Work 7 years for a wife... and again.

26 May 2012 Torah Study with Rabbi Marder

• • 29:15.  And Laban said to Jacob, "Because you are my kinsman, should you work for me gratis? Tell me what your wages shall be."
  • Robert Alter (The Five Books of Moses, page 154) – Jacob has already been working for Lavan for a month.  Alter writes (almost sarcastically) “In a neat deployment of delayed revelation … we now learn that this ‘bone and flesh’ of Laban’s has already been put to work by his gracious host for a month’s time.”  
  • Nahum Sarna (JPS Torah Commentary. Genesis, page 203) on וַעֲבַדְתַּנִי, serve me.  Its root is ד–ב–ע, servant; forms of this word occur seven times in this portion of the narrative (Sarna, page 365n) and in other places.
  • Oracle of Rebecca – older shall serve the younger brother (25:23).
  • After Isaac blesses Esau, he will serve his younger brother (27:40)
  • Two subsequent verses, 27:37, 49.
  • How ironic!  Now Jacob is a servant; Jacob gets payback (justice) through Lavan
  • Typically, the reward of mitzvah is the mitzvah itself, if not another mitzvah; the opposite is “wages,” as in this case.
  • 29:16.  Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the elder was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel.
  • Leah – unclear meaning; unlike Rachel, which means “ewe.”
  • Cognates in Akkadian and Arabic, meaning cow, strong woman, or mistress.
  • לאה, weary or tired; too lazy, no longer in a position to do something; powerless, incapable (Holladay, page 171); impatient, exhausted (Klein, page 291)
  • Wisdom/knowledge (M’leah).  From מלא or מלאה, fullness, accomplished, completed, confirmed, plenty (Klein, pages 347-348) as in yield of a vineyard, Holladay, page 196)
  • Midrash Rabbah 70:15 reads בָנוֹת as בּוֹנוֹת, builders because both Leah and Rachel’s similar and equal contributions to Jewish history.  The Midrash also cites Eitz Yosef as its source (Hanokh Zundel ben Yosef).

  	Leah	Rachel
  Chiefs	Judah in Zechariah 9:7, 12:15	Manasseh in Judges 6:15, Deuteronomy 33:15
  Kings	David from tribe of Judah	Saul, Ish-boseth, Jeroboam, Ahab, Jehu from tribe of Ephraim
  Killers of lions	David in I Samuel 17:36; Benaiah in I Chronicles 27:5, a Levite per II Samuel 23:20	Samson from Tribe of Dan in Judges 14:5-6
  Prophets	Moses from tribe of Levi in Exodus 6:16ff; Samuel from Levi in I Chronicles 6:8; Isaiah from tribe of Judah in Megillah 10b.	Joshua from tribe of Ephraim in Numbers 13:8; Elijah from Tribe of Benjamin per Midrash Rabbah, 71:9
  Judges	Othiel from Tribe of Judah in I Chronicles 4:1,13; Tola from Tribe of Issachar in Judges 10:1; and others	Ehud from Tribe of Benjamin in Judges 3:15; Gideon descendant from Manasseh in Judges 6:14; and others
  Conquerors	Moses and David	Joshua and Saul
  Dividers of lands	Above-mentioned kings
  Sacrifice of a son overrode Shabbat	Solomon, who offered sacrifices for seven consecutive days in II Chronicles 7:9	Tribe of Ephraim offering sacrifices on Shabbat in Numbers 7:48 and Bamidbar Rabbah 14 ¶2
  War overrode Shabbat	David against Philistines in I Samuel 23 and Eruvin 45a	Joshua and Jericho in Joshua 6 and Beresheis Rabbah 47 ¶10.
  Two nights of victories through miracles	Over Pharaoh, slaying of firstborn, during Exodus credited to Moses Over Sennacherb as stated in II Kings 18:1, credited to prayers of King Hezekiah, a descendant of Judah	Gideon, a descendant of Rachel, over Midian in Judges 7 Mordechai, a Benjamite, over Haman (Esther 2:5, 6:1)

  • Luach-el: spirit of God
  • Why is Leah called הַגְּדֹלָה, elder or older?  According to Midrash Rabbah 70:15, Leah’s legacy was a line of priests (Levites), kings (David, from Judah), and Jerusalem (the land on which stood the temple belonged to Judah), all of which would exist forever, from generation to generation (Joel 4:20-21, Psalm 132:14)
  • Also, in the same Midrash, Rachel is called the הַקְּטַנָּה, the younger, because her “gifts” were temporary: Joseph ruled over Egypt for a short time; Saul was king for a short time; the tabernacle at Shiloh, in the Tribe of Joseph and once destroyed, never rebuilt, i.e., its sanctity was gone, unlike the temple in Jerusalem (Psalm 78:67) 
  • 29:17. Leah's eyes were tender, but Rachel had beautiful features and a beautiful complexion.
  • Leah’s eyes were רַכּוֹת, weak/soft/tender/gentle.  Rebecca was gorgeous; just like Jacob and Esau, who are also distinguished by appearance
  • Leah’s eyes
  • Rashi on “tender”: Because she expected to fall into Esau’s lot, and she wept, because everyone was saying, “Rebecca has two sons, and Laban has two daughters. The older [daughter] for the older [son], and the younger [daughter] for the younger [son]” (Bava Basra 123a).
  • Leah prayed not to marry Esau; her wish was granted but the price was bad or tender eyes from so much crying about being matched with the “wicked Esau” (Midrash Rabbah 70:16).
  • Her eyes were too sensitive to sunlight and so she couldn’t be a shepherd [too bad sunglasses hadn’t been invented].
  • Nahum Sarna – Leah had dull eyes, lacking luster.  “Lustrous” eyes were a sign of beauty as in I Samuel 16:12, describing David’s “fair eyes and;” and in Song of Songs 4:1,9.
  • Contrary to Sarna’s view, Robert Alter writes (page 154) about the word רַךְ: “Generally the word rakh is an antonym of ‘hard’ and means ‘soft,’ ‘gentle,’ ‘tender,’ or in a few instances ‘weak.’  The claim that her it refers to dullness, or a lusterless quality, is pure translation by immediate context because rakh nowhere else has that meaning.  Still, there is no way of confidently deciding whether the word indicates some sort of impairment (‘weak’ eyes or perhaps odd-looking eyes) or rather suggests that Leah had sweet eyes that are her one asset of appearance, in contrast to her beautiful sister.”
  • Rachel was beautiful in all aspects – complexion and features (like David the shepherd).
  • That Rachel was prettier will lead to tension between the sisters.
  • Munk (The Call of the Torah, Bereishis, page 392) on female beauty
  • Munk first cites Rashi, who writes that תֹּאַר is the form [or shape] of the countenance an expression similar to Isaiah 44: 13, The carpenter stretched out a line, he beautifies it [יְתָאֲרֵהוּ] with a saw; he fixes it with planes, and with a compass he rounds it, and he made it in the likeness of a man, like the beauty of man to sit [in] the house.  Isaiah 44 is a speech on the folly and pointlessness of idolatry, showing how carving of an idol is not dissimilar to preparing wood for mundane purposes such a keeping warm and cooking [Berlin, Jewish Study Bible, pages 872-873]
  • Sarah was so gorgeous that Abraham must hide her from others.
  • Typically, Torah does not emphasize physical beauty, but is often seen as a window to the soul.  Munk writes, “The Torah praises feminine beauty … especially in connection with the Patriarchs’ wives [but] does not consider beauty a virtue in itself, and King Solomon describes it as ‘deceitful and vain’ alongside the virtue of piety (Proverbs 31:30).  Nevertheless, the Torah does esteem true beauty as the physical reflection of a beautiful soul.  A bride with beautiful eyes needs no proof of her other qualities… What is more, physical beauty, like the splendors of nature, can be considered one of the forms in which the Divinity and the sublime of the Creator are revealed.”
  Proverbs 31:30. Charm is false and beauty is futile; a God-fearing woman is to be praised. Rashi on “Charm is false:” No one praises a woman of charm or beauty; everything is futility and false, but a God-fearing woman alone is praised.
  • Physical beauty (people, plants, etc) shows the miracle of creation.  Ugliness is in human attribute and is not from God; it distracts people, not God.  “Beauty has and exalting effect on the human soul; ugliness … has a depressing effect.”
  • Women’s Commentary (pages 743-744) – essay by Shulamit Reinharz on female beauty and its consequences; a significant drive by girls to look good (plastic surgery, diets) and have the perfect body.  For most biblical figures, beauty is equated to goodness. Exceptions are in Proverbs 31:30 [above]; and Ruth, who is good but never called beautiful.
  The context of this essay is the laws of purity for priests.  According to Leviticus 21:16-24, priests must be free of any physical defects or imperfection, which was believed to impair holiness.  Without priesthood, the requirement for physical perfection is no longer applicable to Judaism.  However, its legacy lives as a desire for physical beauty, especially among women, who have few compunctions about dieting and plastic surgery as was to become attractive and become intolerant of lack of glamour.
  The result is a lucrative beauty business, which has its apparent genesis in the need for physical perfection in priests.  Sustaining this business is the concept of beauty equaling goodness, trust, intelligence, sociability, morality, which permeates most of the world’s cultures, even children’s literature.   The corollary is that ugliness is associated with the opposite traits; beautify seem to be intolerant of ugly people. The price of this perception is lowering the self-esteem of girls and women who are not “pretty.”
  Film, “Killing Us Softly 4.  Advertising’s Image of Women,” by Jean Kilbourne, shows how advertising creates a “perfect” female figure.  Ads are pervasive, hard to avoid, and cumulative.  They make use of computer graphics to alter appearances, creating artificial images of “beautiful” people from pictures of many body parts. 
  Bottom line: physical beauty can attract people in the short run.  In the long run, brains and personality take over.  My (would-be) mother met my (would-be) father at a USO dance during World War II.  She was first attracted to the man who accompanied him.  He was quite handsome, but after a few dances, Mom realized that he wasn’t too bright.  Then she struck up a conversation with my father and, while he was no Cary Grant, found him quite personable.  The rest is history.
  • Other references on female beauty
  • Elaine Scarry –On Beauty and Being Just (1999).  The book’s premises are (1) defending beauty against charges that it is politically incorrect; and that (2) beauty can “press us toward a greater concern for justice.” [http://www.salon.com/1999/11/09/scarry/, accessed 28 May 2012]
  • Zadie Smith’s 2005 novel On Beauty takes its title from Elaine Scarry’s On Beauty and Being Just. The story follows the lives of a mixed-race British/American family living in the United States. On Beauty addresses ethnic and cultural differences in both the U.S.A and the U.K., the nature of beauty, and the clash between liberal and conservative academic values. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Beauty, accessed 28 May 2012]
  • 29:18.  And Jacob loved Rachel … Zohar – verse 17 ends 2^nd aliyah; v. 18 begins the next one; thus, beauty and sexual passion are separated from love and spiritual relationship
  • 29:18. … and he said, "I will work for you seven years for Rachel, your younger daughter. Thus, Jacob answers Lavan’s question about wages.
  • Rashi writes, “For Rachel, your younger daughter: Why were all these signs necessary? Since he (Jacob) knew that he (Laban) was a deceiver, he said to him, “I will work for you for Rachel,” and lest you say [that I meant] another Rachel from the street, Scripture states: “Your daughter.” Now, lest you say, “I will change her name to Leah, and I will name her (Leah) Rachel,” Scripture states: “[your] younger [daughter].” Nevertheless, it did not avail him, for he (Laban) deceived him. — [from Genesis Rabbah 70:17] “
  The footnotes to the Midrash point out that Jacob could not say “your younger daughter” without mentioning Rachel because then Lavan would have offered Bilhah or Zelphah, who were younger than Leah and Rachel.
  • In other words, Jacob is acting like a lawyer; he’s being very careful and specific, thinking of contingencies.  Yet Lavan still tricks him.
  • 29:19.  And Laban said, "It is better that I give her to you than I should give her to another man. Stay with me."
  • Radak – marriage to kinsman is preferable to an outsider – keep wealth in the family.  Nahum Sarna writes in JPS Torah Commentary. Genesis (Page 204): “Marriage between relatives was … desirable [because] it safeguarded ‘purity of blood,’ tribal property, and the welfare of the daughter.”
  • Lavan does not actually agree to Jacob’s terms – According to Sarna, Lavan’s response is vague and might have been a stalling tactic.  Sarna (page 204) terms it, “a piece of consummate ambiguity naively taken by Jacob to be a binding commitment.”
  • The Women’s Torah Commentary (page 163) is more cynical: Lavan speaks as though Rachel is a gift to be awarded but does not state that the award is for any work done by Jacob.  Lavan is already manipulating Jacob.  What a goniff!
  • 29:20. So, Jacob worked for Rachel seven years, but they appeared to him like a few days because of his love for her.  In other words, Jacob served the seven years but it seemed like a few days.
  • He “worked for Rachel” to let it be known that he was working only to marry her, so that Lavan could not deny the deal [that Jacob thought he’d made].
  • “Few days” – recalls Rebecca’s phrase on sending Jacob away in 27:44, And you [Jacob] shall dwell with him for a few days [אֲחָדִים יָמִים, the same phrase as in 29:20] until your brother's wrath has subsided. Midrash Rabbah 70:17 states that under these circumstances, the term “few days” could mean up to seven years.  This is what Rebecca meant by staying a “few days.”  In other words, Jacob was following his mother’s instructions.  The Midrash seemingly states that אֲחָדִים יָמִים is deliberately vague.  אֲחָדִים is the plural of אהד, one, and according to dictionaries means “few,” which is also an indefinite term.
  • Seven years was worthwhile because Jacob loved Rachel so much.  According to Nahum Sarna (page 204), “grim reality mocks [Rebecca’s] careless words [“a few days” in 27:44 on the pretext of finding a wife] and the ostensible becomes the actual.  Yet the harshness of seven years’ arduous toil is mitigated y the ardor of his love for Rachel, which ultimately makes the sacrifice worthwhile.”  Does it seem that one hour spent in Torah study lasts but a few minutes? 
  • When in love, time behaves differently; see the world differently.
  • Rabbi Marder clarifies:
  Rashi cites this idea in reference to Genesis 22:3 -- the verse in which Avraham saddles his own donkey rather than having a servant do it. The phrase is השורה  מקלקלת  שהאהבה "[she-ah] ahava m'kalkelet [et] ha-shura: love disrupts (or upsets) the normal order." That is, so great was Avraham's love for God and his eagerness to perform a Divine precept that he disregarded protocol. The source is Talmud Sanhedrin 105b; it also appears in Genesis Rabbah 55:8 (the midrash on Genesis).
  • Genesis 22:3. And Abraham arose early in the morning, and he saddled his donkey …
  Rashi on “and he saddled:” He himself, and he did not command one of his servants, because love causes a disregard for the standard [of dignified conduct]. — [from Genesis Rabbah 55:8]
  • Sanhedrin 105b [Soncino online edition with footnotes in italics]: And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass [Numbers 23:21].  A Tanna taught on the authority of R. Simeon b. Eleazar: Love disregards the rule of dignified conduct. [This is deduced] from Abraham, for it is written, And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass.  [Gen. 22:3. Though the saddling of an ass is not work becoming for a great man, yet in his love to God and eagerness to carry out His commands, Abraham did it.]  Hate likewise disregards the rule of dignified conduct: [this is deduced] from Balaam, for it is written, And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass.
  • The “command” was in Genesis 22:2 - "Please take your son, your only one, whom you love, yea, Isaac, and go away to the land of Moriah and bring him up there for a burnt offering on one of the mountains, of which I will tell you."
  Rashi argues that this is a request, not a command.  However, Abraham was so eager to respond that to him, there was (evidently) no difference.  I.e., Abraham's love for God was such that he willingly obeyed.
  Although Abraham’s love for God was not romantic love like that of Jacob for Rachel, the emotions must have been similar and the outcomes were the same: love is blind and results in extraordinary behavior.
  • Abraham Joshua Heschel’s great-great grandfather, Abraham Yehoshua Heschel, (1748-1825) wrote that time passes more slowly if in love; it must be agony.  This is true for physical love – can’t wait to be intimate.  In spiritual love, it’s the opposite.  It’s enough to know that Rachel is close by; their spirits are connected.  Love makes the world go ‘round.  [Check the Wikipedia article for more information.]
  • A modern take on the seven years passing so quickly: “Seven years went by, summer heat, fall chill, winter, and spring.  The sun rose and set.  Laban’s flock grew because of Jacob’s care.  The flocks increase in numbers and the wealth of the family grew.  Perhaps for all those seven years Jacob went to sleep at night thinking of Rachel, whose voice he heard during the day, coming from one place or another, who waved to him in the morning as he left with her father for the fields, who was there in the evening when the family ate their supper, who served him his food but did not sit near him.  Perhaps he learned her smell and could tell when she was behind him.  Perhaps he learned the songs she liked to sing to herself when she worked. Possibly at night in the moonlight he would walk by her tent and hope she would wake and join him.
  “Inside her tent she may have heard him pacing the ground outside and recognized his footsteps.  It may have seemed to both Rachel and Jacob as if time had stopped moving at all.” [Roiphe, Anne.  Water from the Well.  Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, and Leah.  NY: William Morrow, 2006.  Page 184.]
  • By working seven years, Jacob pays the bride price and “mohar,” compensation to bride’s family for loss of daughter’s services.
  • 29:21.   And Jacob said to Laban, "Give me my wife, for my days are completed, that I may come to her."
  • Jacob seems impatient!
  • He then says something crude relating to sexual intercourse. Rashi explains, “This is what he [meant when he] said, “that I may come to her.” Now, isn’t it true that even the most degenerate person would not say this? But he (Jacob) meant [that he intended] to beget generations.”  After all, he was 84 years old and he better start begetting now [from Genesis Rabbah 70:18]  i.e., to beget the twelve tribes.
  • 29:22.  So, Laban gathered all the people of the place, and he made a feast. Feast was with wine to get Jacob drunk and deceive him later.  
  • 29:23. And it came to pass in the evening that Laban took his daughter Leah, and he brought her to him, and he came to her.  “Took” suggests that Leah didn’t want to be part of the deception.
  • 29:24. And Laban gave Zilpah his maidservant to his daughter Leah as a maidservant.
  Zilpah was younger [than Leah] and should have gone to Rachel; this was part of the deception.
  • 29:25.  And it came to pass in the morning, and behold she was Leah! So he said to Laban, "What is this that you have done to me? Did I not work with you for Rachel? Why have you deceived me?"  Jacob was surprised!
  • Before, Jacob and Rachel had secret signs; Rashi explains, “And it came to pass in the morning, and behold she was Leah: But at night, she was not Leah, because Jacob had given signs to Rachel, but when she saw that they were bringing Leah, she (Rachel) said, “Now, my sister will be put to shame. So, she readily transmitted those signs to her.” - [from Megillah 13b]
  • Jacob gets his comeuppance. He deceived his father, Isaac, in the same way [Midrash Rabbah, 70:19].  In fact, the same Hebrew word is used in both cases, here and in 27:35.
  • How did Leah fool Jacob?  Midrash Eichah Rabbah proem 24 [cited in The Torah.  A Women’s Commentary, pages 176-177] explains, “Rachel was a willing – albeit unhappy – partner to Lavan’s plan …  Aware that her father was plotting to deceive Jacob, [Rachel] warned her future husband of Lavan’s plans.  Jacob and Rachel agreed upon a sign to allow Jacob to distinguish between the sisters [as explained by Rashi above].  But then, Rachel changed her mind, realizing that if Lavan’s plan failed, Leah would be shamed.  Instead of thwarting her father’s plot, Rachel aided her sister in the deception.”
  • Leah at first pretended nothing had changed between her and Rachel.  Yet she became increasingly despondent that Rachel would be married and move out of the family tent; lost would be the sisterly bond between them.  Rachel knew in her heart the Jacob loved her, but she could not rejoice when her older sister would not marry first.  Rachel bore this burden silently.  She, too, could not imagine life without Leah, especially if she didn’t smile, sing, or eat.  
  “Rachel loved Jacob, but she also love Leah, and Leah’s pain must have spilled over into Rachel’s corner of the tent and stained everything.” [Roiphe, pages 184-185]
  • Some would comment that this was part of the divine plan [Scherman, page 151].
  “Just as Jacob’s succession to the birthright was divinely ordained irrespective of human machination, so it must be assumed that Jacob’s unwanted marriage tot Leah was understood by the narrator as part of God’s scheme of things.  For from this union issued the tribes of Levi and Judah, which shared between them the spiritual and temporal hegemony of Israel, providing the two greate and dominating institution of the biblical period, the priesthood and the Davidic monarchy.” [Sarna, Understanding Genesis …, page 195]
  • Rachel story is used as way to have God forgive Israel for idolatry.  From http://www.torah.org/learning/women/class48.html#:
  Rachel buries her desire to marry Jacob, and gives the signals to Leah.  Rachel also buries her jealousy, in order to be able to carry out her plan [not to shame Leah] with the purest intentions. Rachel asks God the following: "If I, as a flesh and blood mortal, was able to transcend my jealousy and anger, how much more so should You, an immortal King, find compassion for Your people."
  The Midrash tells us that, as soon as she says this, God responds to Rachel's tears. He promises, for her sake, that He will ultimately redeem the Jews from their exile: "Rachel recalled her own magnanimity to her sister, Leah. When Leah was fraudulently married to Jacob in place of Rachel, Rachel did not let jealous resentment lead her to protest. Why then, should God be so zealous in punishing His children for bringing idols into His Temple? God accepted her plea and promised that Israel would be redeemed eventually, in her merit."
  As it is written in Jeremiah (31:14), "Thus said Hashem: A voice is heard on high, wailing, bitter weeping, Rachel weeps for her children; she refuses to be consoled for her children, for they are gone. Thus said Hashem: Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears; for there is reward for your accomplishment - the word of Hashem - and they will return from the enemy's land. There is hope for your future - the word of Hashem - and your children will return to their border."
  Rashi on Jeremiah 31:14, Rachel weeping for her children: The Midrash Aggadah states (see Lamentations Rabbah Proem 24) that the Patriarchs and the Matriarchs went to appease the Holy One blessed be He concerning the sin of Manasseh who placed an image in the Temple but He was not appeased. Rachel entered and stated before Him “O Lord of the Universe, whose mercy is greater, Your mercy or the mercy of a flesh and blood person? You must admit that Your mercy is greater. Now did I not bring my rival into my house? For all the work that Jacob worked for my father he worked only for me. When I came to enter the nuptial canopy, they brought my sister, and it was not enough that I kept my silence, but I gave her my password. You, too, if Your children have brought Your rival into Your house, keep Your silence for them.” He said to her, “You have defended them well. There is reward for your deed and for your righteousness, that you gave over your password to your sister.”
  
  

Howard's notes!