Parshas Vayeitzei - מטוב ועד רע “from good to bad”
מיכאל ריטש
לא(כב-כה) ויגד ללבן ביום השלישי כי ברח יעקב כו‘ וידבק אתו בהר הגלעד. ויבא אלהים אל־לבן הארמי בחלם הלילה ויאמר לו השמר לך פן־תדבר עם־יעקב מטוב עד־רע.
(כו-כט) ויאמר לבן ליעקב כו‘ יש־לאל ידי לעשות עמכם רע ואלהי אביכם אמש אמר אלי לאמר השמר לך מדבר עם־יעקב מטוב עד־רע.
31(22-25) “On the third day, Lavan was told that Yaakov had fled... He caught up to him by Mt. Gil’ad. G-d came to Lavan Ha’arami in a dream at night, and said to him, ‘Beware, lest you speak with Yaakov from good to bad.’
(26-29) “Lavan said to Yaakov... ‘It is in my power to harm you, but last night the G-d of your fathers spoke to me saying, “Beware, lest you speak with Yaakov from good to bad.” ’ ”
It’s pretty clear that Lavan is obeying G-d’s warning. But what was the warning exactly, not to speak with him “from good to bad”? What was he not to do?
Let’s see some other places the phrase appears.
A verse in Parshas Vayikra discusses the קרבן שבועת ביטוי, the korbon brought for a broken oath. ויקרא ה(ד) או נפש כי תשבע לבטא בשפתים להרע או להיטיב כו‘, Vayikra 5(4): “If a person swears, pronouncing with his lips, to do bad or to do good...” A person doesn’t bring a korbon for just any broken oath, only if it was “להרע או להיטיב”.
The gemara in the third perek of Shavuos (26a, 27a) explains the meaning of these words. The conclusion of the gemara is that the phrase comes to exclude נשבע על דבר מצוה, when someone swears either to fulfill a mitzvah, or to violate it. The korbon is only brought for an oath on a דבר רשות, something within his own choice: something that Hashem has not required nor forbidden, but left the person to decide and choose whether or not to do it.
Further on in that perek, it discusses whether the korbon is for an oath on the past, or only for oaths on the future. I’d wonder if this has a similar idea: a person has control and bechira over the future, whereas over the past he once had choice but doesn’t have it right now. [But that gemara can be understood in other ways.]
See there also the drasha of אדם בשבועה, “a man in his oath”. Rashi explains it (Shabbos 69b):
האדם בשבועה, שיהא אדם בשעת שבועה, שתהא דעתו עליו בשעת שבועה
“ ‘The man in his oath’, that he should be a human being at the time of the oath: he needs to be of clear mind when he takes it.”
Man is the being to whom Hakodosh Boruch Hu gave rulership and control over this world. As I’ve described elsewhere, an oath is a reflection of that control; the person guarantees to make his words come true. Only a Man can guarantee, and swear.
בראשית ג(כב) ויאמר ה‘ אלהים הן האדם היה כאחד ממנו לדעת טוב ורע כו‘.
Here is how the Rambam explains this verse as concerning bechira: “This is what is written in the Torah (Breishis 3(22)): ‘Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad...’ That is, this species of being, mankind, is unique in the world (like ‘the one of us’) and nothing else is similar in this: he himself with his judgment and thought knows good and bad, and can do whichever he chooses - and nothing interferes with his ability to choose either good, or bad...”
From all these examples, we can see that the language טוב ורע in the Torah refers to man’s domain of free choice - and his control over that domain. This is described explicitly in Parshas Netzatim:
דברים ל(טו-יט) ראה נתתי לפניך היום את־החיים ואת־הטוב ואת־המות ואת־הרע. כו‘ החיים והמות נתתי לפניך הברכה והקללה ובחרת בחיים כו‘.
D’varim 30(15): “Look - I have placed before you today life and good, and death and evil... Life and death I have placed before you, blessing and curse: choose the life...”
It seems to me that this is the way to understand Lavan’s words in our parsha. “I have the ability to harm you” - the choice was in my hands, and dependent on my decision. “But last night the G-d of your fathers spoke to me saying, ‘Beware, lest you speak with Yaakov from good to bad.’ ” Hashem said to me that I have no more control and no more choice; the matter has gone out of my hands, and I must not tell you otherwise.
Fascinating to look at Lavan’s own words back in Parshas Chayei Sarah:
כד(נ) ויען לבן ובתואל ויאמרו מה‘ יצא הדבר לא נוכל דבר אליך רע או־טוב.
24(50) “Lavan and Besuel answered and said, ‘This matter came out from Hashem: We cannot speak about it bad or good.’ ”
Hashem’s manner of hashgacha depends on the case. In Eliezer’s mission, Hakodosh Boruch Hu ran things from beginning till end, setting up for Eliezer whatever he requested, immediately and pretty much miraculously. This was so obvious to anyone watching that Lavan’s wicked family cried out in astonishment - like very big tzaddikim! - “This all came from Hashem.” It was clear to them all that they had absolutely no control or choice in the matter.
How different is the story of Yaakov with that very same Lavan. There Hashem left Lavan in charge of Yaakov. Yaakov slaved for him for twenty years; Lavan changed his wages dozens of times... everything was under his control. At least it seemed so to him: Hashem protected Yaakov in a hidden way.
But now, at the close of the story, Hashem says to Lavan, עד כאן - Okay, that’s it. Your seeming control is ended, I’m taking over now; you have no more role to play with Yaakov and his family.
A chacham has pointed out to me that we see this phrase טוב ורע (“good and bad”) repeated frequently in the story of Bil’am as well. [רש“י (במדבר כב(יב)) לא מדובשך ולא מעקצך ע“כ] Of course, it is a well-known Chazal that Bil’am was Lavan in some way. See the Targum Yerushalmi there on the גדר מזה וגדר מזה, the “wall on this side and wall on that side” that Bil’am passed through, that this refers to the Gal’ed of the bris they made at the end of this parsha. Hashem took away Bil’am’s free choice as well, as Rashi says there (23(16)) “Hashem put a bridle in his mouth [and forced him to speak].”
[ע“ע שמואל-ב יג(כב), והמלבי“ם עליו.]