In this week's parsha, the Torah relates that Yaakov approached Rachel and Leah and told them that Hashem told him that it's time to leave their father's house. Rachel and Leah responded by saying "Haod lanu chelek venachala b'veis avinu", do we still have a share in our father's house? (A rhetorical question indicating that there was no benefit in them remaining with their father Lavan.) At first glance this seems to be a strange response. Why does it matter whether or not they stand to gain from remaining in Lavan's house? If Hashem said that it's time to go, then it's time to go, regardless of what one believes makes more sense.
R' Moshe Feinstein, in his sefer Darash Moshe, derives an important and powerful lesson from their response. He explains that Rachel and Leah are teaching us the proper way to view the mitzvos of Hashem, and in turn, how to educate our children. A person who has the attitude of "It's hard to be a Jew", may himself pass all his trials and tribulations, but his children may not stay on the Jewish path. Rather, one has to understand that whatever Hashem commands us is for our good, and following the ways of the Torah is beneficial for us. The attitude must be "It's wonderful to be a Jew". For example, a person must understand that his yearly income is decided on Rosh Hashana and he doesn't gain anything from working on Shabbos and Yom Tov, or engaging in dishonest business practices. Therefore, nothing at all is lost by following the ways of the Torah. Only with such an attitude can he be sure that both he and his children will stay on the Torah's path.
This is precisely message that Rachel and Leah wanted to teach their children. Of course we must do everything because Hashem commanded us. However, when encountering a difficult commandment from Hashem, one should portray its fulfillment in the easiest manner. Their response wasn't the reason why they were leaving their father's house, rather it was an explanation as to why listening to Hashem wasn't at all challenging. They made sure to not only demonstrate a positive attitude, but also to explain for the sake of their children why everything made sense. That there is always a reason for why each commandment for Hashem is one's benefit.
R' Moshe explains an earlier posuk in the Torah with this approach. The first posuk in Parshas Noach states, "These are the children of Noach, Noach was a completely righteous man in his generation". Only later does the Torah tell us who Noach's three children were. At first glance it seems that this is out of order. The Torah should first finish and tell us Noach's children and then mention that he was a righteous man. Why does the Torah first tell us that Noach was a righteous man and then tell us about his children? Rashi explains that the reason why the Torah specifically wrote it in this order is to teach us that the true "offspring" of righteous people are their good deeds and actions. What does Rashi mean? R' Moshe explains (in one of his three explanations) based on the idea stated above. A person's approach toward the mitzvos of the Torah must be similar to one's approach towards his children. A person loves his children even though he may incur some difficulties in raising them. So too, a person must love his mitzvos that he does, even though there are some rough bumps along the way.
With this approach, may we merit that both we and our children continue in the path of the Torah, and continue doing the mitzvos out of love, not out of mere obligation.
