“And the girl, to whom I shall say, “Tip your jug
and I will drink,” and she will say, “Drink and I will also water your camels,”
she is the one you have designated for your servant Yitzchak. And through her I will know that you have
done kindness with my master.” (Bereshit
24:13)
Our parasha
discusses the selection of Rivka to become the wife of Yitzchak. This parasha
also introduces Lavan – Rivka’s brother.
The Torah describes Rivka as a person of tremendous sensitivity and
kindness. Lavan is generally regarded
as the classical villain. However, it
does not seem from our parasha that
this characterization of Lavan is completely justified. As the Torah explains, Lavan and Rivka were
products of the same household, and it is clear from the parasha that Lavan was not completely bereft of positive
qualities. Let us summarize the Torah’s
introduction of these two characters and compare the manner in which they are
portrayed.
Avraham sends his servant Eliezer to Aram
Naharayim. There, he is to find a wife
for Yitzchak. Eliezer arrives at Aram
Naharayim and prepares to fulfill his mission.
He devises a test. He will stand
by the town’s well. The girls of the
town will come to draw water for their families. Eliezer will approach each.
He will ask each to share some water with him. The girl that offers him water and also offers to water his
camels will be destined to be Yitzchak’s wife.
The objective of Eliezer’s test is clear. He is seeking a wife for Yitzchak who exemplifies the
characteristics of kindness and sensitivity.
He has created a test designed to identify a candidate with these
qualities.
Eliezer has barely completed formulating his test
when Rivka appears. She fulfills all of
the requirements of the test. Eliezer
immediately rewards her with jewelry.
He does not yet identify himself or explain his mission. Instead, he asks Rivka to identify her
family, and he asks if there is available lodging with her family. Rivka responds by telling Eliezer that she
is the daughter of Betuel, and that there is lodging available at her home as
well as provisions for Eliezer’s camels.
Eliezer thanks Hashem for His assistance, and Rivka rushes home and relates
her experiences to her family.
Lavan observes the gifts that Rivka has received
from Eliezer and rushes to greet him.
Lavan finds Eliezer and immediately insists that he lodge with the
family.
It is clear that Rivka was a person of tremendous
compassion. But, it is also evident
that Rivka’s home was a place where guests were welcome. As Rivka explained, their home included room
for guests, and provisions were kept on hand for their needs. Lavan was eager to invite Eliezer into their
home. He was very insistent that
Eliezer accept the invitation. So, it
is true that Rivka demonstrated remarkable sensitivity to Eliezer’s needs. But, Lavan was also eager to accommodate this
guest. What precisely was the
difference between Rivka and her brother?
“And it was when he saw the nose-ring and the
bracelets on the hands of his sister and he heard the words of Rivka – saying
this is what the man said – that he came to the man and he was standing by his
camels near the spring.” (Beresheit 24:30)
The above pasuk
plays a significant role in the traditional understanding of Lavan. The pasuk
tells us that Lavan saw the jewelry that Rivka had received from Eliezer and he
rushed to greet Eliezer. Rashi comments
that the Torah is implying a connection between Lavan’s observation of the
jewelry and his eagerness to entertain Eliezer. According to Rashi, Lavan was not interested in practicing
kindness. He was determined to develop
a relationship with Eliezer and through this relationship devise some means of
securing some of Eliezer’s wealth.[1]
However, there is a problem with Rashi’s
interpretation of our pasuk. In the previous pasuk, the Torah tells us that Lavan heard Rivka’s account and
rushed out of the house to greet Eliezer.
Only upon leaving did Lavan notice Rivka’s jewelry. It seems the Lavan had decided to greet
Eliezer before he even noticed the gifts that Rivka had received!
However, this does raise an interesting
problem. Why does the Torah note that
Lavan observed Rivka’s jewelry? In
other words, the Torah implies that this observation had some impact on
him. But, the Torah does not describe
the nature of this impact. How was
Lavan influenced by his observation of the jewelry that Rika had received from
Eliezer?
Sforno answers these questions. He explains that although after hearing
Rivka’s story Lavan rushed to greet Eliezer, he did not initially intend to
invite him to his home. He merely
wished to take advantage of the opportunity to meet a wealthy traveler. However, when Lavan saw the jewelry, his
intentions changed. He recognized the
generosity that this stranger had shown towards his sister and he wished to
respond with an invitation of lodging.
Lavan felt that Eliezer’s kindness towards his sister should be
rewarded.[2]
In short, Sforno’s characterization of Lavan is very
different from Rashi’s. According to
Rashi, Lavan was only interested in taking advantage of Eliezer. But, according to Sforno, Lavan felt
obligated to repay Eliezer for his generosity to his sister.
Now, according to Rashi, we can see that there is a
clear difference between Lavan and Rivka.
Rivka was a sincere and sensitive person. She observed a traveler; ascertained his needs, and immediately
acted to address these needs. In
contrast, Lavan saw Eliezer’s needs as an opportunity to take advantage
him. He was not sincerely interested in
extending hospitality to Eliezer. He
was interested in bringing Eliezer into his home in the hope that he could
devise a plan to take advantage of him.
However, according to Sforno, the difference between
Eliezer and Rivka is not as clear.
Rivka demonstrated kindness by assessing and responding to Eliezer’s
needs. Lavan extended his hospitality
to Eliezer as an expression of gratitude for the generosity that Eliezer had
shown Rivka. Why is Lavan morally
inferior to Rivka?
“And he said, “ Blessed is Hashem, the G-d of my
master Avraham, who has not withdrawn His kindness and His truth from my
master. Here I am, still on the road,
and Hashem has led me to the house of my master’s close relatives.” (Beresheit 24:27)
Eliezer recognizes that his success is a result of
the Almighty’s providence. He offers
thanksgiving and praise to Hashem. In
his words of thanks, Eliezer says that Hashem has treated Avraham with kindness
and truth. What is the meaning of these
terms? What is the kindness and truth
to which Eliezer is referring?
Radak explains that Hashem acted with truth towards
Avraham by guiding Eliezer to a wife that was fitting for Yitzchak. However, Hashem acted with kindness – chesed – in guiding him to a wife from
Avraham’s own family.[3]
Radak explains himself more fully in Sefer
Yehoshua. Yehoshua sent spies to scout
the land of Canaan. The spies came to
the house of Rachav. They were observed
entering the house. But, Rachav hid the
spies and saved their lives. Rachav
asked these spies to treat her and her family with kindness and truth. She asked that Bnai Yisrael spare them in
their conquest of the land. Radak is
concerned with Rachav’s characterization of her own request as an appeal for
kindness and truth. Rachav asked for
kindness – she asked to be spared. But,
in what manner was she requesting truth?
Radak responds that Rachav’s request that she be
spared was not an appeal for kindness.
She saved the lives of the spies and she deserved to be repaid and
spared. This is not an appeal for
kindness; it is an appeal for truth.
The spies were indebted to her.
Their dedication to the truth required that they recognize their debt. But, Rachav asked that her family be
spared. Her family had not done
anything for these spies. They did not
owe anything to Rachav’s family. Her
request that her family be spared was an appeal for kindness.[4]
According to Radak, Eliezer applied a similar
analysis to Hashem’s providence over Avraham.
Avraham was dedicated to the service of Hashem. Yitzchak was committed to continue in
Avraham’s path. In order to succeed, he
needed an appropriate wife. Hashem helped Eliezer identify this wife. This, Eliezer regarded as an act of
truth. It is appropriate for one who
sincerely seeks to serve Hashem to be assisted in this mission. But, Rivka was more than just a fitting
wife. She was also a member of
Avraham’s own family. This element of
Hashem’s providence – Rivka’s relationship to Avraham – Eliezer regarded as an
expression of Hashem’s chesed.
In summary, according to Radak, some acts of charity
are acts of truth. They are an
acknowledgment and repayment of a debt.
Other acts of charity are true acts of chesed. An act of chesed occurs when we demonstrate
kindness to a person who has no claim on us and no right or reason to expect
our kindness.
We can now return to our comparative analysis of
Rivka and Lavan. Rav Yehuda Copperman
explains that according to Sforno, Lavan and Rivka had very different
values. Both showed generosity towards
Eliezer. However, their generosity
expressed two different principles.
Lavan was capable of recognizing truth.
He recognized that Eliezer had been generous towards Rivka and he
deserved to the repaid for his generosity.
He was eager to repay this debt through providing Eliezer with lodging
and provisions for his camels.
However, at no juncture did Lavan demonstrate a commitment to chesed – unearned, spontaneous
kindness. Rivka acted out of chesed.
She observed a stranger in need of assistance and immediately threw
herself into helping this stranger. She
did not owe him her assistance; she did not even know him. Her act was an expression of pure chesed.[5]
It is essential to consider the reason that
repayment of a kindness is referred to as truth. When we repay a kindness, we are repaying a debt; we are
executing an obligation that we have towards the person that has acted towards
us with chesed. It is not enough that we act with kindness
in return. More is required. We must recognize that we have incurred a
debt. We are required to accept that we
are morally obligated to repay the chesed. If we believe that by demonstrating kindness
in return we are performing chesed,
our entire outlook is tragically flawed.
We are denying our obligation and indebtedness.
Too often, we confuse chesed with truth. When one
who has helped us asks for our assistance in return, we imagine that we are
being asked for chesed. We do not like to be in debt – not
financially or morally. So, rather than
recognizing that we are required to act with truth to those that have
demonstrated chesed towards us, we
deceive ourselves into believing that we have no debt. This attitude is tragic. It undermines the value of our
response. We may respond to the call
for assistance. But, we depreciate the
quality, significance, and meaning of our response if we believe that we are
performing a chesed and deny that we
are repaying a debt!
[1] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 24:29.
[2] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Beresheit, 24:29-30.
[3] Rabbaynu David Kimchi (Radak), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 24:27.
[4] Rabbaynu David Kimchi (Radak), Commentary on Sefer Yehoshua 2:12.
[5] Rav Yehuda Copperman, Notes to Commentary of Sforno on Sefer Beresheit 24:29, note 58.