Two Thefts, Exodus, and Survival

Parshat Vayetze

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Chapter 31, verses 19 and 20, present two thefts. The first is Rachel “stealing” her father’s terafim. The second is Yaakov “stealing” Lavan’s heart in that he doesn’t tell him of his departure from Lavan’s home, with his wives, children, and his belongings. 

Were these really both "thefts" in the traditional sense of stealing? Or is there a different kind of message being conveyed, despite the language of stealing being employed.

 Most of the commentaries in the Mikraos Gedolos Chumash focus on Rachel’s deed, ignoring Yaakov’s “theft” simply because Yaakov’s is clearly a figure of speech, but is not a crime, whereas Rachel actually takes objects that belong to her father. 

 And yet, those who do comment on Yaakov’s deed note that the “deception” here is simply that Yaakov was not up front with Lavan about his plans, while he understood that Lavan’s own take on Yaakov’s wealth acquisition was not coming from a good place. Note, of course, one need not be up front about one’s plans with someone who has made every effort to indicate he is an enemy. 

 Some even point out the language of the Torah – “he did not tell [Lavan] that he was fleeing (כי ברח הוא).” This is where Lavan (after-the-fact) felt that Yaakov had been dishonest. However, had Yaakov actually told him of his pending departure, it would hardly be viewed as “fleeing” and more “we are leaving.” So of course he didn’t tell Lavan that he would be ברח – fleeing. 

Regarding Rachel’s thievery – the Torah is clearly telling us about it because it is to become significant in a few verses, when Lavan accuses Yaakov of “stealing my gods,” and after Yaakov allows him to search all of the family belongings, we are told that Rachel hid them in her saddlebag. 

 Rashi famously notes, based on Lavan’s accusation mentioned in the previous sentence (31:30) that Rachel was taking her father’s idols hoping he’d abandon his idolatry. 

But most of the other commentaries have a different take on the identification of the terafim based on other Biblical precedents of the use of terafim, sometimes even by people we would never accuse of idolatry! 

Rabbenu Bachaye is the most comprehensive in his presentation of many views of the Mikraos Gedolos Chumash, where the most common emerging theme (and argument) is that the terafim were used for sorcery and witchcraft, particularly to help Lavan in his divination, figuring out things of past, present, and future. To give the most obvious reason, she took them so her father would not know when or that they had left! We see this effectively work, because it took three days for Lavan to discover they had left. 

 Ibn Ezra notes, for example, that if they were idols, why would Rachel keep them? She’d throw them away or bury them somewhere. That she holds on to them demonstrates that she recognizes their use and doesn’t feel they need to be discarded. The fact that Lavan later accused the theft of “stealing my gods,” in this view, is insignificant. Lavan is not a stranger to exaggeration and hyperbole. He may feel that his terafim have God-like powers, even if he doesn’t personally worship them. 

This leads us to consider the precedent setting nature of the Exodus from Lavan’s home, and how similar it is to the Exodus we will later see from Egypt. 

In both cases, the Bnei Yisrael leave, men, women and children. In both cases, their leaving is described as בריחה, fleeing, even though we could certainly argue there are better verbs to describe their exodus. While there isn’t a clear timeline in the Exodus from Egypt, our rabbis have taught us that on the third day after the Exodus (just as it was the third day here – see 31:22), Pharaoh gave chase, and the confrontation between the two sides took place on the seventh day. 

 One need think no further than the comparison made in the Haggadah between “who is worse? Pharaoh or Lavan” to understand that the Torah is telling us something significant about these two events. Perhaps even that the 400 years of exile promised to Avraham could have taken place in Lavan’s house, an that method of leaving was meant to be one in which the Israelites had a choice, at any time, to go, if only they could muster the courage to leave. 

 Which is why when they leave, in both cases, they are accompanied by great wealth. 

 Remember that when the Bnei Yisrael left Egypt, the verse tells us וינצלו את מצרים, which, loosely translated means they drained Egypt of its wealth. This is the same reaction Lavan’s sons have in 31:1 when they accuse Yaakov of stealing all of their father’s wealth (never mind how his flocks multiplied under Yaakov’s care!), and making his fortune on the backs of their father Lavan’s misfortune. 

 Which just means that this playbook is as old as time. 

Rachel’s theft, more than likely, was a survival instinct, to protect herself, her husband, her co-wives, all of the children, from the wrath of her father. It’s something anyone would do when running for their lives: break the radio, cut the phone lines, disable the vehicle that would be used to chase after, lame the animals that might be chasing, etc… 

Yaakov’s theft isn’t a theft at all. It’s a demonstration of the regret that could take place over the loss of what “could have been” if the other side had looked past the jealousy and seen the humanity. 

It’s reasonable to suggest there’s a parallel that can be made between the ideas presented above and the current situation in Israel. Accusations of theft (stolen land, stolen country) are smokescreens for the larger issue of not taking charge of your own destiny. 

 Just as Lavan left the shepherding to Yaakov and wanted to reap all the benefits, and Lavan’s sons felt the same way, when Yaakov’s wealth grew and they saw the cash cow dripping dry, they blamed him rather than blaming themselves for doing no work and expecting to draw all of the benefits. 

 This is the philosophy of those Arabs who have rejected every “two-state solution” because they just want one state – all of Israel – to be their caliphate home. And they want everything Israel has accomplished and built to be theirs, because, well, they deserve it! (this is tongue in cheek, in case unclear) 

As far as Rachel is concerned, if as noted above, she was looking out for her family because she knew what her father was capable of, then it’s not thievery at all. In fact, what she did was a mitzvah of protecting yourself from harm. 

And that is the mitzvah that Israel today faces – protecting yourself before your enemy comes to get you, their intention always being that this is for the last time.