Yehuda: Thanking God

The Torah in Parashat Vayetze tells of the birth of Yaakov’s children, and explains the reason behind the name of each (with the notable exception of Dina). We read that the names of Leah’s first three children – Reuven, Shimon and Levi – all relate to her longing to win Yaakov’s love. The Torah introduces this section by telling us that Yaakov loved Rachel more than Leah (29:29), providing us with the background to understand Leah’s proclamations upon her first three births: “The Lord has seen my torment, and now my husband will love me” (29:32); “The Lord has heard that I was despised, and He therefore gave me this one, as well” (29:33); “Now, this time, my husband will cling to me, as I have borne three children for him” (29:34).

Interestingly, however, Leah shifts onto a much different theme with the birth of her fourth son, Yehuda: “She said: This time, I shall thank the Lord.” In this instance, there is no mention of her struggle for Yaakov’s love and desire to establish her prominence in the household. Instead, she simply thanks God for the blessing of her fourth child.

Apparently, as Rav Shimon Schwab noted (as cited by Rabbi Shmuel Silber), by the time Yehuda was born Leah had already accepted her position in the family. She no longer craved the primary status which she now realized she could not achieve. And once she was able to make peace with this reality, she was able to feel grateful and declare, “Odeh et Hashem.”

Significantly, Rashi (citing the Midrash) comments that Leah thanked God because she prophetically foresaw that Yaakov would beget twelve sons from four wives, and having now mothered four sons, she was mathematically guaranteed the stature of primary matriarch. Leah underwent a process of accepting that which she could not have and focusing her attention instead on the blessings that she did have. Acceptance allows us to feel grateful rather than resentful. Once we cease feeling disappointed and frustrated by what we seem unable to obtain, our minds and emotions will be free to enjoy and celebrate all that we have obtained.

It should be noted, however, that Leah’s feelings of frustration and angst appear to resurface later. After the birth of her sixth and final son, Zevulun, Leah exclaims, “Now my husband will establish his abode with me” (“Ha-pa’am yizbeleni ishi” – 30:20). Although Leah had resigned herself to her secondary status before Yehuda’s birth, it seems that her insecurity and disappointment continued to haunt her, to the point where the birth of her sixth child provided a degree comfort and solace.

Indeed, feeling content is a lifelong struggle. Even after we accept and make peace with unfulfilled dreams and aspirations, it is natural for the feelings of disappointment to occasionally resurface and cause us a degree of unease or angst. We learn from Leah, though, that we are nevertheless capable of jubilantly declaring, “Odeh et Hashem,” and feeling joyful and content with the many blessings in our life despite the many blessings for which we hoped but never received. Even as we struggle with feelings of disappointment, we must try, as much as possible, to appreciate what we are given and express our gratitude to the Almighty.

Volver al capítulo

Netziv on Yaakov's Brethren Gathering Stones

Toward the end of Parashat Vayetze we read of the formal truce made between Lavan and Yaakov, which was accompanied by the construction of a symbolic “gal avanim” – pile of stones – to serve as a physical demonstration of the pact. The Torah tells that Yaakov instructed “echav” – literally, “his brethren” – to gather stones for the purpose of erecting this gal (31:46). Rashi, citing the Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 74:13), explains “echav” in this context as referring to Yaakov’s sons, and it was they whom he instructed to collected stones.

This explanation gives rise to the obvious question of why the Torah did not use the normal term for sons – “banav.” According to Rashi, why did the Torah here refer to Yaakov’s sons as “his brethren”?

The Netziv, in his Ha’amek Davar, suggests an especially creative and insightful answer:

Yaakov’s character trait was getting along peacefully and calmly with people. Even though Lavan subjected him to considerable harassment…Yaakov nevertheless paid no heed and sought instead to pursue peace, and offered food to draw his heart close. And he also wanted to accustom his children to this wonderful trait, and he therefore instructed them to gather stones for this purpose. If he would have said, “My sons, gather stones,” it would not have struck their hearts as an ethical admonition, and they would have instead thought that they are abiding by their father’s command. He therefore called, “My brothers, gather stones,” to convey the rightness of this character trait even without the father’s instruction…

According to the Netziv, Yaakov wanted his children to gather stones not as a favor, to help him, but rather as a means of conveying a moral lesson about the importance of making peace with one’s adversaries. He wanted them to participate in this event so they could see how he pursued a peaceful resolution with Lavan despite the harassment he endured at Lavan’s hands. He therefore conveyed this instruction in a “friendly” manner, as opposed to an authoritarian one. Yaakov called to his sons here not as a father, but as a “brother,” as an equal, in order to ensure that the lesson would not be lost in the instinctive drive to obey a parent’s instruction.

The Netziv’s insight teaches that while it is important to establish parental authority, sometimes important life lessons are lost in the process of asserting that authority. On some occasions it is preferable to relate to one’s children as “echav,” as equals, inviting them to participate in important and formative projects, as opposed to instructing them to do so. By taking parental authority of the picture, we can give our children the opportunity to learn and grow, instead of simply obeying. And thus we need to carefully balance the aspect of “banav” with that of “echav,” and know when to assert authority and when to relate to our children as “brethren.”

Volver al capítulo

How Could Yaakov Marry Rachel after Marrying Leah?

Many scholars throughout the ages addressed the question of how Yaakov allowed himself to marry two sisters (Rachel and Leah), in light of the Talmudic tradition that the patriarchs followed Torah law, even though the Torah had not yet been given. The most famous answer, perhaps, is the theory advanced by the Ramban, in his commentary to Parashat Toledot (26:5), that the patriarchs observed the Torah’s commands only in Eretz Yisrael. He writes, “The mitzvot are the law of the God of the Land,” and they therefore must be followed only in God’s Land – Eretz Yisrael. Thus, Yaakov was permitted to violate the Torah’s marriage restrictions while he lived in Charan, outside the Land of Israel.

Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky, in his Emet Le-Yaakov, offers a surprisingly simple explanation for why Yaakov allowed himself to marry Rachel after marrying her sister. Yaakov not only desired to marry Rachel, but also made a solemn promise to her that he would marry her, as the Ramban himself notes in his commentary later in Sefer Bereishit (48:7).

If we assume that Yaakov followed Torah law even in Charan, then after Lavan deceived Yaakov and brought him Leah instead of Rachel, Yaakov faced a dilemma. He had made a promise to Rachel that he would marry her, but this would require violating the prohibition against marrying sisters. He would either have to violate his vow to Rachel or his commitment to Torah law. In truth, however, this was no dilemma at all.

Yaakov was not required to obey Torah law before it was given, and he committed himself to it voluntarily. Certainly, his voluntary religious standards should not get in the way of his fulfilling his formal obligations to another person. The strict moral obligation of keeping one’s word undoubtedly takes precedence over voluntary measures of piety, and Yaakov therefore married Rachel even though he had already married her sister.

Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky asserts that even the Ramban followed this line of reasoning. The Ramban’s discussion, according to Rav Yaakov, focuses on a different question, of why Providence arranged the events in such a way that Yaakov would be forced to violate the Torah’s marital laws. The Ramban answers that the patriarchs committed themselves to these laws only in Eretz Yisrael, and thus in truth Yaakov did not violate even his voluntary commitment to Torah law by marrying Rachel. But it is clear and obvious, Rav Yaakov claims, that Yaakov would not have broken his promise to Rachel for the purpose of abiding by self-imposed religious measures which were not strictly required.

Volver al capítulo

At Midnight: Yaakov's Escape from Lavan and Israel's Exodus from Egypt

One of the hymns traditionally sung at the end of the seder on Pesach is “Va-yehi Ba-chatzi Ha-layla,” which poetically describes the Biblical events which, according to tradition, occurred on the night of the 15^th of Nissan, the night of Pesach. Included in this list of events is God’s revelation to Lavan the night before he caught up to Yaakov, who had escaped with his family from Lavan’s home (“Hifchadeta Arami be-emesh layla”). Apparently, the author of this hymn followed a tradition claiming that it was the night of Pesach when God appeared to Lavan in a dream and warned him not to cause any harm to Yaakov (31:24).

This tradition is likely based upon the numerous parallels that exist between Yaakov’s escape from Lavan’s home and Benei Yisrael’s departure from Egypt. Yaakov and his family crossed a river after leaving Charan (31:21), just as Benei Yisrael crossed the Sea of Reeds after leaving Egypt. The Torah’s account, “It was told to Lavan on the third day that Yaakov escaped” (31:22) is reminiscent of the verse in Sefer Shemot, “It was told to the king of Egypt that the nation escaped” (Shemot 14:5). In both instances, the enemy decides to chase after those who have fled, and quickly catches up to them.

Rachel’s theft of Lavan’s terafim, some kind of religious article, perhaps parallels the destruction of the Egyptian idols at the time of the Exodus (Bamidbar 33:4). Yaakov had been forced to move in with Lavan due to the life-threatening danger posed by his brother, just as he and his family would later be forced to move to Egypt to escape a deadly drought.

During his stay with Lavan, Yaakov rapidly grew from a lone, penniless individual into a large, wealthy family, just as he and his family came to Egypt as a small family with not enough food for survival, and emerged as a large, wealthy nation.

Furthermore, according to some commentators, at the time of the Exodus Benei Yisrael tricked the Egyptians by saying they were leaving for a temporary three-day journey, somewhat resembling Yaakov’s clandestine escape from Lavan’s home.

When Yaakov and his family left Lavan’s home, they faced a frightening confrontation with Esav on their way to Eretz Yisrael, and Benei Yisrael came under attack from Amalek – a nation founded by Esav’s grandson – after they left Egypt and headed toward their land.

Another intriguing parallel may be detected in connection with the conclusion of both escapes. Yaakov and Lavan ultimately make a truce and agree that neither side would ever cross that boundary line to harm the other (31:52), just as Benei Yisrael were commanded at the sea, as the Egyptian army approached, never to return to Egypt (Shemot 14:13). Interestingly enough, Rashi cites from the Midrash that Yaakov and Lavan’s truce allowed the parties to cross the boundary for commerce, just as Halakha allows returning to Egypt for business (Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim 5:8).

This parallel may explain why mikra bikkurim – the text recited by a farmer when bringing his first fruits to the Beit Ha-mikdash – begins with the story of “Arami oveid avi” (Devarim 26:5), which is generally understood as a reference to Lavan’s mistreatment of Yaakov. Mikra bikkurim speaks mainly of the Egyptian bondage and subsequent redemption, yet it introduces the story of the bondage by mentioning Yaakov’s travails with Lavan. The reason, perhaps, is that – in the spirit of “ma’asei avot siman la-banim” – Yaakov’s sojourn with Lavan and subsequent return to Eretz Yisrael was the precursor of his descendants’ exile in Egypt and subsequent redemption.

Yaakov’s experience established the precedent of return to one’s homeland after an extended period of exile and oppression. The story of the Exodus begins with Yaakov’s suffering at the hands of Lavan, because it was this experience that set the model for Benei Yisrael’s experience in Egypt, paving the way for the prospect of return and redemption after a period of banishment and inhospitable exile.

(Based in part on Rav Matis Blum’s Torah La-da’at – Ba-kodesh Chazitikha, Parashat Vayetze)

Volver al capítulo

Yaakov and Yosef: Responding to Anxious Relatives

We noted the association drawn by Chazal between two tension-ridden conversations recorded in Sefer Bereishit. In Parashat Vayetze (30:2), Yaakov responds angrily to Rachel’s demand, “Give me children,” and he retorts, “Am I in the place of God, who has denied you fruit in the womb?” As the Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 71) notes, this response is reminiscent of Yosef’s comments to his brothers when they beg him to forgive their crimes against him: “Am I in God’s place?” (“Ha-tachat Elokim ani” – 50:19). Yosef assures his brothers that he would deal with them kindly, for he cannot assume the role of God and punish them for their wrongdoing. The Midrash comments, “The Almighty said to him [Yaakov]: Is this the way one responds to women in distress? By your life, your children will in the future stand before her son, and he will say, ‘Am I in God’s place?’” Chazal here point to Yosef’s comforting words to his brothers as a response of sorts to Yaakov’s harsh words to Rachel.

In both instances, anxiety drove one of the parties to extreme or irrational behavior. Rachel, unable to cope with her feelings of shame and jealousy, insensibly cast the blame onto Yaakov, demanding that he somehow find a solution to her infertility. In the case of Yosef, the brothers, who lived in Egypt under Yosef’s rule and relied upon his largesse, feared that after their father’s passing Yosef would use his position of power to exact revenge. Plagued by feelings of guilt and fear, they concocted an unlikely story that Yaakov had conveyed to them his instructions to Yosef to forgive them.

By associating these two episodes, Chazal seek to draw our attention to the distinction between the responses of Yaakov and Yosef. Yosef reacted with sympathy and understanding. He did not challenge his brothers or criticize them for concocting a story about Yaakov’s instructions. Yosef understood that they were driven to this measure by difficult emotions, and he empathized and gave them reassurance. Yaakov, by contrast, responded with anger. He was undoubtedly correct when he responded, “Am in the place of God, who has denied you fruit in the womb?” But in this response he addresses the words Rachel spoke, not the emotions they expressed. Rachel was not actually blaming Yaakov for her problem, or demanding that he resolve it. Her irrational remark was the result of overwhelming feelings of pain and anguish. Chazal therefore criticize Yaakov, asking, “Is this the way one responds to women in distress?” He should not have taken Rachel’s demand so literally. He should have responded with patience and understanding.

The contrast to Yaakov’s response to Rachel is Yosef’s response to his brothers. Yosef ignored their fabrication of Yaakov’s instructions, and went straight to the heart of the matter. He reacted not to their words, but rather to what drove them to speak those words – their feelings of guilt and fear. And he assuaged those difficult emotions by assuring them that he harbors no feelings of resentment for the crimes they committed.

Many relationships are strained or broken because of words spoken in times of tension and anxiety. The Midrash teaches us to exercise patience, sensitivity and understanding when reacting to irrational and even hurtful words spoken under such circumstances. We must be able to forgive and forget harsh words spoken in moments of distress, out of empathy and sensitivity for the difficult emotions from which they emerged.

Volver al capítulo

Yaakov vs. Yosef: Am I in Place of God?

The Torah in Parashat Vayetze records the brief, tension-ridden exchange between Yaakov and Rachel in the wake of Rachel’s inability to conceive. Rachel, who remained childless while her sister, Leah, bore several children in immediate succession to one another, confronts Yaakov and demands, “Give me children, for if not, [it is as though] I am dead!” (30:1). Yaakov angrily retorts, “Am I in the place of God, who has denied you fruit in the womb?”

The Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 71) notes the parallel between Yaakov’s angry retort to Rachel and Yosef’s reassuring words to his brothers spoken after Yaakov’s death. Later in Sefer Bereishit (50:15-21), we read that the brothers feared Yosef would avenge their mistreatment of him, and they begged him for compassion, claiming that Yaakov issued an instruction before his death that Yosef should forgive them. Yosef, in his response, rhetorically asks, “Am I in God’s place?” (“Ha-tachat Elokim ani” – 50:19), reminiscent of Yaakov’s response to Rachel – “Ha-tachat Elokim anokhi.” The Midrash comments: “The Almighty said to him [Yaakov]: Is this the way one responds to women in distress? By your life, your children will in the future stand before her son, and he will say, ‘Am I in God’s place?’” Chazal here clearly criticize Yaakov for reacting insensitively to his anguished wife, though it is not entirely clear, at least at first glance, how the parallel to Yosef’s soothing words to his brothers sheds any sort of light on this critique.

In both instances, the speaker avows his limited capability, deferring to God’s omnipotence. When Rachel expresses her frustration to Yaakov and “demands” children, he responds by denying his ability to assist her, essentially saying, “This depends on God, not on me.” In Yosef’s situation, too, the brothers fearfully anticipated some kind of reprisal on Yosef’s part, but he informed them that retribution is God’s department, so-to-speak, not his.

Chazal, in their criticism of Yaakov’s response to Rachel, and by contrasting it with Yosef’s response to his brothers, perhaps seek to instruct when to step back and leave it to God, and when to stubbornly insist on our power and capability. In Chazal’s view, Yosef’s question of “Am I in God’s place” was valid, but Yaakov’s wasn’t. When we are victimized, as Yosef was, the appropriate response is “Am I in God’s place,” to leave the matter in God’s hands rather than seek vengeance. But in Yaakov’s situation, when we encounter a person in distress, it is improper to excuse ourselves by deferring to God.

Yaakov was undoubtedly correct that only God could grant Rachel fertility, but he was incorrect in professing powerlessness. Even if he could not make Rachel fertile, he could, at least, offer the emotional support and encouragement that she so desperately needed. When we come upon a person in need of assistance, “There’s nothing I can do” is not a legitimate response. We might not be able to cure the patient’s illness or find gainful work for an unemployed friend, but there is always something we can do to help. These situations call for bold, proactive initiative. Humble withdrawal and a sense of dependency on God should be reserved for Yosef’s situation, when we have been wronged and feel an instinctive desire for revenge. It is here where we should present the claim of “Am I in God’s place.”

The role of judge should be reserved for God, but the role of generous benefactor is one which we should keep for ourselves and refuse to relinquish to the Almighty. When it comes to helping people in need, we are, in fact, to see ourselves as assuming God’s role, to feel empowered and determined to offer assistance in any way we can.

Volver al capítulo

Dina - a Twin?

We read in Parashat Vayetze of the birth of twelve of Yaakov’s thirteen children – eleven sons, and one daughter. The birth of Dina, Yaakov’s daughter, is mentioned as the last of Leah’s births. After telling of the birth of Zevulun, Leah’s sixth son, the Torah writes, “Afterward she [Leah] gave birth to a daughter, and she named her Dina” (30:21).

The brief account of Dina’s birth differs from that of Yaakov’s other children. In relating the births of Yaakov’s other children, the Torah mentions that the wife conceived and then gave birth (“va-tahar…va-teiled”), whereas in reference to Dina’s birth, the Torah simply states that “afterward she gave birth to Leah.” It is likely that this is the question posed by the Gemara toward the end of Masekhet Berakhot (60a) when it cites this verse and then asks, “What does ve-achar [‘afterward’] mean?” The Gemara raises the question of why the Torah introduces Dina’s birth with this phrase, rather than following the familiar format of “va-tahar…va-teiled.” To answer this question, the Gemara claims that the word “ve-achar” alludes to Leah’s calculations during her pregnancy. Prophetically foreseeing that Yaakov would beget twelve sons, Leah realized that if she bore a seventh son, Rachel would be able to bear only a single son, fewer than Yaakov’s maidservants whom he married and who bore two sons each. Leah therefore prayed that her fetus be transformed from a male to a female. The Torah alters its formulation in describing Dina’s birth to allude to the extraordinary circumstances surrounding her conception and birth.

Ibn Ezra advances a different theory to resolve this question. Commenting to the verse here in Parashat Vayetze, Ibn Ezra cites a view that Dina was Zevulun’s twin. Ibn Ezra elaborates a bit more fully on this theory in his commentary to Sefer Shemot (2:2), where he bases this notion on the Torah’s formulation in describing Dina’s birth. Rather than stating that Leah conceived and then gave birth, as it does with regard to Yaakov’s other children, the Torah simply says that after Zevulun was born, Leah delivered a girl. Ibn Ezra notes that this formulation resembles the description of the births of Esav and Yaakov: “The first one emerged…and he named him Esav. Then his brother emerged…” (25:25-26). In the case of Dina, too, the Torah tells that she was born after the birth of Zevulun, without mentioning her conception, because she was his twin and was conceived at the same time.

Ibn Ezra advances this theory in the context of his discussion concerning the surprising rate of the births of Yaakov’s children. We know that Yaakov spent a total of twenty years with Lavan – the first fourteen of which were spent working in exchange for marrying Leah and Rachel, and the final six were for pay (31:41). We also know that these final six years began after the birth of Yosef (see 30:25), the youngest of Yaakov’s children (except Binyamin, who was born after Yaakov’s return to Canaan). It thus emerges that Leah gave birth to seven children in seven years, a rate that becomes particularly startling considering the Torah’s account of Leah’s inability to conceive for some time after the birth of Yehuda (see 29:35, 30:9). The rapid rate becomes somewhat less surprising if we bring the number of Leah’s pregnancies down from seven to six, by claiming that Dina and Zevulun were conceived together. (See Rav Karmiel Cohen’s brief article on the subject at http://ybm.org.il/Hebrew/LessonArticle.aspx?item=1985.)

Volver al capítulo

Understanding Leah's Accusation

The Torah in Parashat Vayetze tells the famous story of Yaakov’s marriage to Leah. Yaakov and his uncle, Lavan, had arranged that Yaakov would work for him for seven years and then marry his younger daughter, Rachel. At the time of the wedding, however, Lavan brought Leah, instead of Rachel. The next day, in response to Yaakov’s protest, Lavan agreed to allow Yaakov to marry Rachel, as well, the following week, in exchange for yet another seven years of service.

Later in the parasha, we read the mysterious story of the duda’im (generally translated as “mandrakes”), the plants discovered by Yaakov’s eldest child, Reuven, who brought them to his mother, Leah. Rachel asked Leah for these plants, to which Leah responded, ‘Is it not enough that you took my husband, that you shall also take my son’s duda’im?!” (30:15).

Leaving aside the obvious question of why Leah reacted so harshly to her sister’s request – and why Rachel ultimately agreed to forego on her night with Yaakov in exchange for these duda’im – it seems difficult to understand Leah’s accusation, “you took my husband.” Did Rachel take Leah’s husband? Wasn’t Rachel the intended wife – until Leah, who cooperated with her father’s cruel scheme, took Rachel’s husband? How could Leah have made such a charge, and why didn’t Rachel defend herself?

This question becomes especially difficult in light of the celebrated passage in the Talmud (Megila 13b) which tells that Rachel selflessly and voluntarily facilitated Leah’s marriage to Yaakov. Suspecting that her father would try to substitute her with Leah, Rachel wanted to ensure that Leah would not be humiliated on the wedding night. She therefore “prepped” her sister ahead of time so that Yaakov would not realize who she was. She taught her the special “signals” that she had arranged with Yaakov, such that Yaakov would assume she was Rachel, and she would be spared humiliation.

If so, then how could Leah possibly have the audacity to accuse her sister of taking her husband? To the contrary, if not for Rachel, she herself would never have been married to Yaakov at all, and, moreover, she would have been exposed as an accomplice to her father’s nefarious ruse. How, then, can we understand Leah’s accusation?

We find numerous different interpretations to this verse among the commentators. The Ramban explains, “You took for yourself my husband as though you are his wife and I am the handmaid.” It appears that according to the Ramban, Leah refers not to Rachel’s marriage to Yaakov per se, but rather to her attitude toward her relationship with Yaakov. Rachel conducted herself as Yaakov’s primary wife, which Leah naturally found offensive.

One might argue, however, that Leah had no right to expect anything different from Rachel, who was, after all, the woman whom Yaakov had desired to marry. Leah was made Yaakov’s way only by way of a cruel trick – one in which she was a full participant. It thus seems more than justifiable for Rachel to see herself as Yaakov’s main wife.

Seforno (see also Chizkuni) explains differently, claiming that Leah criticizes Rachel for agreeing to marry Yaakov. While it is true that Rachel was unfairly cheated out of her groom, after the fact, she should not have entered into this problematic, polygamous relationship. By agreeing to marry Yaakov, Rachel indeed took away Leah’s husband, as she left her little chance to earn Yaakov’s affection. Even if Rachel selflessly assisted her sister and facilitated her marriage to Yaakov, Leah charged, she acted cruelly by then joining the marriage, thereby denying Leah the possibility of being loved.

The Radak explains differently, suggesting that Yaakov spent more nights with Rachel than with Leah, in order to increase her chances of conceiving. As Rachel was having difficulty conceiving, whereas Leah (at least originally) conceived immediately, Yaakov engaged in intimacy more frequently with Rachel, in the hope that she would bear a child. Leah resented this favoritism showed to Rachel, and it is to this preferential status that she refers when she accuses her sister of taking away her husband. This explanation of the verse works well with Rachel’s response, offering to forego on her scheduled turn to spend the night with Yaakov. Upon hearing Leah complain that she receives intimacy more frequently, Rachel offers to relinquish her next turn in exchange for the coveted duda’im.

Volver al capítulo

Lavan's Deceitful Flattery

We read in Parashat Vayetze that after Yaakov completed his fourteen years of service to his uncle and father-in-law, Lavan, which he owed in exchange for his two daughters’ hands in marriage, he expressed his desire to return to Canaan. Lavan, however, begged Yaakov to remain and continue working for him: “If only I have found favor in your eyes – I have a superstitious idea that the Lord has blessed me on your account” (30:27). As a number of commentators explain, Lavan determined through his oracles that it was because of the presence of Yaakov, a righteous man, that his enterprises succeeded over the last fourteen years. He therefore implored Yaakov to remain so he can continue to reap the benefits of his presence.

The next verse reads, “He said: Set your wage for me, and I shall give it.” Significantly, this verse begins with the word “va-yomar” (“He said”), clearly indicating that this is a new statement, and not the continuation of Lavan’s remarks from the previous verse. As Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch notes, it appears that Lavan’s initial endeavor to persuade Yaakov to stay did not succeed. After begging Yaakov to remain on account of the blessing he brought to his herds, Yaakov remained silent and steadfast in his desire to leave. Lavan was therefore compelled to make an attractive offer – “Set your wage for me, and I will give it.” Indeed, Yaakov then responds and recommends an arrangement for compensation, which Lavan accepts.

Rav Hirsch elaborates on Lavan’s initial attempt to persuade Yaakov. He suggests that Lavan wanted to retain Yaakov’s service only for his mere keep, without paying a salary (just as Yaakov had worked for fourteen years without a salary, simply to earn the right to marry his daughters).

Lavan sought to win Yaakov’s consent to this unfair arrangement by attributing his success to the “magical” effect of Yaakov’s presence. He made this claim, Rav Hirsch explains, for two reasons. First, it absolved him from having to acknowledge Yaakov’s devoted service and hard work. He told Yaakov that he brought him success simply by being there – the implication being that Lavan is willing to keep Yaakov there, but not pay him anything more.

Additionally, Lavan hoped to win Yaakov’s service through flattery. He assumed – wrongly – that Yaakov would be gratified to hear the oracle’s proclamation that he possesses some magical power that brought blessing to Lavan’s flocks. This gratification would be enough for Yaakov to agree to remain, even without receiving a reasonable salary. But Yaakov was not moved, and it was only after Lavan offered material compensation, instead of flattering compliments, that he considered staying on as Lavan’s shepherd.

Lavan’s wily attempt to win Yaakov’s favor reminds us of the strong psychological effects of flattery. Desperate as we are for a feeling of self-worth, we are very vulnerable to this power of insincere compliments. Many people are prepared to sacrifice a lot for words such those spoken by Lavan, to hear that they are important and to feel admired and revered. Yaakov had a healthy enough self-esteem to be able to disregard Lavan’s shallow compliment. His rejection of Lavan’s offer is instructive in alerting us to beware of the destructive effects of flattery, and not to sacrifice our own interests in exchange for complimentary words that give us a misleading sense of importance.

Volver al capítulo

The Dudaim: Friendship Between Sisters

In Parshat Veyetze, Rachel asks Leah to share with her some of the duda’im plants that Leah’s son, Reuven, had brought her. Leah’s response to her sister’s request seems startling: “Is it not enough that you took my husband, that you shall also take my son’s duda’im?!” (30:15). How could Leah have had the gall to accuse Rachel of “taking her husband?" After all, Rachel was the woman Yaakov desired to marry, and it was only a result of her father’s shameless ruse – in which Leah seems to have been an active and cooperative participant – that he mistakenly married Leah. How can we explain Leah’s accusation against Rachel?

Today we will present two novel and unconventional approaches to understanding this verse.

Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, in his commentary, takes the classical commentators to task for treating this entire episode of the duda’im too seriously:

This business of the mandrakes has again and again been taken by commentators in a serious vein. But it is quite unthinkable that Leah, whose whole life was devoted to gain the complete love of her husband could possibly have uttered the words “You have got my man and now you want my bunch of flowers also” in any serious sense. As if the possession of a few flowers could come into the very slightest consideration in connection with, or in comparison with, the possession of a beloved husband.

Rav Hirsch does not raise the question posed above – as to how Leah could have accused Rachel of taking her husband from her – but rather asks how Leah could have drawn any sort of comparison between being deprived of her husband’s affection and being deprived of flowers. This question led Rav Hirsch to advance an entirely different reading of this episode. Whereas this exchange between Leah and Rachel is generally understood as reflecting the tension and rivalry that characterized their relationship, Rav Hirsch understood that to the contrary, it demonstrates the remarkable congeniality that existed between the two sisters. He writes:

Rather, the whole matter appears as an instance to show a state of the two sisters living together in the most confidential intimacy. While Jacob is out in the fields the two wives sit together. His evenings he spends alternatively with each one of them. Reuben…brings some wild flowers home to his mother. “Give me some of them” says Rachel. “What sauce to ask for my precious flowers, etc.” says Leah jokingly, but of course she gives her some… “Now” says Rachel, “because you have been so kind, he shall come to you this evening…. Last evening you have had my husband etc.”

According to Rav Hirsch, Rachel and Leah’s remarks to each other in this instance were said in lighthearted humor. That night was in any event Leah’s turn with Yaakov, and the two sisters joked together of how they share everything – their husband, their flowers, and so on. Leah did not accuse Rachel of taking her husband. Rather, she lightheartedly quipped, “Well, we share a husband – so I guess we can share flowers, too…”

A much different – but equally unconventional – explanation of Leah’s remarks is cited in the name of Rav Shalom Schwadron. (This approach is cited and developed by Rav Asher Brander athttp://www.kehilla.org/parsha-reflections-1/vayetzei-5769-the-power-of-hidden-love.) This approach claims, surprisingly enough, that Leah never knew that Yaakov was supposed to marry Rachel. Lavan arranged for Rachel’s marriage to Yaakov privately, and secretly, and throughout the seven years of Yaakov’s service for Rachel’s hand, nobody other than these three – Lavan, Yaakov and Rachel – was aware of the agreement. Thus, when Lavan approached Leah and informed her that she would marry Yaakov, she had no knowledge of any scheme. She innocently assumed that this was being done with Yaakov’s wholehearted consent.

Volver al capítulo

Yehuda: Thanking God

Netziv on Yaakov's Brethren Gathering Stones

How Could Yaakov Marry Rachel after Marrying Leah?

At Midnight: Yaakov's Escape from Lavan and Israel's Exodus from Egypt

Yaakov and Yosef: Responding to Anxious Relatives

Yaakov vs. Yosef: Am I in Place of God?

Dina - a Twin?

Understanding Leah's Accusation

Lavan's Deceitful Flattery

The Dudaim: Friendship Between Sisters

Pages

📲 Instala nuestra App