25 Nov TOLDOS: A PERSON’S WORD IS HIS WORD!

In this week’s
parsha, Hashem
promises Yitzchak,
“I will increase
your offspring like
the stars of the
heavens and will give to your offspring
all these lands; and all the nations of the
earth shall bless themselves by your
offspring. Because Avraham obeyed My
voice and observed My safeguards, My
commandments, My decrees, and My
Torahs.” (Bereshis 26:4-5). Rishonim
marshal this last pasuk as a proof that
Avraham kept the entire Torah even
before it was given, and in fact claim that
this was the practice of the other
forefathers as well. The Ramban raises
apparent counter-examples to this
principle that the Avos kept the entire
Torah prior to its being given. One of the
points he mentions is that Yaakov Avinu
simultaneously married two sisters,
which is one of the Torah’s arayos
(forbidden marital relationships).
In a famous answer, the Ramban says
that the Avos only fully kept the future
laws of the Torah in Eretz Yisrael, “for
the Torah is the rule of the G-d of the
Land” and Yaakov’s simultaneous
marriage to two sisters ended before
Yaakov returned from Charan to Eretz
Yisrael. This is how everyone reads this
famous Ramban: He is trying to answer
the question ‘How can it be that the Avos
kept the entire Torah before it was given,
and yet Yaakov married two sisters?’ The
Ramban answers: His marriage to them
was only in chutz l’Aretz!
Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky takes issue
with this understanding and argues that
this is not the correct interpretation of
this Ramban. Rav Yaakov says the
question ‘How could Yaakov marry two
sisters?’ never begins! The reason
Yaakov married two sisters is because he
made a commitment! He promised
Rochel “I am going to marry you.” Once
he gave his word to Rochel, he had to
marry her. A person is not allowed to go
back on his word. The fact that he and
the other Avos kept the laws of the Torah
that would be given in the future was
only a ‘chumrah‘(an act of optional piety
on their part). However, if a personal
chumrah contradicts my word to
someone else, my word must take
precedence!
“There is no justification for allowing
Rochel to suffer because of my

chumrahs!” This must be seen as a
general rule with broad applications:
When a person’s personal stringencies
impinge upon someone else, he needs to
forego his stringency. Once Yaakov gave
his word to Rochel, it was a ‘no brainer’
that he would need to marry her. Lavan
pulled a fast one on him and he wound
up marrying Leah, but that would in no
way stop him from keeping his word to
Rochel.
So, according to Rav Yaakov’s
explanation, what does the Ramban
mean when he says that the Avos did not
keep the entire Torah in chutz l’Aretz?
Rav Yaakov explains that the Ramban is
coming to answer a different question
with that statement. We know that there
is a rule: The Holy One Blessed Be He
will not bring a takalah (‘misfortune’)
through the actions of the righteous. For
instance, if a Tzadik went into a
restaurant and he had a steak and then it
came out that this restaurant was selling
neveilah (non-kosher meat) the piece of
meat that the Tzadik ate could in no way
be treife (non-kosher). Heaven would
have seen to it that some other customer
was given the non-kosher meat. It could
not have entered the mouth of the Tzadik,
because of the hard and fast rule that the
Almighty would not allow a Tzadik to
stumble.
Therefore, the Ramban is asking,
according to Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky,
how did the Almighty let this happen to
Yaakov? How did he let Lavan pull this
fast one on Yaakov, if the Almighty will
never allow a Tzadik to spiritually
stumble? How could it be that Yaakov
was put in a situation where he ‘had to
sin’ by keeping his word to marry Rochel
(who was now his sister-in-law). The
Ramban answers by saying that it was in
fact not an aveira at all, because they
were living in chutz l’Aretz and only in
Eretz Yisrael would it be considered an
aveira for the Avos to marry two sisters.
The takeaway lesson from this
interpretation of the Ramban’s question
and answer is that this is Rav Yaakov
Kamenetsky l’shitaso (consistent with
his life’s major ethical behavior). Rav
Yaakov’s practice in life was that a
person’s word is sacred. If someone has
given his word—that’s it! There are very
few things that trump a person’s word,
and certainly personal chumras do not
trump a person’s word.
I will cite two incidents from Rav

Yaakov (the name of whose sefer is
Emes L’Yaakov) to demonstrate
how he personified and exemplified
this attribute of truth and personal
integrity throughout his life.
Rav Yaakov lived into his nineties.
Towards the end of his life, he
started putting on Rabbeinu Tam’s
Tefillin (which have the parshiyos
placed in a different order within
the Tefillin compartments) in
addition to the standard Rashi
Tefillin. Rav Yaakov was a
quintessential Litvak (Lithuanian Jew).
He was born in Lita, he was raised in
Lita, and he studied in the Slabodka
Yeshiva. He was a full-bred Litvak and
Misnagid. Misdagdim and Litvaks do
not put on Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin (a
practice more prevalent among Chassidic
Jewry). So why at the end of his days
was he putting on Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin?
Many years earlier—fifty or sixty years
earlier—someone asked him, “Why
don’t you wear Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin?”
He answered, “I don’t wear Rabbeinu
Tam Tefillin because I am a Litvak. I am
a Misnagid. We don’t wear Rabbeinu
Tam’s Tefillin.” The fellow said to him,
“But, the Chofetz Chaim, toward the end
of his life, also started wearing Rabbeinu
Tam’s Tefillin (even though he too was a
Litvak and Misnagid). Rav Yaakov said
something to the effect of: “When I get
to be the Chofetz Chaim’s age, I too will
wear Rabbeinu Tam’s Tefillin.”
When someone is 25 or 30 years old, he
can easily say “Yes, when I’m 85 I will
put on Rabbeinu Tam’s Tefillin.” In those
days, people’s life expectancies were
certainly not into their eighties or
nineties. But because a young Rav
Yaakov Kamenetsky said, “When I get
to be the Chofetz Chaim’s age, I will put
on Rabbeinu Tam’s Tefillin,” he kept his
word. That is why he wore Rabbeinu
Tam’s Tefillin. A person’s word is his
word.
The second incident is similar. Rav
Yaakov Kamenetsky did not eat
‘Gebrokts’ on Pesach. Now, this too is
atypical of Litvaks and Misnagdim, who
are not particular about eating matzah
products that have come into contact
with liquid on Pesach. It is a Chassidishe
minhag. Litvaks generally eat kneidlach,
matza-brei, matzah with butter and jelly,
and all such good things.
Rav Yaakov did not eat ‘Gebrockts’. He

let his family eat Gebrokts, but he did
not eat it on Pesach. How did that
happen? Rav Yaakov learned in
Slabodka. In those days, there was no
such thing as a Yeshiva dining room. So
how did Yeshiva bochrim eat? There was
an institution known as ‘teg.’ Every day
or every two days, various Yeshiva
bochrim would be assigned to a different
host in the community, and they would
be guests by that household.
In those days, it was not like today
when everyone goes home for Pesach.
Those were the good old days where
men were men, and if you were in
Yeshiva, you were in Yeshiva for years at
a time without a break. Who had the
money to travel back and forth from
Yeshiva to home for Yomim Tovim (the
holidays) and Bein HaZmanim (Yeshiva
breaks)? So the Yeshiva assigned
different bochrim to eat in different
houses during Pesach as well.
Rav Yaakov was assigned to eat in a
certain person’s house. Rav Yaakov, for
whatever reason, was not satisfied with
the level of kashrus in that house. But
what was he going to tell them? It would
be insulting to say “I don’t trust your
Kashrus.” What did he say? He said, “I
would love to come but I don’t eat
Gebrokts!” After all, this was Slabodka,
where virtually everyone ate Gebrokts.
The hosts bought his excuse. They were
not insulted and he did not need to eat by
them over Pesach.
But once Rav Yaakov said, “I don’t eat
‘Gebrokts’ on Pesach” he did not eat
Gebrokts on Pesach for the rest of his
life. He kept his word. When you say
something, you need to keep it.
That is Rav Yaakov’s perspective in this
vort on the Parsha. It is easy to ‘talk the
talk’ but Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky also
‘walked the walk.’ He was a yafeh
doresh (someone who expounded nicely)
v’yafeh m’kayem (and who also put his
nice words into practice).