Interpreting Yosef's Hands Over Yaakov's Eyes

Parshat Vayigash

by Rabbi Avi Billet

One of the more chilling promises we hear given to our forefather Yaakov happens when he is on his way to Egypt, with very mixed emotions over the coming reunion with his beloved Yosef. In the brief stopover in BeerShava, God tells him “I will bring you down to Egypt, and I will also bring you up from Egypt. And Yosef will place his hands over your eyes.” (46:4) 

While neither of these images directly tell Yaakov he will be dying in Egypt, nor do they indicate the immediacy of either prospect (Yaakov’s travels and Yosef’s role with the hand and Yaakov’s eyes), the implication remains rather obvious. YOU will go down. I will have to bring you up… because you will have died. Yosef will put his hand over your eyes – a fitting tribute from the second in command in the land – your final passage in this world will be complete. 

 Perhaps this is why Yaakov has mixed emotions. He has seen his own decline in the wake of Yosef’s disappearance 22 years earlier, and he knows that in a way he is at death’s door. But the news of Yosef being alive has, in a way, given him something to continue to live for. 

And as it turns out, as we learn from the opening of next parsha, he will end up living in Egypt for 17 years. One wonders about those promises. They seemed to be coming true in the relatively near future – and while they are fulfilled in due course, one wonders if we have understood them completely. 

As far as Yaakov going down and God bringing him up, certainly we can point to Yaakov’s burial taking place before the family is trapped in Egypt. 

The idea that Yaakov receives a proper burial at the hands of his sons is nothing short of miraculous. 

Another possibility is that Yaakov feared that his family would remain stuck in Egypt forever, and thus the Exodus was a different kind of fulfillment of this promise: God will bring you (your family at whatever stage it finds itself) up from Egypt. 

 There happen to be many interpretations of the “hands on the eyes” image – let us explore the brilliant suggestion of Rabbi Baruch HaLevi Epstein in his “Tosefes Bracha.” Noting that the word yad (hand) is often a metaphor for strength (note Bereshit 31:29, Devarim 5:17), he posits that Yosef’s hand in this promise would be the employment of Yosef’s power. As far as Yaakov’s eyes go, he brings examples of where einaim (eyes) reference “vision.” (see Tehillim 119:18, or when we say in davening והאר עינינו בתורתך). 

The Talmud (Brachos 58a) tells a story of Rav Sheshes who set his eyes against a Sadducee who died. The Gemara wonders how Rav Sheshes could do that, since he was blind! What is understood is that “his eyes” doesn’t refer to his actual sight, but his intention and his feelings – perhaps even his prayers (that story requires its own analysis, not for this space). 

The Talmud tells us in Shabbos (33b) that when Yaakov would come to a new place, he would institute new systems for the benefit of the inhabitants of the region. His arrival in Shechem is particularly noted as accompanying new currency, markets, bathhouses. Certainly, Rabbi Epstein argues, he intended to do the same when he would arrive in Egypt! However, the reality of the time, in the middle of a famine, dictated what kinds of needs could be properly followed through with, and which were as yet inappropriate under the circumstances. Not to mention that his economic position would pale in comparison to that of his son, at whose table he would now be a dependent. 

 And so, comes God’s promise to him. You want to make a change? You want to have the impact you normally have on a new place? You won’t really be in a position to do that? “Yosef will put his power behind your vision.” 

 This interpretation removes all of the uncertainty of what Yaakov is feeling concerning his demise because it doesn’t even hint at Yaakov’s death. It indicates that Yaakov will be there for some time – for all that Yosef knew, based on Paroh’s dreams, there were to be 5 more years of famine. So at the very least, Yaakov would be reliant on Yosef for those 5 years, and what then? Is he supposed to sit on his hands waiting for an infrastructure to be set up? No! Yosef will put his power behind your vision. It will get done, God tells him. And then what? 

Maybe Yaakov will have the opportunity to return to the Land in his lifetime, maybe he will only return their for burial, but one way or another, God will see to it that he doesn’t remain in Egypt, “I will bring you up.” 

It is a glorious kind of partnership when people bring different strengths to the table, and collaborate and work together to make magic happen. 

 Over the course of the last few parshas of Bereshis, there seems to be a clear shift from the story being about Yaakov to really being about Yaakov’s sons. 

 Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman points out that until the death of each patriarch is actually recorded, all of the narrative is included in the “Toldot” of the still-living Patriarch, even if he doesn’t seem to be the central character. That’s why Vayetze and Vayishlach – while heavily focused on Yaakov – are actually part of Yitzchak’s story, because Yitzchak’s death is recorded at the end of Vayishlach. Yaakov’s “Toldot” are first introduced to us in Vayeshev, when the story shifts to Yosef, but as Yaakov’s death is only recorded in Vayechi, he is still the central figure, even if his sons get much attention in the Torah’s text. 

This reorienting our focus back to Yaakov reminds us that even at an advanced age, Yaakov allowed himself a vision. Maybe he was no longer in the position to bring it to actuality due to various circumstances, but God’s promise to him was that Yosef would see to it that his vision for the future of his children in a strange land would be fulfilled as much as humanly possible. 

May we all be so lucky to see our visions fulfilled, and when necessary, with the help of others skilled in making things happen in a way that may sometimes be beyond our own limitations.

Identifying the Source That a Minyan is Ten Men

 Parshat Miketz 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

We begin with several verses that will be referenced over and over below (with the assigned letter in parentheses), and translated when presented for the first time in the analysis.

 ויקרא פרק כב פסוק לב - וְלֹ֤א תְחַלְּלוּ֙ אֶת־שֵׁ֣ם קָדְשִׁ֔י וְנִ֨קְדַּשְׁתִּ֔י בְּת֖וֹךְ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל אֲנִ֥י יְקֹוָ֖ק מְקַדִּשְׁכֶֽםA

 במדבר טז פסוק כא - הִבָּ֣דְל֔וּ מִתּ֖וֹךְ הָעֵדָ֣ה הַזֹּ֑את וַאֲכַלֶּ֥ה אֹתָ֖ם כְּרָֽגַעB

 במדבר יד פסוק כז - עַד־מָתַ֗י לָעֵדָ֤ה הָֽרָעָה֙ הַזֹּ֔את אֲשֶׁ֛ר הֵ֥מָּה מַלִּינִ֖ים עָלָ֑י אֶת־תְּלֻנּ֞וֹת בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל אֲשֶׁ֨ר הֵ֧מָּה מַלִּינִ֛ים עָלַ֖י שָׁמָֽעְתִּי C

בראשית מב פסוק ה - וַיָּבֹ֙אוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לִשְׁבֹּ֖ר בְּת֣וֹךְ הַבָּאִ֑ים כִּֽי־הָיָ֥ה הָרָעָ֖ב בְּאֶ֥רֶץ כְּנָֽעַןD

Several years ago, quite by accident, I came across a comment of Rabbenu Bachaye on Parshas Emor which challenged an assumption I had based on something I had been taught, but hadn’t put much thought to and hadn’t looked into properly. The verse (Vayikra 22:32 - A) tells us “They shall not desecrate My Holy Name, and I shall be sanctified (ונקדשתי) among (בתוך) the children of Israel (בני ישראל), for I am God Who sanctifies you.” This concept of God being sanctified hints to the concept of what we call a דבר שבקדושה, namely something which requires the presence of a Minyan, which in halakha is defined as 10 males over the age of Bar Mitzvah.

Having always been taught that we learn this concept from the story of the spies (which we will get back to momentarily), Rabbenu Bachaye’s comment was enlightening. “The rabbis proved from this verse that any דבר שבקדושה requires 10 (over Bar-Mitzvah males), as the Talmud (Brachos 21b) teaches, based on this verse. And it says over there (in Bamidbar 16:21 - B) ‘Separate from (מתוך) this congregation (עדה).’ Just as there (the verse in Bamidbar 16) refers to 10, so is it 10 over here (in Vayikra 22).” 

Rabbenu Bachaye continues quoting R’ Yaakov who said this language and comparison is imprecise because we should not be learning of the concept of a minyan from the spies! But the comparison is made from the word תוך (technically it is מתוך in Bamidbar 16) to the word תוך (technically בתוך in Vayikra 22). A better comparison through תוך to תוך would be through comparing the Vayikra 22 verse to the verse in Bereshit 42:5 (D) “to get food among (בתוך) those who were coming” (referring to Yosef’s 10 brothers coming to Egypt to get food). Just as they were 10 men, so is the verse (in Vayikra 22) referring to 10 men. And now we are bringing a proof to the idea of a minyan from Yosef’s 10 righteous brothers.

One need not mull too much over this to consider that learning that “a minyan = 10” from Yosef’s brothers is a much better idea than learning the same concept from the spies.

But there is a more troubling problem, because the verse from Bamidbar 16:21 doesn’t reference the spies! It references those who challenged Moshe in the Korach rebellion, to which Moshe responds saying “Should one man sin, and you get upset at an entire עדה?!” Korach’s group were 250! Not 10! And even in the spies story, every time the word עדה is used it references the entire nation (except possibly Bamidbar 14:27(C) “How much longer will this evil congregation who are [causing?] complaining against Me (exist)?” – but that may also be referring to the entire nation). 

The Talmud in Sanhedrin (2a) suggests that the word עדה in that verse (14:27 – (C)) does refer to the 10 spies because Kalev and Yehoshua are not counted. However, upon scrutiny, and considering that the word עדה in the rest of that narrative references the entire nation, it is a hard sell. (ומנין לעדה שהיא עשרה - שנאמר עד מתי לעדה הרעה הזאת, יצאו יהושע וכלב). In either case the word תוך doesn’t make an appearance in the story of the spies, removing that favorable comparison.

The Kesef Mishnah (commentary on Rambam written by Rabbi Yosef Caro) – Laws of Nesias Kapayim 8:5 - references both comparisons of תוך תוך and עדה עדה, but the same problems are not dealt with in that the תוך connection in Bamidbar references Korach and co. and the עדה reference doesn’t conclusively refer specifically to the 10 spies.

In the Midrash compilation of Yalkut Shimoni on Parshas Miketz (148) (living at the same time as Rabbenu Bachaye in 13th Century), the following is recorded. “How do we know that an individual doesn’t say ‘Kadosh’ [i.e. because a Minyan is required to say Kedusha]? Because the verse says ‘And I shall be sanctified among the Bnei Yisrael’ (Vayikra - A) and it says ‘Separate from this Edah’ (Bamidbar – B) – just as this (B) is 10, so is it 10 [in (A)]. Rabbi Yosi Bar Bon argued ‘If you’re learning it from there, we will protest! Rather it says ‘Bnei Yisrael’ (in (A)) and it says (in (D)) ‘And the Bnei Yisrael [referencing Yaakov’s 10 sons] came to get food.’ Just as they (Yaakov’s sons) were 10, so is it 10 in the Vayikra verse (A).”

Yalkut Shimoni continues referencing the aforementioned תוך תוך and עדה עדה comparisons, while concluding that the בני ישראל בני ישראל comparison (of Yaakov’s 10 sons (D) to the verse in Vayikra (A)) is the most compelling.

The Mishnah in Brachos (7:3) makes reference to the concept of a Minyan being 10 people, in the context of introducing God’s name at a Zimun (נברך א-לקינו שאכלנו משלו), and the Yerushalmi on that Mishnah references all the points we saw recorded by Yalkut Shimoni, seeming to conclude that the strongest argument is from בני ישראל (the 10 sons of Yaakov in (D)) to בני ישראל (in (A) the Vayikra verse) as the source that a minyan should be 10. [The Talmud (Megillah 23b) records both the תוך תוך argument and the עדה עדה argument, without mentioning Yosef’s brothers at all!] 

In a Responsa on the question of a synagogue that can’t typically get 10 men, but often gets 9, asking whether a boy under bar Mitzvah can join to help make a Minyan, Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef (Yabia Omer O”C 4:9) gave an extremely thorough analysis of our topic. Among other sources, he quotes Rabbenu Bachaye’s comment we saw above, and emphasizes that the brothers of Yosef verse (D) includes the word תוך allowing a תוך תוך comparison to be made, and he also notes the tradition that we learn of the concept of a minyan from the מרגלים. 

Ironically, as much as we refer to the spies as מרגלים, the fact is that the only group of people in the Torah who are referred to as מרגלים are Yosef’s brothers, when they are “accused” of being spies by Yosef himself! (Every word מרגלים in them Torah appears only in Bereshit chapter 42) The Spies of Bamibdar 13-14 are always called אנשים – “Men” - not spies!

Is it the case that something got lost in translation over time, that the concept of a Minyan is indeed learned from the מרגלים, just not Moshe’s spies, but the ones Yosef is accusing of spying – his brothers? It is certainly a possibility.

There are ways we can look at everything – through rose colored glasses, or just through a lens that seeks out the positive. In terms of this basic question –where does a minyan come from? – there is certainly what to be said about learning it from negative stories, whether Korach or the Spies, as how even “they” constituted a body of significance.

On the other hand, if we view the tribes themselves, the sons of Yaakov, as righteous people, and especially as part of their motivation in coming to Egypt was to find out Yosef’s fate and perhaps bring him home, then learning of their Teshuvah, and their efforts to be reunited with a brother as the source for the number of men required to experience a דבר שבקדושה is certainly worth considering as a parallel answer, if not a greater answer than the one with which we may have been more familiar. 

May we seek out positivity, and may the positivity we seek and find have an influence on our own outlook in life. Positivity is infectious: it helps raise our spirits and it helps us be more content with the challenges life brings our way.

A Tale of Two Women

Parshat Vayeshev

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

Chapters 38 and 39 present to us two women who are a little forward in their approaches to Yehuda and Yosef, respectively. 

 After being married to Yehuda’s sons, Er and then Onan, respectively, Tamar, upon realizing that Yehuda's third son, Shelah, will not be her husband, takes matters into her own hands to have a child (which turn out to be twins) with Yehuda himself, through an act which can be called deceptive, while seemingly appealing to Yehuda’s loneliness (he had been widowed), which can easily be pinpointed as one element of Yehuda’s weakness in falling “prey” to her “trap.” 

At the same time, when the hour comes for her to reveal the secret of her dalliance or have herself suffer the consequences of her actions, she chooses the latter, prompting the Talmud to learn from her the preference to submit to a fiery furnace rather than embarrass someone publicly, thereby cementing her place in the annals of our history as the mother of the Kingdom of Yehuda.  

The other woman, whose name is not revealed to us, though she is quite identifiably the wife of Yosef’s master Potiphar, quite unabashedly throws herself at Yosef time and again only to suffer rejection due to his unwillingness to sin with his master’s wife. When the opportunity comes for her to have the coveted dalliance, Yosef not only does not succumb, but he escapes from her clutches, leaving his garment in her hand, making his exit – an exit which is recorded in the text 4 times! 

While she, too, is the protagonist of the tale, albeit unsuccessful in her efforts, unlike Tamar, she lies about the circumstances, covering up her own crime, while casting full blame on Yosef, and causing him to languish in prison for likely more than a decade for a crime he did not commit, and for which she was completely guilty.

What a contrast!

Ibn Ezra notes the proximity of these two tales, suggesting that they are placed in the Torah in this way by design to compare Yehuda to Yosef (the first verse in each chapter references a “fall” of Yehuda and of Yosef). 

The Gemara in Sotah (10b) compares Yehuda and Yosef, noting that Yosef sanctified God’s name in private, and thus had a ה added to his name (יהוסף – see Tehillim 81), while Yehuda sanctified God’s name in public through admitting his own “guilt” with Tamar and preventing her punishment, he is known by his name that contains God’s name (you see it when the ד is removed from יהודה) and he merited to have 3 other descendants saved from a fire on account of saving the lives of Tamar and her twins (Chananya, Misha’el and Azarya). 

And while the comparison made between Yehuda and Yosef is meant to highlight certain things about each of them, it is the comparison of the women, Tamar and Mrs. Potiphar, which I find far more compelling. Rashi (see also Radak and others) suggests Tamar did what she did because she desired to produce a child for this family – whether it be from Shelah, or Yehuda, she did not care. 

 Noting that the family, at this juncture, were Noahides, Bchor Shor writes that prior to the giving of the Torah, any relative could have performed yibum (levirate marriage), even the father of the deceased. (Therefore, Tamar’s choosing shearing time (which is what Yehuda had gone to do) based on the Biblical precedent of it being a time of joy (see Avshalom, Naval) when one is a little more loose on account of one’s yetzer, was a. deliberate, and b. wise. In the end, she got what she wanted, and in a justified manner. [There is a debate – both sides are recorded by Rashi – as to what the Yehuda/Tamar relationship looked like after this incident, one approach suggesting they were never together again, and the other indicating that they remained husband and wife thereafter.] Rabbi Chaim Paltiel has a most generous reading of this text, indicating that Tamar only had intent for yibum and that this story is a lot more kosher than most simple readings suggest. (see the comments - in Hebrew)

Regarding the second tale, the Midrash is replete with analysis suggesting that certain aspects of Yosef’s character brought a test upon himself, and that her advances were actually a punishment to Yosef for being vain or for being too proud of himself. 

 Radak shares a powerful message from the temptation that after Yosef’s rise in position, “it was all for Yosef’s good, and to benefit his father and brothers. Even though it was very difficult at the beginning, all worked out. Even the sin of the wine-pourer and the dream of Pharaoh all came from God to put Yosef in a position of greatness/power. This story is recorded to see how the setup came about. Thus if something happens to someone, he should put his trust in God. This tale also comes to show us Yosef’s righteousness, and that a person should learn from Yosef how to overpower his inclination and to keep the faith. To the one who trusts will be the One Who is there, and He will not deal falsely.” 

 There is an approach suggested in the Midrash that Potiphar’s wife saw through astrology that greatness was to come from a union between her and Yosef, but she misunderstood, not realizing that the union in question would be between Yosef and Osnat bat Potiphera (this approach assumes that Potiphar and Potiphera are the same person – a debatable point – and that she was Osnat’s mother, another point which is highly contested in conflicting Midrashim).

No matter whether Potiphar’s wife was a messenger of God, sent to test Yosef, or whether she was indeed smitten by his good looks and his powerful position (one approach to understanding his line “There is no one greater than me in this household” includes even his master’s wife!) and wanted to be with him, or was disgusted by her husband and his personal preferences (see Alshikh 39:8), the text puts her as the one doing the advancing. And her intentions, no matter how we look at them, do not hold a candle to Tamar’s intentions with Yehuda. 

 Perhaps we can even note the strange irony of Sarah being taken to Pharaoh’s palace on account of her looks, and Yosef being put in this position on account of his looks. As much as Egypt may have rules against consorting with Semites, people in positions of authority don’t seem to care about the “rules for thee and not for me.” 

By contrasting these two tales, the Torah is showing us, through its clear preference for Tamar, that there are different ways people may go about seeking human companionship and even intimacy. While neither of these stories is “pretty” in the romantic sense, or even in the sense that we would think proper (I would never recommend for any woman to do what either Tamar or Potiphar’s wife did, justifying such behavior due to the Torah presenting it to us), the study in contrast plays out like this. 

Potiphar’s wife lives on in infamy. She may have played a side role in getting Yosef to prison, per how the Radak put it, which set up the good and the bad of the Israelites eventual descent to Egypt, but everything about her demonstrates the most undesirable character a person can present. Egotistical, thinking only of herself, caring not for the consequences of her actions, especially insofar as how they will reflect on another’s person’s life, casting blame where it doesn’t belong, denying the truth, lying, sending an innocent man to prison, using a different person’s race as a suggestion that “all people of that race are like that…” In short, she is a horrible human being. 

 Tamar’s modesty under the circumstances, Yehuda’s being the best candidate for Yibum, Yehuda not following through with the promise of Shelah as the next husband to Tamar, and Tamar’s desire to “establish the name of the dead” all point to her being a heroine of the narrative, and a heroine in the story of the Jewish people, the ancestress of King David.

במרמה – With Trickery? Or Wisdom?

Parshat Vayishlach 

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

 The word במרמה appears in two contexts in the Torah – Yitzchak’s assessment of Yaakov’s charade to take the Brachos, and the way in which the brothers speak to Shechem and Hamor, their sister’s rapist and his father.

While it is not disputed that the word would typically be translated “with trickery” many of the commentaries note that the implication of the word is בחכמה, that both Yaakov visavis the blessings and Yaakov's sons visavis Shechem and Hamor were “wise” in their course of action. 

 While the analysis regarding Yaakov’s efforts to receive the blessings is more appropriate for Parshas Toldos (and it is worthy to note that Ibn Ezra claims the מרמה is “that Yaakov did not speak truth”), Haktav V’Hakabbalah has a lengthy analysis in which he suggests that מרמה in that context comes from the root רם which means to elevate and exalt, indicating that Yaakov did what he was supposed to with regard to the blessings. He even takes Ibn Ezra to task for besmirching both Yitzchak and Yaakov in his interpretation of that word in the negative. Especially since Yaakov and Eisav did agree on a deal that granted Yaakov firstborn status. 

While it is interesting that Baal HaTurim connects these two instances suggesting that Yaakov was punished measure for measure with his sons speaking במרמה in his presence (in Shechem) on account of what he did to his father (at the blessings), the reality is that the Torah doesn’t describe Yaakov’s behavior in that way: Yitzchak does. And what Yitzchak’s intention was in saying Yaakov acted במרמה is subject to debate, leaving open the possibility that Yaakov’s sons were in the right in the way they dealt with Shechem and Hamor if they spoke במרמה and that word can be understood as "rightly." (Pesikta also makes the connection but doesn’t view it as measure for measure) 

To summarize what happened, Shechem kidnapped and raped Dinah, then spoke softly to her, as if to fix in her mind that what had taken place wasn’t wrong, but was an act of mutual love and affection. Keeping her trapped in his home, he came with his father to Yaakov in order to legally and properly get permission to keep Dinah as his muse (or wife?). Yaakov is shattered by the revelation of what has happened, and he leaves his sons to deal with the rapist/lover and his enabling father, at which point they engage in this מרמה, suggesting that the entire male population of the city of Shechem be circumcised for there to be a chance of the two populations mixing in marital unions. 

 There are 3 most significant points of view as to what this could mean.

1. The מרמה was in asking for ALL the males to circumcise, as they assumed the general population would not agree, rendering any agreement null. (Chizkuni, Ramban) Alternatively, the מרמה was in suggesting that circumcision alone would make the two peoples united into one people (Hadar Zekenim). 

2. The מרמה was really חכמה (Rashi). The wisdom was in not buying the story that Shechem was portraying. Shechem was presenting himself as wanting Dinah for honorable reasons, but was not telling the full story that he had already raped her and locked her up. His story was that Dinah was in his home because she didn’t want to leave! (B’chor Shor) Malbim suggests the מרמה was in their focusing on circumcision, so he wouldn’t think that they harbored a grudge over the kidnapping and rape. In focusing their ire to him over his not being circumcised, he let his guard down over the real issue, which is how he had treated Dinah. Malbim even suggests that the implication of their focus on circumcision is that had Shechem been circumcised in the first place, OF COURSE they’d let him keep Dinah because everything would have been fine. 

3. Finally, מרמה was the accusation levied by the brothers against Shechem and Hamor. When the brothers called out the story as במרמה (essentially, “You are lying!”) Shechem and Hamor admitted to what had truly taken place (Yosef David Sinzheim – the head of Napoleon’s “Sanhedrin”). Haktav V’Hakabbalah says the brothers actually said “במרמה!” as their accusation against Shechem’s story. 

Haktav V’Hakaballah continues noting the psychological state of the brothers, suggesting that when they uttered the word במרמה they unloaded all the tension they were feeling through that one word, and didn’t say the rest of what they were thinking, because their emotions implied everything they wished to say.

Ramban has a lengthy comment in which he disagrees with Rambam over the justification Yaakov’s sons had for killing the inhabitants of Shechem. It is a dispute over their not having set up a proper justice system, or the whole city simply being complicit in kidnapping and rape. Suffice it to say, while Yaakov was upset with Shimon and Levi for having killed the males of the city, most commentaries are of the view that Shimon and Levi were in the right. One need look no further than Hamor’s claims that “when we circumcise we will own of their belongings!” to see that he wasn’t on the up-and-up. 

We refer to Yaakov as the man of Truth* – תתן אמת ליעקב – and yet Yaakov (and in this case his sons) seems to be involved in deceit more often than we like to imagine. How could this be so? 

Many Midrashim (Rashi quotes them) on 29:12 have Yaakov telling Rachel that if her father will cheat him, he will cheat Lavan right back. 

In other words, there isn’t deception when dealing with a deceiver. The rules of warfare don’t apply when the enemy isn’t following the rules of warfare. 

It is not our way to recommend dishonesty as the Torah enjoins us to distance ourselves from falsehoods. However, there is very little benefit to being taken advantage of by someone who does not play fairly. 

What we learn from Yaakov and sons is that when the other side is deceitful, playing the same game is justified. In modern Israeli slang, there are few things worse than being labled a “Freier.” Apparently Yaakov and sons felt the same way, and by and large the commentaries support such an approach when dealing with dishonest characters.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* An interpretation is that Yaakov's "truth" is an esoteric concept, bearing little connection to the concept of deception that plays out, which is necessary as noted here when dealing with unsavory characters

Bilhah and Zilpah: Wives of Yaakov (, Mothers of Bnei Yisrael?)

Parshat Vayetze

by Rabbi Avi Billet

In the last encounter we see between Yaakov and Lavan, Lavan says, “If you’re going to mistreat my daughters, or take new wives in addition to my daughters…” concluding the statement with a veiled threat. 

 Rashi (31:9) asks, why two times “My daughters”? He answers “Because Bilhah and Ziplah were his daughters from a concubine.” Seemingly, beyond referencing Rachel and Leah in the plural, he was including two more daughters. 

The Midrash Sechel Tov says that when Yaakov asked for permission to leave in 30:26, asking for his “wives, children, that I worked for,” that he is specifying: my wives = Bilhah and Zilpah, my children = ALL of the children, that I worked for = Rachel and Leah. 

All this supposes that Bilhah and Zilpah were full wives in the eyes of all beholders. 

Regarding their parentage, there is a different opinion (recorded in Bereshit Rabati 119) that Bilhah and Zilpah were the daughters of the brother of Devorah, Rivkah’s nurse, whose name was “Achoti.” Before he got married he was imprisoned, and Lavan had redeemed him and given to Achoti his [Lavan’s] maid as a wife. Achoti had a daughter name Zilpah, named after the city where he’d been held captive, and another daughter named Bilhah – who as a baby had a tough time latching and learning to be nursed. “What kind of Behulah – trouble – you have?" When Yaakov arrived, Achoti died. Lavan took the girls as maids, and gave them to Leah and Rachel respectively. 

This view doesn’t take away from their wives-status. 

The Torah sometimes refers to Bilhah and Zilpah as wives, as maids, and in one case as a concubine. It should be noted that both the Midrash Rabati and the Yalkut Shimoni claim that daughters of concubines were called Shifchah, which is the word we typically translate as “maid,” which suggests that their being Shifchah says nothing of their status as wives. It’s part of their identity, but not something that defines their “wife status.” 

 In the Torah, they are depicted as 

Wives: See Bereshit 30:26 (quoted above), 31:17 when he is moving with his children and wives, 37:2 when we hear of how Yosef spends time with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. 

Maids: See Bereshit 32:23 when Yaakov takes his “two wives and two maids” along with his children to cross the Yabok river. 

Concubine: See 35:22 when an controversial-to-understand incident with Bilhah and Reuven is recorded. Of course in that context the term “concubine” might refer to how Reuven views here, and may have no bearing on how Yaakov views her. In fact, the Pesikta Zutrasa, on 30:9 notes that when Leah decided to give Zilpah to Yaakov as a wife (as the Torah depicts it) it means “לאשה ולא לפילגש, אלא שחררה אותה ודרך אישות לקחה” As a wife and not as a concubine. She freed her and he took her in a manner of regular marriage.

What would really put the icing on the cake of this is the answer to the following question. If Bilhah and Zilpah are the mothers of 4 of the tribes of Israel, why do we only refer to there being 4 mothers, namely Sarah, Rivkah, Rachel and Leah? Shouldn’t there be 6 mothers? 

There are a few sources that reference 6 mothers, such as Targum Yonatan (Shmos 14:21) in describing some of the images engraved on the staff of Moshe which he used to split the sea. 

There appear a number of lists of six items in whose merit a number 6 was utilized somewhere, such as the number of calves brought in Parshat Naso, and the number of steps in the throne room of Achashveirosh, and in both lists, the credit is given to 6 mothers (among other sixes). [See Bamidbar Rabba 12 (ד"ה ויביאו את קרבנם), Yalkut Shimoni Naso 713, Shir Hashirim Rabba 6:2 ד"ה יפה, and Esther Rabba 12 (ד"ה על כסא)] 

There is a possibility that they aren’t usually referenced as the “Imahot” because all of the Imahot are described in the Torah as “akarot” – infertile without God’s intervention, and Bilhah and Zilpah seemed to have no reproductive barriers. 

Perhaps being one of the Mothers of the Jewish people is a special title earned only through the suffering and pain of being an akarah, of knowing what it feels like to not bear children. Sarah was married at least 25 years before Yitzchak was born. Rivkah was married 20 years before her twins were born. Leah’s and Rachel’s wombs only opened when God wanted them to (29:31, 30:22) The Talmud tells us (Yevamos 64a) that the forefathers and foremothers were barren because God desires the prayers of the righteous. 

 Rachel is the symbol in Yirmiyahu 31:14 of the ultimate and most passionate prayer for her children on their way to exile, because she understands more than anyone how difficult it can be to have a child, and how a mother will give her life for the chance to give birth. Sarah may have been barren 25 years, Rivkah 20 years, and Rachel only six years. But imagine how she feels when three wives, married to the same man, are all giving birth, and she remains alone with no children! Sarah and Rivkah surely felt pain – but Rachel most of all. The only reason Leah did not seem to experience infertility is because she suffered a different pain, the pain of being the “hated” and certainly “unloved” wife, prompting God to more quickly “open her womb.” (29:31) 

Bilhah and Zilpah don’t make the cut because their marriage to Yaakov was functionary, and their function was fulfilled right away through the immediate births of their sons, borne seemingly without struggle and without prayer.