Chayay Sarah
Rabbi Bernard Fox
“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
bother. 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
except 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 Ravka 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 pervious 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
was 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 Eleizer’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
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 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 or 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.
He 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 depreciated 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.