Ya‘aqov’s journey to Haran and subsequent marriage to Lavan’s daughters forms the subject of this week’s parasha. Ya‘aqov, we are told, fell in love with Rahél, the younger of the two, and agreed to work seven years for her hand. In the end, Lavan lived down to his Arammi reputation as a swindler and trickster, and Ya‘aqov awoke to find himself married to Lé’a, the elder daughter. Only after he agreed to work another seven years was he able to marry his true love, Rahél.
ויאהב גם את רחל מלאה כו' וירא ד' כי שנואה לאה ויפתח את רחמה ורחל עקרה (“...And he also loved Rahél more than Lé’a... And Ha-Shem saw that Lé’a was hated [sënu’a] and He opened her womb, and Rahél was barren”; XXIX,30-31). The harsh wording prompts Hazal to explain: ראוי' היתה בכורה לצאת מרחל דכתיב "אלה תלדות יעקב יוסף" אלא שקדמתה לאה ברחמים (“It was proper for the first-born to come from Rahél, for it is written, ‘These are the offspring of Ya‘aqov, Yoséf’ [Genesis XXXVII, 2, implying that Yoséf was first in rank], but Lé’a preceded her through rahamim”; בבא בתרא קכ"ג).
The gëmara goes on to clarify: מה קדמה לאה ברחמים דכתיב "ועיני לאה רכות" כו' רבא אמר לעולם רכות ממש ולא גנאי הוא לה אלא שבח הוא לה שהיתה שומעת בני אדם שהיו אומרים ב' בנים יש לה לרחל וב' בנות יש לו ללבן גדולה לגדול וקטנה לקטן היתה יושבת בפרשת דרכים ושואלת גדול מה מעשיו ואמרו "איש ידע ציד" וקטן מה מעשיו ואמרו "איש תם ישב אהלים" היתה בוכה עד שנשרו ריסי עיני' והיינו דכתיב "וירא ד' כי שנואה לאה" כו' מה שנואה ששנואין מעשי עשו בעיני' (“What [does it mean that] Lé’a preceded through rahamim? It is written: ‘And Lé’a’s eyes were weak’ [XXIX, 17].... Rava said, 'They were truly weak, and it is no insult to her, but praise of her, for she would hear people say, "Rivqa has two sons and Lavan two daughters; the elder daughter for the elder son, and the younger for the younger." And she would sit at the crossroads and ask, "What does the elder one do?" And they said, "a man who knows how to trap" [Genesis XXV, 7; i.e., to fool and swindle people – Rashi ad loc.]. "And what does the younger do?" "A perfected man, sitting in tents" [ibid., i.e., studious and upright]; she would cry until her eyelashes fell out; and this is what is written, "And Ha-Shem saw that Lé’a was sënu’a..." What is sënu’a? That the deeds of ‘Ésav were sënu’in in her eyes'”; ב"ב שם וע"ע זוה"ק ח"א קנ"ד. דא"א שלאה היתה שנואה ממש דכל אינון בני מעלי מלאה נפקי). Lé’a was shown mercy, because the prospect of marrying such a rasha‘ was unspeakable to her.
The application of Divine mercy to Lé’a would also seem to be indicated by the language of the verse itself, since it is the shém Ha-Shem, emblematic of the middath ha-rahamim which saw her condition and, apparently, dealt with it. Reading the passage as we do, our eyes are astonished to fall upon the following statement by the Maharal mi-Prag: הלידה במדת הדין כדכתיב "ויפתח אלקים את רחמה" (“Giving birth [leida] is a matter of the middath ha-din, as it is written, ‘And Eloqim opened her womb’”; גבורות ד' פס"ג).
As Rabbi Mënahem Mendel Breier points out in his notes on the Maharal, this is not precisely the wording of our verse, nor does it occur anywhere else in Tanach. However, this does not, in my opinion, necessarily mean that the Maharal is misquoting the verse; rather, it appears that he does not feel that the antecedent of the third person pronoun implied in the prefix of va-yiftah (“and He opened”) is Ha-Shem, as one would ordinarily conclude from the wording. What causes him to reach that conclusion? And what are the implications for our passage?
B.
That leida is a matter of din may be deduced from other sources, e.g., the mishna, where we learn: על שלש עבירות נשים מתות בשעת לידתן על שאינן זהירות בנדה בחלה ובהדלקת הנר (“Because of three transgressions women die at the moment they are giving birth: Because they are not careful about nidda [cf. Leviticus XII, 1-8, XV, 1-33], about separating halla [cf. Numbers XV, 18-21], and about kindling the Sabbath light”; שבת פ"ב מ"ו). Clearly there is an element of din there. Rahél herself took note of the element at the moment Dan was born to her servant Bilha, whence his name (Genesis XXX, 6), and it again made its appearance when she died giving birth to Binyamin, the inadvertent result of her husband’s curse concerning Lavan’s stolen tërafim (ibid., XXXI, 32-35, Rashi ad loc.; XXXV, 16-19).
So the Maharal plainly has on what to rely in stating that leida involves din. What remains to be established is how he derives it from our verse.
As I have written in the past (cf. A”Z Yashir, parshath Va-Yéshev 5768), primogeniture (bëchora) has an interesting duality to it. The first-born son is called his father’s bëchor, but the alternative term for bëchor, peter rehem (literally, “the one who releases the womb”; cf. Exodus XIII, 2, 12-15; XXXI, 19-20; Numbers XIII, 15) is clearly a reference to the mother’s first-born son. In the most ordinary case, when a man has but one wife, this is a distinction without a difference. But in the case of Ya‘aqov, there were arguably four bëchoroth to choose from: Rë’uvén ben Lé’a, Dan ben Bilha, Gad ben Zilpa, and, as we have seen, Yoséf ben Rahél. Though Ya‘aqov himself called Rë’uvén his bëchor (Genesis XLIX, 3), his treatment of Yoséf and his pronouncement, אפרים ומנשה כראובן ושמעון יהיו לי (“Efrayim and Mënashe – Yoséf’s sons – will be like Rë’uvén and Shim‘on to me”; XLVIII, 5), and Moshe’s later statement (Deuteronomy XXXIII, 17, Rashi ad loc.) suggest that it was not the final decision. Ya‘aqov had his reasons for changing his mind, of course, but our gëmara reveals the judgment of Heaven. Lé’a preceded Rahél through rahamim, ומתוך צניעות שהיתה בה ברחל החזירה הקב"ה לה (“And because of the modesty which was in Rahél the Holy One, Blessed is He, returned it to her”). How was this exemplary modesty shown?
C.
A little thought will reveal that Lavan’s deception could not have been carried out without a measure of connivance on the part of the sisters. Elsewhere, the Talmud asks: ומאי צניעות היתה בה ברחל כו' אמר לה מינסבא לי אמרה לי' אין מיהו אבא רמאה הוא ולא יכלת לי' כו' אמר לה ומאי רמיותא אמרה לי אית אחתא דקשישא מינאי ולא מנסיב לי מקמה מסר לה סימנין כי מטא ליליא אמרה השתא מיכספא אחתאי מסרתינהו ניהלה והיינו דכתהב "ויהי בבקר והנה הוא לאה" כו' מתוך סימנין שמסרה רחל ללאה לא הוה ידע עד השתא (“And what was the modesty in Rahél?... [Ya‘aqov] said to her, 'Will you marry me?' She told him, 'Yes, but Daddy is a trickster and you can’t [get the better] of him....' He asked her, 'And what is the trick?' She said, 'I have a sister who is older than me, and he will not marry me off before her.' [Ya‘aqov] gave her signs [by which he would be able to recognize her]. When the [wedding] night arrived, she said, 'Now my sister is going to be shamed,' and passed on the signs to her. And this is what is written, ‘And it was in the morning, and behold it was Lé’a [Genesis XXIX, 25]’.... Because of the signs which Rahél had transmitted to Lé’a, Ya‘aqov did not know [who she was] until now”; מגילה י"ג:).
The signs of recognition are only half of this story of sisterly love and self-sacrifice; had it not also been for Rahél’s exemplary modesty, such that Ya‘aqov was not so familiar with her voice and mannerisms, he would still have suspected something wrong. If, as our verse tells us, Divine rahamim was shown to Lé’a because her high aspirations to holiness would not allow her to countenance marriage to ‘Ésav, the vehicle of that mercy was Rahél’s incredibly self-sacrificial act of hesed, given that she could not have known that Ya‘aqov would acquiesce and work another seven years for her.
So Lé’a’s womb was opened and she began to bear children; but Rahél was barren. Why?
As we have already established (A”Z Yashir, Parshath Va-Yéra’ 5771), the word rahamim is a compound which expresses a ratio between hesed and din; when the hesed and din are Divine in character, each is individually marked by the Divine names Ha-Shem Eloqim (Genesis II, 4 cited in Rashi’s comment on I, 1). It is therefore instructive that when the Almighty laid down the conditions of childbirth to the first woman, we read: ויאמר ד' אלקים אל הנחש כו' אל האשה אמר וגו' (“And Ha-Shem Eloqim said to the snake.... To the woman He said....”; III, 14-16). Both Divine Names were present in the expression.
This, I believe, is the source of the Maharal’s remark, and the reason why he inserted Eloqim into our verse; if Divine hesed was present at the opening of Lé’a’s womb, din (required, if it is an expression of rahamim) was also present, and Rahél had taken the din on herself, by transmitting the hesed to Lé’a. This serves to explain Ya‘aqov’s seemingly callous and cold-hearted response to Rahél’s anguish over her own inability to conceive a child: התחת אלקים אנכי אשר מנע ממך פרי בטן (“...Am I in place of Eloqim, who has kept from you the fruit of the belly?”; XXX, 2). It was up to Rahél to pray for children, מפני שהקב"ה מתאוה לתפלתן של צדיקים, as Hazal tell us; “because the Holy One, Blessed is He, is desirous of the tëfilla of tzaddiqim” (יבמות ס"ד.).
D.
The English word “prayer” is a wholly inadequate translation of tëfilla. The word originates from a primal root pé-vav-lamed which is itself unattested in the Biblical corpus, but whose suffixed derivatives convey a range of meanings such as analysis, discrimination, examination, investigation, and the like, whilst its prefixed derivatives convey a general sense of humility, subordination, and lowliness (e.g., tafél, “subordinate, or of secondary importance”; nafal, “to fall”; shafél, “humble, lowly,” etc.). The verb most generally translated “to pray,” hithpallél, is reflexive, that is, it denotes an action which the actor performs on himself. Tëfilla, therefore, is introspective at the same time that it is communication with the Almighty, a self-analysis, distinguishing and discriminating the causes and roots of one’s problems, afflictions, hopes, needs, and desires; the underlying concepts are very similar to those of din.
Rahél wanted children, as every normal woman does. Her barrenness, we see, was a matter of din. Interestingly, the Torah tells us, so was her eventual pregnancy with Yoséf: ויזכר אלקים את רחל וישמע אלי' אלקים ויפתח את רחמה (“And Eloqim remembered Rahél, and Eloqim listened to her and opened her womb”; XXX, 22). Why was the opening of Rahél’s womb a matter of din rather than hesed?
The verse immediately preceding opens: ואחר ילדה בת (“And afterward, [Lé’a] bore a daughter....”). Hazal ask: מאי "ואחר" לאחר שדנה לאה דין בעצמה ואמרה י"ב שבטים עתידין לצאת מיעקב ששה יצאו ממני וארבעה מן השפחות ואם זה זכר הרי לא תהא אחותי רחל באחת מן השפחות מיד נהפכה לבת (“‘What is ‘And afterward?’ After Lé’a judged a judgment on herself and said, 'Twelve tribes are destined to descend from Ya‘aqov; six have come out from me and four from the servants [Bilha and Zilpa]. If this [fetus] is male, my sister Rahél will not be equal to one of the servants!' Immediately, [the fetus] became a daughter....”; ברכות ס.).
Whom Lé’a named Dina. She repaid her debt to her sister, whose pregnancy was thus min ha-din, a matter of judgment and justice, not mercy.
No comments:
Post a Comment