The Division of the Torah
into Parsheyot
And Yaakov went forth from Beer-Shava, and he
went to Haran. (Beresheit 28:10)
The Chumash is divided into sections – parsheyot.
Generally, a blank space in the Torah scroll separates parsheyot from
one another. In most cases, the blank
space is created by beginning a parasha on a new line. However, in a few
cases, a new parasha begins in the middle of a line and a blank space is
inserted in the middle of a line to separate the parsheyot. In other
words, in such instances, one parasha ends, there is a blank space, and
the new parasha begins on the same line. This less-common model is used
to separate Parshat VaYetzai from the preceding Parshat Toldot.
Rabbaynu Yosef ibn Kaspi explains the significance of these two
different methods of separating parsheyot. He explains that the parsheyot are designed as sections of
roughly equal length. Ideally, each parasha should be delineated by a
change in subject matter. When a new parasha begins with a change in the
topic, the objective of creating sections of roughly equal length is achieved
in this ideal manner. In these instances, the new parasha begins on a
new line of the Torah. However, in some
cases, it is impossible to adhere to this ideal and in order to avoid an overly
long parasha, a break must be inserted within a single topic. In this
less-common case, the new parasha begins on the same line as the
previous parasha. The topic of Parshat VaYaetzai is directly related to
the end of Parshat Toldot. At the end
of Parshat Toldot, Yaakov obeys the directive of his parents, Yitzchak and
Rivkah, and leaves his home for Haran.
Parshat VaYetze begins with a description of his journey to Haran. For this reason, the new parasha
begins and Parshat Toldot ends on the same line.[1]
Yaakov’s Disapproval of Leyah
And he also married Rachel and he loved Rachel
more than Leyah. He worked with him for
another seven years. Hashem saw that
Leyah was despised. He made her fertile
and Rachel was barren. (Beresheit 29:30-31)
These passages introduce the
rivalry between Rachel and Leyah. Each
sought to be the mother of Yaakov’s children.
These passages are difficult to understand. First, the passages seem to be contradictory. Initially, the Torah tells us that Yaakov
preferred Rachel over Leyah. Later, the
Torah states that Yaakov despised Leyah.
Second, why did Yaakov dislike Leyah?
Third, why did Hashem intervene of Leyah’s behalf and cause her to
conceive? Finally, how did Leyah’s
fertility earn her Yaakov’s love and appreciation?
Rabbaynu Yonatan ben Uziel
offers a simple answer to the first question.
He explains that the Torah does not intend to indicate that Yaakov
despised Leyah. The term used in the
Torah to describe Yaakov’s attitude towards Leyah is that she was s’nuah. This term can be translated as
“despised”. However, it can also
indicate a relative indifference. In
this instance, the term s’nuah is used is this second sense. In other words, the Torah is not telling us
that Yaakov hated Leyah. It is saying
that he favored Rachel and was relatively indifferent towards Leyah. Nachmanides points out another instance in
which the term s’nuah is used in this fashion. The Torah describes a man with two wives. One is beloved, the second is a s’nuah. The s’nuah has a son and later, the
beloved wife has a son. The son of the s’nuah
is the firstborn and is entitled to inherit a double portion of the father’s
possessions. The father may not
transfer this right to the son of the preferred wife.[2] Nachmanides points out that in this
context, the Torah is clearly describing a relative preference. One is favored over the other. The term s’nuah refers to the less
favored wife. The term does not seem to
indicate a despised wife.[3] This supports Rabbaynu Yonatan ben Uziel’s
interpretation of our pasuk.
This interpretation answers
the first question. However, it does
not answer our other questions.
Nachmanides offers another approach to these passages. This approach provides a more comprehensive
explanation. He begins with the first
question. He comments that Yaakov
favored Rachel over Leyah. This
preference existed even prior to their marriage. However, beyond this innocent partiality, Yaakov actually had
negative feelings towards Leyah. Lavan
had secretly substituted her for Rachel.
This deception had required Leyah’s complicity. Yaakov felt that Leyah had acted dishonestly
towards him.
Nachmanides explains that
Yaakov was wrong in his assessment of Leyah.
She recognized Yaakov’s righteousness.
She wanted to marry this tzadik.
This was her sole motivation for participating in Lavan’s
deception. This explains Hashem’s
response to Leyah’s plight. Hashem
knows the inner motivations of every human being. He recognized that Yaakov had misjudged Leyah and did not
recognize her her sincerity. Hashem
responded by granting Leyah children and withholding them from Rachel.
Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno offers
the most comprehensive explanation of the pesukim. He begins with the same approach as
Nachmanides. But he explains that
Yaakov had a specific theory that explained Leyah’s complicity in Lavan’s
deception. Yaakov observed that his
marriage to Leyah was not followed by her conceiving. He suspected that Leyah was barren. This would account for her cooperation with Lavan. She was afraid that her barren condition
might be discovered. She was desperate
to marry before this occurred.
Therefore, she followed Lavan’s directions and deceived Yaakov. Of course, this was not the case. Leyah did not marry Yaakov in order to
capture a husband. She recognized
Yaakov’s unique righteousness. Hashem
responded to Leyah’s predicament. She
had been misjudged. He granted Leyah a
son. This proved that she had not been
barren. Yaakov’s suspicions were
disproved. The cause for his negative feelings was removed.[4]
Rachel and Leyah’s Bargain
over the Mandrakes
And Reuven went out in the time of the harvest
of the wheat, and he found mandrakes in the field, and he brought them to his
mother, Leyah. And Rachel said to Leyah, “Please give me from the mandrakes of
your son.” And she said to her, “Is it not enough that you have taken my
husband. And you want to take also the mandrakes of my son?” And Rachel said,
“If so, let him sleep with you tonight in exchange for the mandrakes of your
son.” (Beresheit 30:14-15)
In these pesukim,
Rachel and Leyah argue over the mandrakes collected by Leyah’s son, Reuven.
Ultimately, Rachel agrees to exchange her night with Yaakov for the
flowers. On the superficial level, this
episode depicts Rachel and Leyah as petty individuals. Rachel is willing to
exchange the companionship of her husband for a few flowers. However, through more fully understanding
this incident, we can appreciate that it actually reflects the piety of Rachel
and Leyah. The Torah acknowledges their
righteousness in the next few pesukim. Both Rachel and Leyah were
rewarded with children.
Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno
explains that the exchange between Rachel and Leyah was not over a few flowers.
These flowers had a very important significance to Rachel and Leyah. It was
widely believed that mandrakes could be used as a fertility drug. Both Rachel
and Leyah were determined to serve as mothers of the Tribes of Israel. Each
saw, in these flowers, an opportunity to further this aim.[5] Rachel was willing to temporarily give up
the companionship of the husband she loved in order to ultimately achieve
fertility. Hashem rewarded the endeavors of Rachel and Leyah through granting
them the children for which they yearned.
Yaakov and Lavan’s Dispute
Over a Shephard’s Responsibilities
I never brought you an animal that had been
attacked. I took the blame myself. You made me responsible whether it was
stolen in the day or by night.
(Berseheit 31:39)
At the end of the parasha,
Yaakov confronts Lavan over his dishonesty.
He contrasts Lavan’s ethics with his own. Yaakov served Lavan as a faithful shepherd. He fulfilled his duties diligently. In contrast, Lavan arbitrarily changed
Yaakov’s compensation. He also held
Yaakov responsible for all losses to his flocks. This included losses that were beyond the control and
responsibility of a shepherd.
Rabbaynu Avraham ben HaRambam
explains that Lavan demanded that Yaakov repay him for animals attacked and
killed by wild beasts. This is not a
reasonable responsibility. A shepherd
can justly be held responsible for protecting his employer’s flock from smaller
animals. However, the shepherd cannot
be expected to drive off the marauding attackers or large beasts. Lavan did not distinguish between losses
that were preventable and those that were not preventable by his shepherd. He demanded that Yaakov assume
responsibility for all losses to his flocks.
Also, the shepherd should be held accountable for an animal stolen
during the day. However, he cannot
reasonably be expected to prevent theft during the night. It is impossible for the shepherd to guard
his employer’s flocks every moment.
Nonethless, Lavan demanded that Yaakov make restitution for animals
stolen at any time, day or night.[6]
Yaakov clearly maintained
that Lavan had required an inappropriate level of accountability from his
shepherd. How did Yaakov determine the
appropriate standard for a shepherd’s liability? True, the Torah deals with this issue and establishes clear rules
for the conduct and responsibility of the shepherd. But the Torah had not yet been revealed. Furthermore, even if Yaakov was aware of the
Torah standards, through prophecy, this would not bind Lavan.
Rabbaynu Avraham ben HaRambam
deals with this issue. He explains that
the standards for a shepherd’s responsibilities pre-existed the Torah. These standards were generally accepted even
before they were delineated by the Torah.
Yaakov referred to these conventional standards in critiquing Lavan’s
ethics. The Torah did not create these
standards. Instead, the Torah provided
strict legal definition and codification of the existing standards.
Rabbaynu Avraham explains
that this is not the only instance in which the Torah codified an existing
practice or custom. The practice of yibum
also predates the Torah. This practice
applies to a married woman, whose husband died without male offspring. The prevalent practice was to require the
wife to marry the brother of the deceased.
Any children, resulting from the new union, would be regarded as
offspring of the deceased. This
practice preexisted the Torah and was incorporated into the Torah as a mitzvah.[7] This thesis explains another incident in
the Torah. Yehudah’s oldest son married
Tamar. He died, without children. Yehudah arranged for Onan, his next to
eldest son, to marry Tamar. This is was
yibum.[8] According to Rabbaynu Avraham it is not
necessary to assume that Yehudah was aware of the Torah requirement. Instead, he was following the practice that
already existed.
[1] Rabbaynu Yosef ibn Kaspi, Mishne Kesef, Part 2, Parshat VaYaetzai.
[2] Sefer Devarim 21:16-17.
[3] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman
(Ramban/Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 29:30.
[4] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Beresheit, 29:31.
[5] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary
on Sefer Beresheit, 30:14.
[6] Rabbaynu Avraham ben HaRambam, Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 31:39.
[7] Rabbaynu Avraham ben HaRambam, Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 31:39.
[8] Sefer Beresheit 38:6-8.