some point black and white. And we had seen earlier in our in the beginning of our discussion of the mid of the onote where he says is the mid of Abraham. Aod is the mid of and Torah is the mid of Jacob and Torah is always. So the maral continues in that same piece to Torah. Jacob has the mid of Torah in source number six as we as it says Jacob is always close to Torah. Right? Even all this time that I spent with Lavan, I kept all the mit of the Torah. Torah certainly don't don't be bothered with we have a a tradition that Abraham kept all the mitzvot of the Torah. So he goes on to say that that's true. Abraham kept the Torah that on a practical level applied Abraham kept all the mitzvah but limra that was the realm of Yakov. Yakov was Yoshaleim alba. He was infused with Torah. Everything that he thought, not just did, was infused with Torah. And that's why he says at the end we see in Mika Torah was given to Israel because of Jacob in the of Jacob. The last line the Torah of absolute truth was in Yakov's mouth. Torah which reflects EMTT was given specifically to Yakov because Yakov was he lived in that realm of Emtt. But how how today can we can we like live in that world? We live in the Olam of Sheir. So Revansel again in his gives the example of his teacher Levvenstein who he said whenever he was asked the time somebody asked him what time it is. So he would say it's 1112, right? So and even if you we go on it's like it's 11 if you had a real digital which I don't think they even had at that point digital clock like it's 11:12 and so and so many seconds quartz right and why because by the time you finish saying it it the time could have changed also we know this from you know lighting shabas candles like you can't wait until the last second because your clock might be off ordala you can't make Abdullah like at this man that's printed on the the card because when the sun exactly sets or the stars come out in exactly the location in which you're in might differ by a minute or two from the way it's printed on the card or your clock might not be 100%. You know, some people are neurotic and and my mother always tells a story of how when she was newly married, they had a a friend who was a physicist and they came for Shabas and he like ran around Arab Shabas synchronizing all the clocks in the house so they should move at exactly the same time. But that's you could make yourself crazy doing that. It's it's virtually impossible. So this is the you can try so how do you live within such a again this is because we live in a world that is not a world of absolute truth but Levenstein side tried by saying which reflects an awareness to live with an awareness of the fact that we're not living in a world of absolute truth. We may try our best to connect to the truth through Torah, but we're not achieving absolute truth. And absolute truth and in terms of living with this reality, absolute truth is identified with the mida of tera. Sometimes the mid of Jacob where we talked about the mid of being in in Cabala understood as in cabala the mida of Yakov is to farerit. Sovietic brings this in beautiful piece. When Yakov went to sleep at night, the midrash tells us that Jacob when he went to sleep at night gathered may that's in the right he gathered of the stones of the place plural and he put them under his head and in the morning it says singular that he took this the one stone that he had placed under his head. So how do you deal with this inconsistency of the many stones that he had placed under his head at night and the one stone that he took from under his head in the morning? So Rashi notes that while Yakov had originally placed many stones near his head, only one stone is mentioned here. And Rashi then cites a midrash indicating that the stones had quarreled among themselves, each wishing to be the one upon which Yakov rested his head. God therefore merged the stones into one rock. Okay, we're going to skip the next couple of lines because that gets into another idea. But he continues in the next paragraph. Cabalists suggest that the stones are symbols of the seven basic sphero out of which the world came into being and the conflict occurred between the spirro of represented by Abraham and Gavur represented by Yetsk. The stones merged and found harmony in the spir of Tiferet represented by Yakov. Tiferet creates harmony. Truth creates harmony. But harmony has to be born out of a certain tension. And I remember a column that I had read years ago and I found it. I was able to recover it by Raviana Rosen Bloom from Harnov. He writes in Mishbah magazine. He writes in a lot of different places. Um very interesting ideas. And he he wrote about this living with complexity that Yakov represents the highest level of perfection. Abraham produced Ishmael. Yetsk produced an asab. But Yakov's progyny became the 12 tribes. Each of them entered into Kal Israel and Abraham's defining me was Yetsk was Gur and Yakov's characteristic of Emmit can be viewed as a synthesis of the two. So okay that's we all know that raises an interesting question. Why did Hakesh Bar have to proceed through Abraham to reach Jacob? We asked this question initially. Why do we mean three a vote and not just we would talk about the three aote as opposed to one grandfather you know father grandfather and great-grandfather or grandfather son grandson three avote individually. So why did Hashem set it up that way? Why could he not have just started with the embodiment of emacob? Apparently says Ra Rosen Bloom a met could only arise out of a creative tension between and din that tension was a necessary condition for reaching the ultimate perfection. He gives an example. He says my friend Rev Aaron Lupianski first articulated this insight while counseling a young Balchuba who was torn between his desire to deepen his own garra learning and his sense of obligation to share what he had already learned with the great majority of Jews who have never tasted Torah in their lives. And this is a conundrum that many not just balicha but many bay yesa face like at what point do I leave the bish and go out and start teaching what I know right it it it's when when do I do I feel that I know enough that I can do something different that I can go out and and teach so lapiansky answered to him the most important thing told him was to continue to live with the tension rather than to try to deny by the validity of either goal. And this is when we try to define everything as right and wrong and what's the right thing to do, what's the wrong thing to do and there's a black and we look at it as black and white. We are shortch changing ourselves. We have to live with tension. Sometimes the important thing is to live with the question. I actually just had this experience and I I don't really remember. I don't know if I told this to you already. Um I was at a wedding recently and a former student of mine came up and she said she canara you know has a family of her own already. So this is quite a number of years ago and she said I remember um many years ago in class like you were talking about something you're very passionate about making aliyah and and moving to Israel. So and somebody said so what are you still doing here? So why are you still here? And I said, apparently she told me that she remembered my answer was I asked myself that question every day. And that's this idea of like I lived with that tension for a long time and I had to have an answer, you know, and as long as I can have an answer, okay, but if I can't answer the question and why am I have with a valid answer, not because whatever. Uh but there there are reasons and sometimes we have to live with tension. And we have to acknowledge that we're living with tension and that tension ultimately will hopefully lead to harmony as long as we keep re-evaluating. Right? If we just shove it aside, the important thing he goes on to say is not to suppress one side of the argument, but to take what is of value from both sides of the argument and create harmony. Another example that he gives later in the article is right when in the beginning ofus there was a lot of opposition to the ideas that was teaching with you know on on some grounds and there were there were reasons for on both sides but the opposition was very very strong there was a strong you know real animosity on both sides and today most there there's a lot more harmony. I mean, there are still differences that exist, but there's a lot more harmony. And you have many yeshivot, many mainstream litfish that teachidic texts. And yes, my son is a rashiva. He's a rush kasid. He's the only lit. Sorry, there's one other um but it's he has the the sons of Adorim in his coll. And why do they come to his coll? because he's teaching litish methodology to and they feel like they he has he's opening this whole new world to them and they value it tremendously and he literally he has from big admarim that this is an approved method of study for their most elite aim it's an it's a it's a little bit you know it's an elite coal they have to take tests it's a serious place but even whole idea that they have to take tests. That's not there. It's and he's taking them from the gar all the way through literature up to contemporary postkim and what's the and he's teaching them a very litish methodology in a veryish yeshiva like the you see the the the come out of the skull they walk out of the col they're allish. Uh so it's it's the world has changed but and living we've live because of the tension we're able to create a new harmony that enriches our experience of serving Hashem and that's really what we're going for and that's the value of Jacob is to look at things in terms of how does this contribute to my service of Hashem and can I harmonize can I bring about some kind of synthesis between opposing ideas and find a path of emit of truth that leads me to better service of Hashem. This is the last source you have the speaking of um the Jacob is together harmonized in the mid of that's why he is the choice of the Yov achieved the level of sanctifying oneself in performing that which those things that are permitted to us. Not he's not turning things taking something that's that's black and making it white. But do things in the best way possible. And he goes on to say because if you only serve Hashem with a there are going to be challenges that you will encounter that you won't be able to surmount. And the same thing is true if you only approach the world with ya with din with gura. There are going to be challenges that you'll face that we can't surmount. The only way we can possibly surmount all the challenges that we'll face in our lives is through some kind of synthesis of and of gura and that we are going to take both of those two. Yes. Do but know the limits of that. Yes, be loving and kind, but you can't be loving and kind to the extent that you cross the line of hala. That's that's a black and white line. So know yet be giving but know the limits of that of the of giving and reaching again that balance that harmony that synthesis that's the mida of that is the mida that has enabled us to survive both as a nation up to this point and as individuals that's what keeps us going finding the balance finding the right synthesis between opposing forces in order to become the best possible servant of Hashem that we can be >> question the tension between and what did you say >> two really good words >> those two words between