Overview
After Yaakov had a dream where he received nevuas Elokim that told him to leave Lavan, why did he seek Rachel and Leah's advice and consent about leaving?
1. Rav Gifter
When your mitzva creates a burden for another person, you have to discuss it with him first.
2. The Shlah, Reb Moshe, and lhbchlch Rav Sternbuch
Mitzvos should be done with the understanding that they are Hashem's gifts to us. It is wrong to do them because we have no choice, and consider them to be burdens and hardships that we have to endure. It is important to understand this ourselves, and to explain to everyone involved why the mitzva is so right and so good, in order that they should realize and appreciate that Hashem gave us the mitzva for our to'eles.
3. The Seforno per Reb Chaim Brown
Yaakov wasn't asking whether to go. He assumed they would go, but was asking for advice about the best way to go - should he tell Lavan, or sneak away.
4. Abarbanel
The Abarbanel says in 28:16, on the story of the Sulam, that Yaakov made the neder because he wasn't sure if his vision was a prophecy or just a dream. This was, he says, Yaakov's first experience with Nevu'ah, so, as was the case with Shmuel Hanavi, he was not sure what had happened. If so, perhaps we can say the same is true here, that Yaakov wasn't be 100% sure whether it was nevu'ah or just a dream. I don't like this approach. It was not the first time, and he certainly knew by then that it was Nevu'ah.
5. RDNJS and ENE, crystallized by a he'ara from Rav Moish Pollack.
This event is a perfect example of בדרך שהאדם רוצה לילך מוליכין אותו. It seems clear that that the tzivui of Hashem was catalyzed by Yaakov's personal choice, by Yaakov's decision to follow this particular path. That being the case, Yaakov was obligated to discuss it with the people whose entire lives were affected by his choice.
I really like this explanation because of how well it fits the order of pesukim and shtims with the story of Miriam and Aharon against Moshe.
Discussion
Yaakov had a nevu'ah that he should leave Lavan.
31:3
Instead of immediately packing his bags, he discussed this with his wives.
31:4
31:11-13
31:16
I'm going to assume that the Torah would not tell us the story unless he could have imposed his will upon them but chose not to (but the Abarbanel here does say that could not have done it without their help - אבל בעבור שלא היה לו כח ללכת אם לא ברצון נשיו וחפצהן ודעתן הוצרך לדבר על לבן .) If that is the case, why did discuss it with them? Was his obedience to the prophetic command conditional on their agreement? And once he told Rachel and Leah about the Nevu'ah, the first thing they should have said was that if that's what the malach said, that's what they need to do. Why all the hesitation, and seeking counsel, the "חשבון שכר מצוה כנגד הפסדה," and making a decision?
The nevu'ah was a command. Why wouldn't that mandate immediate obedience? When the RBSO told Avraham to be makriv Yitzchak, Avraham Avinu did not call a family conference to discuss it with Sara and Yitzchak.
Reb Tal Benschar reminds us that we don't really know that the tzivui applied to anyone but Yaakov. It could be that the women had no tzivui at all, so he really had to convince them to come along with him. R Tal sees this in the Ramban, who says (31:13)
1.
Rav Gifter
We find a similar "seeking counsel after a tzivui" with Avraham Avinu. After the tzivui of Bris Milah, Avraham Avinu sought the counsel of his compatriots.
Rashi in the beginning of Vayeira brings from the Medrash Rabba that Avraham sought the advice of Aneir, Eshkol, and Mamrei.
The Medrash, 42:8
Those words of Rav Gifter, אין מצוה שלו כלפי בוראו פוטרת אותו מלקיים חיובו שנתחייב לאחרים, would help explain why Yaakov discussed the tzivui with Rachel and Leah.
This reminds me of a teshuva in the Igros EH II:12 where the husband did not want his wife to wear a sheitel, because he wanted to be noheig like those poskim that prohibit wearing it. Reb Moshe says
(This teshuva has to be reconciled with his Teshuva OC I 158 where he says that in general, a woman that gets married is like someone that moves from a place with minhagim X to a place with minhagim Y, and
צריכה להתנהג במנהגי בעלה בין לחומרה בין לקולה
The difference might be that one depends on whether the husband's hanhaga is because he is part of a tzibbur with that hanhaga, or because he personally is noheig that way. Another difference is whether the hanhaga is relevant to the husband at all.)
In any case, we see an approach that where a person has a tzivui from the RBSO, and that tzivui might have a negative impact on others to whom he owes loyalty, he is required to discuss it with them.
Reb Chaim Brown showed me an amazing Netziv along the same lines. On the passuk that says that Reuven did something inappropriate regarding Bilha, the passuk that had previously used the name Yakov now says Yisrael. The Netziv says that Yaakov was so distraught when Rachel died, that he sought comfort through dveikus with Hashem, to come to the madreiga where he could accept Hashem's gzeira with simcha. That is why the name is now Yisrael, the perfect spirituality mankind can achieve. The Netziv says that because Yaakov was so withdrawn into dveikus, he didn't realize that Reuven was going off. Had he retained some of his Yaakov, he would have seen it and prevented it from happening. This is an implicit criticism of the pursuit of ruchniyus at the expense of someone to whom you have personal obligations.
I don't know how Rav Gifter would explain why this did not apply by the Akeidah.
Also, I still don't know why Rachel and Leah didn't immediately say yes, why they did a cost-benefit analysis.
2(a).
From Reb Menachem Shafran: Darash Moshe here.
Reb Moshe is saying that the חשבון שכר מצוה כנגד הפסדה is indeed an important part of kiyum hamitzvos.
Rav Chaim Ehrman, in his book My Rebbe, Rav Schwab, quotes Rav Schwab as applying Reb Chaim Volozhener's rule that le'olam yaasok....shemitoch....lishmah is not an "even," it is davka. With that he says that Yaakov wanted them to do the mitzva with at least some element of Shelo Lishma. This is kind of similar to Reb Moshe's approach.
2(b). Also from Reb Menachem Shafran, Taam Vadaas here:
First, Yaakov decided it was time to go. To go, he needed to be financially independent. He told Lavan his plan, and he executed his plan. He saw that Lavan's sons were angry and envious, and he would have to leave. THEN, AND ONLY THEN, does he get input from the Malach Elokim, who told him it was time to go. This is clearly a post facto validation of a plan that Yaakov had conceived long before and whose process he had already begun implementing.
After Yaakov had a dream where he received nevuas Elokim that told him to leave Lavan, why did he seek Rachel and Leah's advice and consent about leaving?
1. Rav Gifter
When your mitzva creates a burden for another person, you have to discuss it with him first.
2. The Shlah, Reb Moshe, and lhbchlch Rav Sternbuch
Mitzvos should be done with the understanding that they are Hashem's gifts to us. It is wrong to do them because we have no choice, and consider them to be burdens and hardships that we have to endure. It is important to understand this ourselves, and to explain to everyone involved why the mitzva is so right and so good, in order that they should realize and appreciate that Hashem gave us the mitzva for our to'eles.
3. The Seforno per Reb Chaim Brown
Yaakov wasn't asking whether to go. He assumed they would go, but was asking for advice about the best way to go - should he tell Lavan, or sneak away.
4. Abarbanel
The Abarbanel says in 28:16, on the story of the Sulam, that Yaakov made the neder because he wasn't sure if his vision was a prophecy or just a dream. This was, he says, Yaakov's first experience with Nevu'ah, so, as was the case with Shmuel Hanavi, he was not sure what had happened. If so, perhaps we can say the same is true here, that Yaakov wasn't be 100% sure whether it was nevu'ah or just a dream. I don't like this approach. It was not the first time, and he certainly knew by then that it was Nevu'ah.
5. RDNJS and ENE, crystallized by a he'ara from Rav Moish Pollack.
This event is a perfect example of בדרך שהאדם רוצה לילך מוליכין אותו. It seems clear that that the tzivui of Hashem was catalyzed by Yaakov's personal choice, by Yaakov's decision to follow this particular path. That being the case, Yaakov was obligated to discuss it with the people whose entire lives were affected by his choice.
I really like this explanation because of how well it fits the order of pesukim and shtims with the story of Miriam and Aharon against Moshe.
Discussion
Yaakov had a nevu'ah that he should leave Lavan.
31:3
ויאמר יהוה אל־יעקב שוב אל־ארץ אבותיך ולמולדתך ואהיה עמך
Instead of immediately packing his bags, he discussed this with his wives.
31:4
וישלח יעקב ויקרא לרחל וללאה השדה אל־צאנו
He told them why he wanted to leave, and he also told them that he had a dream, and a malach told him to leave. 31:11-13
ויאמר אלי מלאך האלוקים בחלום יעקב ואמר הנני
ויאמר שא־נא עיניך וראה כל־העתדים העלים על־הצאן עקדים נקדים וברדים כי ראיתי את כל־אשר לבן עשה לך
אנכי האל בית־אל אשר משחת שם מצבה אשר נדרת לי שם נדר עתה קום צא מן־הארץ הזאת ושוב אל־ארץ מולדתך
They didn't immediately say that he should do what the Malach told him. They agreed with him that he had been cheated by their father, and that he would never be independent if he stayed there, and that it was time to leave. 31:16
כי כל־העשר אשר הציל אלוקים מאבינו לנו הוא ולבנינו ועתה כל אשר אמר אלוקים אליך עשה
I'm going to assume that the Torah would not tell us the story unless he could have imposed his will upon them but chose not to (but the Abarbanel here does say that could not have done it without their help - אבל בעבור שלא היה לו כח ללכת אם לא ברצון נשיו וחפצהן ודעתן הוצרך לדבר על לבן .) If that is the case, why did discuss it with them? Was his obedience to the prophetic command conditional on their agreement? And once he told Rachel and Leah about the Nevu'ah, the first thing they should have said was that if that's what the malach said, that's what they need to do. Why all the hesitation, and seeking counsel, the "חשבון שכר מצוה כנגד הפסדה," and making a decision?
The nevu'ah was a command. Why wouldn't that mandate immediate obedience? When the RBSO told Avraham to be makriv Yitzchak, Avraham Avinu did not call a family conference to discuss it with Sara and Yitzchak.
Reb Tal Benschar reminds us that we don't really know that the tzivui applied to anyone but Yaakov. It could be that the women had no tzivui at all, so he really had to convince them to come along with him. R Tal sees this in the Ramban, who says (31:13)
אנכי האל בית אל יספר יעקב לנשיו כל מה שאמר לו מלאך האלהים בחלום כי הכל פיוס להם שתלכנה עמו
Tal's proof is excellent. If the Ramban meant (as all the Achronim understand pshat in the passuk,) that the Nevu'ah commanded Yaakov and his family to leave, then Yaakov would be trying to convince his wives to do what they were obligated to do. Then the Ramban would have said הכל פיוס להם שתלכנה. But the Ramban added עמו, that he was commanded to go, and he was going one way or another, but he wanted to convince them to go along with him.
Nonetheless, I am proceeding with the assumption of the achronim, that the nevu'ah and the tzivui was for his whole family, not only for him. Which makes sense. Yaakov and his family are one unit, not because everyone loved each other, but because it wasn't "just a family." It was Yaakov, the Imahos, and the Shivtei Kah. A piece of a gestalt is pointless.
1.
Rav Gifter
We find a similar "seeking counsel after a tzivui" with Avraham Avinu. After the tzivui of Bris Milah, Avraham Avinu sought the counsel of his compatriots.
Rashi in the beginning of Vayeira brings from the Medrash Rabba that Avraham sought the advice of Aneir, Eshkol, and Mamrei.
באלוני ממרא. הוּא שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ עֵצָה עַל הַמִּילָה, לְפִיכָךְ נִגְלָה עָלָיו בְּחֶלְקוֹ (בראשית רבה):
The Medrash, 42:8
בשעה שאמר הקב”ה לאברהם לימול הלך ונמלך בג’ אוהביו אמר לו ענר כבר בן ק’ שנה אתה ואתה הולך ומצער את עצמך אמר לו אשכול מה את הולך ומסיים את עצמך בין שונאיך אמר לו ממרא אלהיך שעמד לך בכבשן האש ובמלכים וברעבון והדבר הזה שאמר לך למול אין אתה שומע לו אמר לו הקב”ה אתה נתתה לו עצה למול חייך שאיני נגלה עליו לא בפלטין של ענר ולא בפלטין של אשכול אלא בפלטין שלך הה”ד (בראשית יח) וירא אליו ה’ באלוני ממרא:
Rav Gifter is brought in the Talleli Oros there as saying
הגר"מ גיפטר שליט"א ראש ישיבת טעלז הביא ביאור בזה שכיון שענר אשכול וממרא היו בעלי ברית אברהם, לכן היה אברהם חפץ לקבל את הסכמת בעלי בריתו לפני שיחליש עצמו וכל בני ביתו במילה, שהרי ע"י חולשתו תהיה נפגעת ההתחייבות המתחייבת מן הברית, ואין מצוה שלו כלפי בוראו פוטרת אותו מלקיים חיובו שנתחייב לאחרים. וממרא הוא שאמר כי אדרבה כיון שציוהו ה' ע"ז, ודאי לא יארע בקיום המצוה שום נזק, ונתקבלו דברי ממרא גם אצל ענר ואשכול.
This reminds me of a teshuva in the Igros EH II:12 where the husband did not want his wife to wear a sheitel, because he wanted to be noheig like those poskim that prohibit wearing it. Reb Moshe says
ולכן לדינא אין כתר"ה יכול למחות ביד אשתו הרבנית החשובה מללבש פאה נכרית, שאף אם כתר"ה רוצה להחמיר אינו יכול להטיל חומרותיו עליה שזהו רק דין שלה, וכיון שהיא עושה כדין שהוא כרוב הפוסקים ושגם נראה כמותם אינו לכול להחמיר עליה אף אם לא תכסה כלל הפאה נכרית. וכ"ש כשרוצה להלביש כובע עליה שיכסה רוב מהפאה נכרית שאין לכתר"ה להקפיד כלל. ואם כתר"ה הוא מהנוהגין להתגלח בסם ומספרים כעין תער ולא חש על עצמו למראית עין שהוא רק מטעמים שבארתי ודאי לא שייך שיחמיר עליה בפאה נכרית שהרי הוא כסותר הנהגת עצמו שאותן הטעמים איכא בוה עוד מכ"ש כדבארתי.
You are certainly entitled to be machmir like those poskim, but your chumra can not be imposed on your wife to require her to modify her behavior. It is her decision, not yours. However, Reb Moshe does first say that in this case, her behavior will not cast suspicion upon him, because he is known to be a yerei shamayim. This does imply that if her behavior would harm his reputation, that might have bearing on the teshuva.(This teshuva has to be reconciled with his Teshuva OC I 158 where he says that in general, a woman that gets married is like someone that moves from a place with minhagim X to a place with minhagim Y, and
צריכה להתנהג במנהגי בעלה בין לחומרה בין לקולה
The difference might be that one depends on whether the husband's hanhaga is because he is part of a tzibbur with that hanhaga, or because he personally is noheig that way. Another difference is whether the hanhaga is relevant to the husband at all.)
In any case, we see an approach that where a person has a tzivui from the RBSO, and that tzivui might have a negative impact on others to whom he owes loyalty, he is required to discuss it with them.
Reb Chaim Brown showed me an amazing Netziv along the same lines. On the passuk that says that Reuven did something inappropriate regarding Bilha, the passuk that had previously used the name Yakov now says Yisrael. The Netziv says that Yaakov was so distraught when Rachel died, that he sought comfort through dveikus with Hashem, to come to the madreiga where he could accept Hashem's gzeira with simcha. That is why the name is now Yisrael, the perfect spirituality mankind can achieve. The Netziv says that because Yaakov was so withdrawn into dveikus, he didn't realize that Reuven was going off. Had he retained some of his Yaakov, he would have seen it and prevented it from happening. This is an implicit criticism of the pursuit of ruchniyus at the expense of someone to whom you have personal obligations.
35:22
בשכן ישראל. בהיותו משוקע בעניני אלהות ומסולק מהליכות עולם. ע״כ אירע מה שאירע עם ראובן. אבל אם הי׳ בבחינת יעקב לא קרה כזה
בשכן ישראל. בהיותו משוקע בעניני אלהות ומסולק מהליכות עולם. ע״כ אירע מה שאירע עם ראובן. אבל אם הי׳ בבחינת יעקב לא קרה כזה
I don't know how Rav Gifter would explain why this did not apply by the Akeidah.
Also, I still don't know why Rachel and Leah didn't immediately say yes, why they did a cost-benefit analysis.
2(a).
From Reb Menachem Shafran: Darash Moshe here.
לא יד
ותען רחל ולאה ותאמרנה לו העוד לנו חלק ונחלה בבית אבינו
תמוה מאד שהרי יעקב אמר לרחל וללאה אשר ה' אמר לו לשוב ואילו הם אמרו לו שטוב הדבר משום שאין צורך להשאר שם כי נכריות נחשבו ולא יירשו כלום, הלא היה להן להשיב שכיון שה אמר לשוב, צריך לשוב אף אם היה להם שם עושר והצלחה גדולה לישב אצל אביהן, בשלמא מה שיעקב קרא להן וסיפר להן כל האריכות הוא כדי שלא יהיה להן דבר קשה להפרד ממקומם שהורגלו שם, אבל מה שהן השיבו שיעשה מה שציוה ה מטעם שזכרנו הוא תמוה. וצ"ל שהוא שלא להתגדר בהמצוה, וללמד שבכל מצוד ליכא נסיונות גדולים, שלכן יהיה קל לקיים, כמו שהאמת שאין הפסד כלל לאדם ממצות התורה, כי מזונותיו של אדם קצובות מר"ה, ובודאי יזמין לו ה בהיתר, ואם מרויח באיסור בחילול שבת ובבטול תפילה לא יהיה לו יותר, ונמצא שאין בזה שום נסיון, וכשיחנך את זרעו באופן זה ישמרו דרך ה' בקלות. אבל אלו המתפארים שכבר הן באמעריקא חמשים שנה ויותר ולא חללו שבת, א"א להם לחנך את זרעם. כי אף שהוא עמד בנסיון מ"מ זרעו אפשר שלא יוכלו לעמוד בנסיון, כי הרי תקנו להתפלל שאל תביאנו לידי נסיון, ונמצא שבחינוכו אדרבה קלקל את בניו שאמר להם שקשה לשמור את התורה, אך הוא בכל זאת שמר. ויבוא מזה שהם לא יוכלו לשמור. אבל מי שיודע שאין זה נסיון מצד אמונתו הגדולה שה' יזמין לו פרנסה בהיתר, הרי קל מאוד לשמור התורה, וישמרו גם בניו כן. וזהו הטעם שאמרו רחל ולאה שאין בזה שום נסיון כי אדרבה טוב מאוד לצאת מכאן והיא מצוה קלה וכן הוא בכל המצוות
Rav Chaim Ehrman, in his book My Rebbe, Rav Schwab, quotes Rav Schwab as applying Reb Chaim Volozhener's rule that le'olam yaasok....shemitoch....lishmah is not an "even," it is davka. With that he says that Yaakov wanted them to do the mitzva with at least some element of Shelo Lishma. This is kind of similar to Reb Moshe's approach.
2(b). Also from Reb Menachem Shafran, Taam Vadaas here:
לא ד וישלח יעקב ויקרא לרחל וללאה
וקשה למה יעקב האריך להסביר לנשותיו הטעמים והסיבות שצריך לברוח מבית לבן? ולמה לא אמר להן תיכף שה' נגלה אליו בחלום הלילה וצוהו לצאת, והלוא בודאי היו שומעות לצווי ה' לעזוב בית אביהן. ונראה שמכאן ראייה לשיטת הרמב"ם בשמונה פרקים (פ"ו) שמחדש שבמצוות חוקיות כמו שעטנז ובשר בחלב לא יאמר שאין רצונו בהם. אלא יאמר שרצונו בהם אבל הקב"ה אסר. אבל במצוות ואיסורים שכליים, כגון גניבה, גזילה, שפיכות דמים, אונאה, לגמול רע, ולבזות הורים, מגונה לומר כן, שדעת אדם קולטתן וראוי לנפש שלא תתאוה לאחד מרעות אלה. ונאה הדבר לומר שגם ללא צווי ה' לא היה עושה דבר הרע הזה. ובהגהות יעב"ץ שם חולק על הרמב"ם.
ונראה מהפסוק כאן שצווי הקב"ה לברוח מלבן אינה רק גזירה, אלא יש בזה גם סברא, והוא מן הדברים שראוי לעשותם כמשפט ולא כחוק, ולכן יעקב הסביר לנשיו שראוי להתרחק מלבן שהוא נוכל ורמאי, ובסוף דבריו הביא שכך ציוה הקב"ה ועליהן לעזוב בית אביהן.
ובדרך זו השיבו רחל ולאה ליעקב הלוא נכריות נחשבנו לו וגו' ועתה כל אשר אמר אלקים אליך עשה היינו השיבו שמבינות צווי ה' ובשמחה מוכנות לעזוב בית אביהן כדי שיוכלו לחנך בניהם בסביבה טובה יותר.
וכעין זה שמעתי בשעתו מבחור אחד ששאל עצת החזו"א זצ"ל אם להסכים לשידוך עם בחורה ממשפחה מיוחסת ואביה ציין מעלת הבחורה שמוכנה להקריב קרבן להנשא לבן תורה הגם שהחיים עמו קשים והשיב החזו"א שאם הבחורה רואה בחיים עם בן תורה כקרבן ואינה מבינה האושר הטמון בזה היא אינה מתאימה להנשא לבן תורה ויעץ לבתור דנן שלא לגשת לשידוך.
וכאן אצל רחל ולאה ראינו שהבינו צווי ה' ובשמחה היו מוכנות לעזוב בית אביהן.
ושמעתי חידוש מהגאון רבי חיים שמואלביץ זצ"ל ר"מ דישיבת מיר ולדבריו גם הרמב"ם סובר שגם מצוה שכלית יש לקיימה מפני שכך ציוה אלקינו ית"ש והמשיל משל למאכל סרוח שיש בו גם סם המות דאף שמפני הסרחון ראוי למנוע לאכול מכל מקום מזהירים ממנו מפני סם המות שחמור הוא יותר וכן כאן ראוי לשמור משפטים מפני שכך ציונו אלקינו ית"ש שחמור יותר רק בחוקים ראוי לומר שהיה אוכל אלולא התורה אסרה אבל במשפטים גם בלי דין תורה לא היה עובר עליהם ועכשיו שאסרה תורה נמנעים מלעבור על אסורים שכליים דוקא מפני שאסרה תורה וכך ציוה אלקינו ית"ש שהמור הוא יותר מדעת בנ"א והוכיח דבריו מהרמב"ם ספ"ח דמלכים שבן נח חייב לשמור כל השבע מצות שכך דין תורה ולא מפני השכל וקשה הלוא יש ביניהן מצות שכליות כמו גזל שראוי לשמור גם בלי ומוכח כמ"ש דמאחר שיש צווי חייבין כל באי עולם להזהר מלעשותם דוקא מפני שכך הוא צווי אלוקינו ית"ש
One thing for sure. Rav Sternbuch's mahalach explains why Yaakov discussed the tzivui with Rachel and Leah, but Avraham Avinu kept the Akeidah secret from Sara and Yitzchak. Leaving Lavan was a mitzvah sichlis, but the Akeida was the epitome of a mitzvah shim'is, a Chok.
2(c). Reb Menachem Shafran: The Shlah here, end of the parsha.
מ'ד. וישלח יעקב ויקרא לרחל וללאה' וגו' (בראשית ל'א ד) אין ראוי לאדם כשירצה דבר מה מאנשי ביתו שיכריחם על זה על צד האונס והנצוח, אף כי הוא מושל בהם, אבל ישתדל לפתות אותם אל מה שירצהו בתכלית מה שאפשר, כדי שיתעוררו לזה מעצמם. כי זה הוא יותר טוב משיעשו זה על צד האונס וההכרח. ראה כמה הרבה יעקב דברים עם רחל ולאה כדי שיתרצו בטוב לב, ואף על פי שהקדוש ברוך הוא ציוה לו שישוב לביתו
Reb Menachem points out that the Shlah alone focuses on the בין אדם לחבירו aspect, that even a ruler should not force subservient obedience, but instead explain why he made a decision and convince them to do what needs to be done.
3. The Seforno as read by Reb Chaim Brown in his blog at Divrechaim.
4. Abarbanel
The Abarbanel in the story of the Sulam, at the beginning of the parsha in 28:16, says that Yaakov made the neder because he simply did not know whether his vision was a true Nevu'ah, or just a dream. The Abarbanel stresses that this was only because it was Yaakov's first divine vision. We all know that Shmuel Hanavi experienced the same confusion the first time he had a nevu'ah.
The story by Shmuel, Shmuel I 3.
I strongly disagree with this pshat. Our story was long after the Sulam, and Yaakov would have known absolutely that it was 100% Nevu'ah.
5. From Rabbi Dr. NJ Stone:
A clue to another possible answer can be found in a Seforno at the end of this episode. Rachel and Leah say to Yaakov, “Kol asher amar Elokim eilecha aseh,” (31:16) whatever G-d wants you to do, go ahead and do it. Seforno comments: “Kol asher amar Elokim – bilvad aseh. N’hag v’leiuch v’al titol reshus.” Meaning, G-d told you to leave, so do exactly and just what G-d said –- leave. Don’t make a goodbye party, don’t ask for permission, just follow the instructions and walk out the door.The Seforno:
I hopefully am not reading too much in, but it sounds to me like Yaakov’s discussion with Rachel and Leah was not about whether they should leave – the answer to that was dictated by the malach -- but rather the discussion was about how they should make their departure. Imagine an angel came and told you to quit your job. Does that mean walk out the door same day, or does that mean give two weeks notice? There is wiggle room to interpret it either way. So Yaakov, being a good husband, especially in this case where the issue revolves around the in-laws, does what any good husband would do – they ask their wife for advice.
ועתה מאחר שראית שקבל לשון הרע עליך ויש לחוש שיגזול.
כל אשר אמר אלהים בלבד עשה, נהג ולך ואל תטול רשות.
The Abarbanel in the story of the Sulam, at the beginning of the parsha in 28:16, says that Yaakov made the neder because he simply did not know whether his vision was a true Nevu'ah, or just a dream. The Abarbanel stresses that this was only because it was Yaakov's first divine vision. We all know that Shmuel Hanavi experienced the same confusion the first time he had a nevu'ah.
The story by Shmuel, Shmuel I 3.
והנער שמואל משרת את־ה' לפני עלי ודבר־יהוה היה יקר בימים ההם אין חזון נפרץ
ויהי ביום ההוא ועלי שכב במקמו ועינו [ועיניו] החלו כהות לא יוכל לראות
ונר אלהים טרם יכבה ושמואל שכב בהיכל ה' אשר־שם ארון אלוקים
ויקרא ה' אל־שמואל ויאמר הנני
וירץ אל־עלי ויאמר הנני כי־קראת לי ויאמר לא־קראתי שוב שכב וילך וישכב
ויסף ה' קרא עוד שמואל ויקם שמואל וילך אל־עלי ויאמר הנני כי קראת לי ויאמר לא־קראתי בני שוב שכב
ושמואל טרם ידע את ה' וטרם יגלה אליו דבר ה'
The Abarbanel:
ואמנם אמרו בנדרו אם יהיה אלדים עמדי אפשר לומר שיעקב להיות זאת התחלת נבואתו נסתפק אם היה ענינו חלום נבואיי או אם היה חלום דמיוני מבלי נבואה. ועם היות שהרב המורה בפמ"א ח"ב כתב שיעקב הרגיש בעצמו שהיה החלום נבואה ממש ולכן אמר אכן יש י"י במקום הזה שהחליט המאמר שהיתה השגתו נבואיית וחוץ מכבוד תורתו. כי הוא לא אמר על חלומו שהיה נבואה אלא אל המקום ההוא שהיה מושגח ומושפע ולא יתחייב מזה שיהיה חלום החולם שמה נבואיי. ולכן נרחיק זה והנה בשמואל נאמר שטרם ידע את י"י וטרם יגלה אליו דבר י"י היה קורא אותו י"י והוא היה חושב שעלי קראו ולכן אין להרחיק שיהיה יעקב מספק בחלומו אם היה נבואיי אם לא בהיותו בתחלת נבואתו ומפני זה נדר את נדרו ואמר אם יהיה אלדים עמדי.
I strongly disagree with this pshat. Our story was long after the Sulam, and Yaakov would have known absolutely that it was 100% Nevu'ah.
5. From Rabbi Dr. NJ Stone:
It seems that Yaakov Avinu lost his way in the second halfמתי אעשה לבית----י?5(a). I would not go as far as RDNJS, but I would say that it's no coincidence that the dream came only after Yaakov decided, on his own, that enough is enough. Look at how it transpired:
And HKBH basically says " Go back and i will be with you", the implication being , "Don't, and I won't." The syntax is easily read as conditional.
The parsha clearly splits into two parts - acquisition of family and acquisition of flocks.
First, Yaakov decided it was time to go. To go, he needed to be financially independent. He told Lavan his plan, and he executed his plan. He saw that Lavan's sons were angry and envious, and he would have to leave. THEN, AND ONLY THEN, does he get input from the Malach Elokim, who told him it was time to go. This is clearly a post facto validation of a plan that Yaakov had conceived long before and whose process he had already begun implementing.
30:25
ויהי כאשר ילדה רחל את־יוסף ויאמר יעקב אל־לבן שלחני ואלכה אל־מקומי ולארצי
30:28
ויאמר נקבה שכרך עלי ואתנה
31:1-2
וישמע את־דברי בני־לבן לאמר לקח יעקב את כל־אשר לאבינו ומאשר לאבינו עשה את כל־הכבד הזה
וירא יעקב את־פני לבן והנה איננו עמו כתמול שלשום
31:3
ויאמר יהוה אל־יעקב שוב אל־ארץ אבותיך ולמולדתך ואהיה עמך
and only then did Yaakov talk to Rachel and Leah.
31:4
וישלח יעקב ויקרא לרחל וללאה השדה אל־צאנו
Reb Moish Pollack pointed this out to me, and said that just as for Yaakov, it was his personal resolution followed by the tzivui of the Malach, that is how he presented it to Rachel and Leah - "This is what I decided to do, and then the Malach told me to do it."
I suspect that this means even more: this seems to have been a "בדרך שהאדם רוצה לילך מוליכין אותו" situation. If so, it is very closely related to Miriam and Aharon's complain against Moshe, as Tosfos explains in Shabbos 87. Indeed, although the complaint was wrong in Moshe's case, in this case, if Yaakov had just said "Well, Elokim told me to go, so let's get going" he would have been wrong. That is why even after the tzivui he had to ask Rachel and Leah if they agreed (just as Miriam and Aharon wouldn't have had a tainah on Moshe if he would have asked Tziporah if she agreed.)
Tosfos in Shabbos (and Yevamos) for those poor souls that don't know it without having it in front of them:
I suspect that this means even more: this seems to have been a "בדרך שהאדם רוצה לילך מוליכין אותו" situation. If so, it is very closely related to Miriam and Aharon's complain against Moshe, as Tosfos explains in Shabbos 87. Indeed, although the complaint was wrong in Moshe's case, in this case, if Yaakov had just said "Well, Elokim told me to go, so let's get going" he would have been wrong. That is why even after the tzivui he had to ask Rachel and Leah if they agreed (just as Miriam and Aharon wouldn't have had a tainah on Moshe if he would have asked Tziporah if she agreed.)
Tosfos in Shabbos (and Yevamos) for those poor souls that don't know it without having it in front of them:
פה עמוד עמדי. וא"ת מנלן דפירש משה מדעתו קודם ושוב הסכים הקב"ה על ידו שמא זה הוא צווי גמור שצוה לו לפרוש ותירץ ר"ת דאם איתא דמחמת צווי הקב"ה פירש ולא מדעתו היאך היה מערער אהרן ומרים דכתיב ותדבר מרים ואהרן במשה אלא ודאי מתחלה פירש ממנה לגמרי משה מדעתו ואע"ג דהסכים הקב"ה על ידו מ"מ נתרעמו עליו לפי שאילו לא פירש מדעתו לא היה הקב"ה מסכים דבדרך שאדם הולך בה מוליכין אותו שהרי לאהרן ומרים לא אמר לפרוש אע"ג שגם עמהם היה מדבר ומיהו קשה דמשמע במדרש שלא ידעו זמן גדול שפירש ממנה גבי אלדד ומידד שהיו מתנבאים שאמרה מרים אשרי נשותיהן של אלו שנתמנו בעליהן פרנסין על הציבור אמרה צפורה אוי להם לנשותיהם של אלו שמיום שנתייחדה שכינה עם אחיך פירש ממני מיד ותדבר מרים ואהרן במשה משמע שלא ידעו קודם לכן וכי לא ידעו הא דכתיב ואתה פה עמוד עמדי ואור"ת דודאי ידעו אבל היו סבורין שפירש ע"פ הדבור עד שאמרה להם צפורה שמדעתו פירש ממנה מתחלה:
In the comments, AW asked, Mimah nafshach. If the Avos were going to take the advice seriously, that means that if the reaction was negative, they would have to transgress the tzivui, an impossible position. And if they had no intention of being swayed by a potential negative, then their asking for advice is really a charade, and perhaps even gneivas daas. I'm still thinking about this.
Here's an attempt to combine everything we have here into one pshat.
Yaakov decided it was time to go. He forthrightly told Lavan of his plans, and requested fair compensation for all his work. He and Lavan agreed to the deal of the brown/white flocks. Yaakov saw that Lavan's son's hated him and accused him of enriching himself at Lavan's cost. Lavan was swayed by his son's Lashon Hara. At that point, Yaakov had a dream of Nevu'ah that he was to leave.
I am sure that Yaakov's independent decision to leave was predominantly motivated by his need to leave the Lavan environment and return to the house of Yitzchak. His decision was validated in the strongest way possible, by outright miracles and divine prophecy. But when a man makes a decision, and God conveniently comes to him and says he made the right decision, he had better think twice.
Yaakov was 100% right in what needed to be done, but it may have been one of many possible solutions. The Nevu'ah only said that the path he chose was valid. Let's assume that what he chose was the best for him, but that does not obligate others to follow. His duty to others meant that he should sacrifice what is best for himself and favor a less than perfect path that might be less less onerous for others. That is why Yaakov needed Rachel and Leah's agreement.
The moral of the story is:
When God Himself agrees with you, think twice.
Here's an attempt to combine everything we have here into one pshat.
Yaakov decided it was time to go. He forthrightly told Lavan of his plans, and requested fair compensation for all his work. He and Lavan agreed to the deal of the brown/white flocks. Yaakov saw that Lavan's son's hated him and accused him of enriching himself at Lavan's cost. Lavan was swayed by his son's Lashon Hara. At that point, Yaakov had a dream of Nevu'ah that he was to leave.
I am sure that Yaakov's independent decision to leave was predominantly motivated by his need to leave the Lavan environment and return to the house of Yitzchak. His decision was validated in the strongest way possible, by outright miracles and divine prophecy. But when a man makes a decision, and God conveniently comes to him and says he made the right decision, he had better think twice.
Yaakov was 100% right in what needed to be done, but it may have been one of many possible solutions. The Nevu'ah only said that the path he chose was valid. Let's assume that what he chose was the best for him, but that does not obligate others to follow. His duty to others meant that he should sacrifice what is best for himself and favor a less than perfect path that might be less less onerous for others. That is why Yaakov needed Rachel and Leah's agreement.
The moral of the story is:
When God Himself agrees with you, think twice.
Perhaps this even mitigates the implications somewhat: Esav and Yaakov were twins to force (to a degree) a unified method of education. Given their diametrically opposed proclivities, it was inevitable that whichever method of chinuch was chosen, one would emerge worthy of being an Av of the Nation of Hashem, and the other would go OTD, in the modern parlance. This was a necessary defining moment as to which direction the character of the Am Hashem would take.
This fits well with Rav Kook's vort, too. וידו אוחזת בעקב עשו - these two titans are locked in an eternal struggle, with Yaakov restraining Esav from free reign and Esav undermining Yaakov's support, for neither can thrive while the other survives.