Jacob's Marriages - It is complicated!

Torah Study at Beth Am - 2 June 2012 (Howard's notes)

Tammi Schneider on external beauty (Women’s Commentary page 176): beauty is dangerous (e.g., Tamar being raped in II Samuel 13; Lot living in S’dom because it looked better than Canaan in Genesis 12:11-12; Samson marrying Delilah because of her looks in Judges 14:1-3).  In Torah, easy to be seduced by senses, i.e., physical attraction.

Through modern standards, Rachel seems to be favored over Leah because she’s a looker.  I.e., beauty is seen as a positive trait.  However, the bible points out elsewhere that beauty can be hazardous.

29:24. And Laban gave Zilpah his maidservant to his daughter Leah as a maidservant.

• This verse seems to interrupt the narrative, like an interpolation.  Will it be relevant later?  Maybe; she’ll be the mother of some tribes.  
• Zilpah name may be based on the Arabic word zulfah, “dignity” or dhulifa, “to be small.”  [Sarna JPS Torah Commentary, page 205] But in Midrash, etymology is based on zalaf, to flow, as in tears, for sympathy.  The Hebrew root זלפ means sprinkling or spraying.
• According to commentary Or Hayim, Zilpah was originally Lavan’s wife’s servant (since she had died, she was already Leah’s property; Lavan was being pretentious).  Verse is clumsy and repetitive.  Lavan had no real authority to give Zilpah away.  Lavan was unscrupulous!

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?"

• Midrash is troubled by the way the deception happened.  Was Jacob that stupid?  Was it too dark for Jacob to see?  Or was he drunk?
• Genesis Rabbah 70:19 speculates on what happened the night after the wedding feast.  “That entire night Jacob called out to her … ‘Rachel,’ and she responded as if she [Leah] were Rachel.  Thus, it was only in the morning that Jacob realized who it was.”  See commentary for 26 May 2012.

29:26. And Laban said, "It is not done so in our place to give the younger one before the firstborn [older].

• On firstborn/older vs younger, Nahum Sarna [JPS Torah Commentary, page 205] notes that this sentence structure is used for situations of “great moral turpitude,” such as Genesis 34:7 (Dinah’s rape), 2 Samuel 13:12 (Amnon “lying” with sister Tamar), Genesis 20:9 (Avimelech and alleged adultery).

It reads like a horrified expression, coming from Lavan, the great [cynical] moralist.  Halachah on this …  

Lavan was prevaricating; he should have made this clear to Jacob.  Lavan was lying because he was trying to get a homely daughter out of the house.  On the other hand, if Jacob told his life story to Lavan, including the deceptions of Esau and Isaac, Lavan’s behavior was a conscious effort to teach Jacob a lesson.

• Hirsch – eldest daughter is automatically selected for marriage if a man asks the father.  Hirsch writes (pages 616-617), “The local customs [is that] if someone proposes to marry the younger sister, the understanding is that his proposal includes the older sister as well.  Thus everything is perfectly in order.  After Leah’s marriage, ‘we will give you’ Rachel as well.  The plural ‘we’ underscores the propriety of the act, as though it were in complete accordance with local custom – as concocted in Lavan’s mind.  ‘Of course, you will then have to serve me for another seven years.’”
• Alter – this verse is an instrument to teach Jacob a lesson about lying and deceiving.  He contrasts g’dolah and k’tanah in earlier verses with what’s in this verse [firstborn/older and younger].  Alter writes (page 155), “Lavan is an instrument of dramatic irony: his perfectly natural reference to ‘our place’ has the effect of touching a nerve of guilty consciousness in Jacob, who in his place acted to put the younger before the firstborn.  This effect is reinforced by Lavan’s referring to Leah not as the elder but as the firstborn … The whole story of the switched brides is a meting out of poetic justice to Jacob” Just as Isaac was deceived by darkness and blindness, Jacob was also fooled by the darkness of night.  Both relied on a misleading sense of touch [See Naomi Rosenblatt commentary below].  Alter also cites Genesis Rabbah 70:19 above.
• Women’s Commentary, page 163 – does human disruption help or inhibit the divine plan?  Is Lavan’s trickery an act of divine providence?  After all, four women will produce the Twelve Tribes.  “It is the interfamilial competition that renders the household productive.”
• Naomi Rosenblatt – “when our hearts lead us down a blind alley” (pages 270-272).  Is it willful deception?  Jacob is blinded by need to be loved; wants approval of surrogate father.  His emotional blindness is comparable to Isaac’s physical blindness.  Such individuals are easy to abuse emotionally.  Yet Jacob meekly goes along with it. He feels guilty and unworthy over stealing his brother’s birthright [he really didn’t] and his blessing.
• Lavan’s motives were primarily to rid his household of a financial liability, the unmarried older daughter.
• “Jacob’s emotional blindness on his wedding night mirrors Isaac’s physical blindness when bestowing his blessing on his son.  Both scenes are cloaked in darkness.  Both men close their eyes to the deception … allowing themselves to be beguiled by their less reliable senses of touch, taste, and smell.”
• Veiling at a marriage ceremony derives from the episode of Jacob and his non-recognition of Leah; groom must see bride before veiling her.
• Divine providence and purpose behind all this; as opposed to free will.  Much of our behavior is determined not by free will, but by genetics and cultural mores.
• Jacob is a passive figure: Just as Rebecca masterminded the blessing deception, Lavan stages this one.
• Growth through Torah by Pliskin – sarcasm should not be used to correct behavior; it’s malicious and causes pain.

27. Complete the [wedding] week of this one, and we will give you this one too, for the work that you will render me for another seven years."

• 29:27 – shevuah – a week of feasting before a wedding
• This feasting is also in Judges 14:10 ff for Samson’s wedding and was a precedent established in biblical times and continues to the present day (at least in traditional communities).
• Nahum Mohl on seven days of feasting in orthodox community: the week after marriage is typically devoted to “honeymoon,” bride and groom go away alone.  In Jewish lore, it a feast with family and friends.  The idea is that the two families marry, m’chutim, the families bond.  That custom is based on this verse.  For the gory details, see http://www.jewishmag.com/142mag/sheva_brachot/sheva_brachot.htm (accessed 5 June 2012)

28. And Jacob did so, and he completed the week of this one, and he gave his daughter Rachel to him as a wife.

• 29:28 – Jacob meekly acquiesces to another seven years.  Rachel was given “to him as a wife,” meaning a true partner.  This did not apply to Leah, with whom Jacob did not have a partnership; in the JPS translation of 29:23, Leah “cohabited” with Jacob.  Other translations of 29:23, none of which use the same language as 29:28, אִשָּׁה:
• Alter (The Five Books of Moses): “he came to bed with her.”
• Freidman (Commentary on the Torah): “and he came to her.”
• Kaplan (The Living Torah): “… brought her to [Jacob] who consummated the marriage with her”
• Scherman (Artscroll) – “he consorted with her.”
• Hertz (The Pentateuch): “he went in unto her.”
• 29:28 - How can Jacob marry two sisters?  Leviticus 18:18 states, do not marry a women who is a rival to her sister, i.e., the wife’s sister when the wife is alive.
• Nahum Sarna (JPS Torah Commentary, page 205) suggests at the time of the Torah writing, this was OK. Later, it was forbidden.  In other words this narrative reflects an accepted practice in ancient times; the biblical authors did not rewrite the text to reflect the morality of later times.
• Midrash Tanchuma – divine providence  [cannot find this in Midrash Tanchuma]
• Rachel and Leah become proselytes; they’re from an idolatrous family, so they converted and as such, were no longer sisters in a legal sense.
• According to Ramban [Blinder, pages 31-33 on 26:5], referring to Abraham, and presumably all is descendants, keeping My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My instructions:
• Jacob’s observance was limited to Shabbat-related mitzvot
• Jacob was bound by the Noachide laws; certain specific prohibitions such as theft and bloodshed; and non-rational commandments such as forbidden mixtures and crossbreeding of animals and plants.
• Abraham’s observance of the Torah was limited to the land of Israel; Jacob married the sisters outside of Israel.  Furthermore, Abraham’s observance was voluntary, since the commandments he received were not mandatory, unlike the Revelation, when the Torah was formally received with the obligation to observe its commandments.  [See also Munk, page 396]

29. And Laban gave his daughter Rachel his maidservant Bilhah, for a maidservant.

• 29:29 – Bilhah means foolish or unconcerned based on Arabic root [Sarna, page 206].  According to Midrash, Hebrew root is בלה, to be alarmed.
• From the Women’s Commentary, page 177: Bilhah and Zilpah (29:24) were daughters of Laban by a concubine and suitable as mothers of the Tribes (citing Rashi on 31:30).  Rachel’s use of Bilhah parallels Sarah and Hagar, since both matriarchs were (at first) barren.  Both Leah’s and Rachel’s righteousness in offering their maids to Jacob to procreate the twelve tribes are viewed as acts leading to the redemption from Egypt.  Indeed, some traditions view Bilhah and Zilpah as matriarchs.

30. And he came also to Rachel, and he also loved Rachel more than Leah; and he worked with him yet another seven years.

• 29:30 is a poignant verse

There is an extra word, גַּם (gam), referring to also loving Rachel.  Why?  The primary emotional commitment is typically to whom one marries first.  Although, Jacob loved Leah, he loved Rachel more.

Proverbs 5:18 - Your fountain shall be blessed, and you shall rejoice with the wife of your youth … “[Talmud Sanhedrin 22a-b] Rab Judah taught his son R. Isaac: Only with one's first wife does one find pleasure (quickening of spirit) as it is said: Let your fountain be blessed and have joy of the wife of your youth.” The Talmud continues to discuss who is “the wife of your youth.”  Some say it’s the mother; others, the first wife.

• Hirsch – the text infers that Jacob loved Leah in spite of Lavan’s deception.  Evidently, Leah was also fooled into believing her father’s fabricated custom about marrying the firstborn before other daughters.  Leah was a unwitting accomplice to the deception, but Jacob bore no grudge against her.  He nevertheless still loved Rachel more.