Yaakov was a wholesome man, abiding in tents. (Bereishis 25:27)

Rabbi Berel Povarsky asks what is meant by “yoshev ohalim”? He explains in the name of Reb Yerucham that this wasn’t just a description of Yaakov’s occupation, nor even a career description, but rather it was a description of his essence. Rashi says that the “ohalim” refers to the yeshiva of Shem v’Ever, meaning, he was a yeshiva man even during “vacation” and the holidays. However, Rabbi Povarsky asks, “Why was the plural term ‘ohalim’ used? The Torah should have written ‘Yoshev ohel’!?” Based on this question, he suggests that when Rashi said “the tent of Shem and the tent of Ever” he was telling us that Yakov studied in two separate yeshivas: Yaakov would move from one yeshiva to the other, meaning to say that he nurtured from more than one school of thought.

There is an expression, “Don’t change horses in midstream.” Once a person learns with a certain methodology, if he switches to a different one, it could confuse him. So why did Yaakov choose to have multiple teachers?

I would like to share an interaction I had with one of my Rebbes with you. This Rebbe was a nephew of one of the great Rabbonim of his generation. This nephew, though, in a particular subject studied under a different rebbe. I received a great amount of understanding from my Rebbe’s ‘other’ Rebbe. I one time asked him, “Was your uncle’s approach to this subject similar or different?” He looked at me, unsure of how to answer, because he didn’t understand the question! Eventually he said, “How would I know? I learned from my rebbe. I didn’t go shopping around to find out what others say about this topic!” This indeed is a far cry from people who want to know what EVERYONE has to say on every subject. If we were confident that our way was the right way (at least the “right” way for us), we would not be concerned with what anyone else was saying or doing.

Rav Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz would sometimes learn Nefesh Hachahim, sometimes Tanya, sometimes Maharal, and sometimes Derech Hashem with his students. He was asked why does he jump around and not stay with a set curriculum? He answered, “A set curriculum is good for a person who leads a consistent life. However, I found that today the students are fickle, and they do not always find themselves in the same reality. They therefore need different kinds of Torah approaches that will help them at different times. This is not picking and choosing. Rather this is assembling a complete tool set. If a person wants to be prepared to work with screws, he must have both Philips and flathead screwdrivers. Different approaches are necessary for different situations.”

With this perspective, we can gain chizuk and understand that even a Yaakov Avinu sometimes needed different approaches to help him grow. When we see others around us who have different approaches, we must recognize that even the healthiest diet may be dangerous to some people, and what is healthy for them may be dangerous for others! We should learn to appreciate that the way we serve Hashem is the best way possible for us, but that does not mean that others must serve him the same way.

I would like to suggest that this approach may have assisted Yaakov in dealing with Lavan on Lavan’s terms. Yaakov is known for his Midah of Emes, truth. Yet, no one in the Torah had to lie and scheme more than Yaakov. Yaakov’s education helped him navigate those situations properly, for he had the agility to switch from one modus operandi to another. In a sense we can also understand that which the Vilna Gaon tells us in Parshas Vayeitzei that the twelve sons of Yaakov were different aspects of Yaakov’s own persona. When he put the rocks around his head and the miracle happened that they became one, that was a symbol that all twelve ways to serve Hashem come together to create “habechir sh’b’Avos” – the choicest of all the forefathers.