This description is also found at Megilla (13b). How is the betrayal of her husband as well as causing him great embarrassment and to violate halacha (since he was having relations withone woman while he had his mind on another one) - considered praiseworthy and why is it labeled as tznius (modesty)?
Bava Basra(123a):... Wherein did Rachel's modesty lie? It is written, And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother and that he was Rebecca's son. Was he not the son of her father's sister? But he said to her,[Will] you marry me? [And] she replied to him, Yes, but father is a sharper, and you will not he able [to hold your own against] him Wherein, he asked her, does his sharp dealing lie? I have, she said, a sister who is older than I, and he will not allow me to be married before her. I am his brother he said to her, in sharp dealing. But she said to him, may the righteous indulge in sharp dealing? [he replied]. With the pure, [Scripture says], Thou dost show thyself pure, and with the crooked Thou dost show thyself subtle.[Thereupon] he entrusted her [with certain identification] marks. While Leah was being led into [the bridal chamber] she thought, my sister will now be disgraced [and so] she entrusted her [with] these very [marks]. And this accounts for the Scriptural text, And it came to pass in the morning that, behold, it was Leah, which seems to imply that until then she was not Leah! But, [this is the explanation]: On account of the [identification] marks which Jacob had entrusted to Rachel who had entrusted them to Leah, he knew not [who] she [was] until that moment.
The tznius is in her covering up her past relationship and private communications with Yaakov. Rochel did not tell Leah that these were the simanim. She gave them to Leah without Leah even realising that what she was giving were simanim. She did this in order to cover or protect the relationship that she had already with Yaakov. Had she not given them over, Yaakov would have said at the time of the wedding, you are not Rochel, we had simanim and everyone would have known that Yaakov and Rochel had already had private communications and a relationship. Same idea with Shaul and Shmuel - tznius is the covering or keeping private of an existing relationshp.
ReplyDeleteRav Matis Weinberg explained that the modesty was that she didn't divulge to her father and thereby the populace the extent of her relationship to Yaakov.
ReplyDeleteso modesty simply means concealment - at the expense of all else - including embarrassing others or betraying trust. However a number of the commentaries point out that betraying a secret is not a component of modesty- so what was the modesty that Rachel merited to have modest offspring? The Bene Yohoyada says that the modesty was that after the initial meeting there was no contact between Yaakov and Rachel and thus for 7 years Yaakov did not see Rachel. That is why the simonim were effective - he simply had no idea what she looked like. The giving over of the simonim to Leah was an act of gemilas chesed - not tznius
ReplyDeleteספר בניהו בן יהוידע על מגילה דף יג/ב
ReplyDeleteומאי צניעותא דהויא ברחל דכתיב ויגד יעקב לרחל וכו'. קשה מה שמסרה הסימנים אין זה ענין צניעות אלא זהו ממדת הרחמנות וגמילות חסד. ונראה לי בס"ד דמסירת הסימנים לא הועילה אלא על ידי הצניעות שלה, דמנהגו של עולם אין הנשים והבתולות מסתירות עצמן מאנשים הקרובים שלהם, וכל שכן רחל שכבר קדשה יעקב אבינו ע"ה בשבע שנים, וכבר ראה אותה פעם אחת בצאן ודבר עתה ארוכות וקצרות, אך היא מרוב צניעותה לא ראה אותה יעקב אבינו ע"ה אפילו פעם אחת אחר אותה הפעם שדבר עמה בצאן, לא בבית אביה ולא בחוץ, כי מאותו הפעם לא היתה יוצאה מחוץ לבית כלל, וכאשר יזדמן שיבא יעקב אבינו ע"ה לבית אביה בשביל איזה עסק לצורך הצאן, לא היתה נראית לפניו ולא היה רואה, וזו הצניעות סיבבה שמסירת הסימנים לאחותה עשו פרי, והועילו לאחותה שלא ירגיש בה יעקב אבינו ע"ה, יען שאם היה יעקב אבינו ע"ה רואה אותה בבית אביה בתוך משך השבע שנים, אע"פ שבאותה הלילה של החופה שלח לבן תינוקות וכיבו הנירות, ונכנס יעקב אבינו ע"ה לחדר בחושך, ולא היה אפשר שידליק הנר לראות, כי אותה לילה היתה ליל שבת, וכאשר הבאתי בדרשותי על התורה בשם גורי האר"י ז"ל, עם כל זה ודאי אי אפשר שיהיו רחל ולאה דומין זו לזו בקומה ובעובי הגוף, על כן אם לא ראה פניה היה מרגיש באחיזתו בה בגופה מצד הקומה ועובי הגוף ומה היו מועילין הסימנים, אך הואיל והיתה צנועה שלא ראה אותה כל אותם משך שבע שנים לא הכיר בשיעור קומתה ועוביה וכמותה, ולכן הועילו הסמנים ללאה, ובא עליה בחשבו שהיא רחל, ונמצא שהצניעות היא השלימה פועל הטוב של מסירת הסימנים:
I don't think the idea is not betraying a secret....it is keeping a relationship private....keeping a relationship special and unique...something that is only between those two parties. It is not the secret side of it but the beauty side of it...the intimate side of the relationship that she was preserving. It wasn't like a dark secret that couldn't be revealed...it is the uniqueness and specialness that revealing would destroy...which would make the relationship public when it was meant to be private.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Ben Yehoyada...would Yaakov not being able to recognise Rochel be a problem from the kiddushin side or if he saw her once then doesn't matter if she didn't look the same beshaas kiddushin, would it still be ok? Also doesn't the gemara you quote above specifically say the giving over the simanim was an act of tznius and not gemilus chesed? I would assume that gemillus chesed is a more problematic pshat because it is chesed to Rochel but certainly not the Yaakov. If tznius is the pshat, it is still tznius even if it is not "nice" to Yaakov
I simply don't undertand your point. You can't have this beauty side without an apparently disgusting betrayal. Rachel is being praised by the gemora for tznius and the gemora said it was revealing of a secret code that Yaakov had given her to prevent his being stuck with a woman he did not want. Rachel betrayed her husband in the most blatant manner - showing absolutely no concern for his feelings. Grossly embarrassing him, deceiving him in a relationship which needs the ultimate of trust. Her loyalty needed to be with Yaakov not with Leah. So why is the gemora praising her and saying she was rewarded for this betrayal?
ReplyDeleteWould the gemora similarly praise a daughter who was abused by her father but kept it secret since tznius is the mida of concealing information? Would Dina have been praised for her tznius if she hadn't revealed that she was raped? Actually Lot's daughter was criticized for naming her baby to signify that it was the result of an incestual relationship.
My bottom line is trying to understand the parameters of tznius. In this gemora it seems that is is the supreme value - rather than one of a number of good traits. How can it be a praiseworthy act if it gives precedence to a sister over a husband and it was a betrayal which would have normally destroyed the marriage. Off hand I can't think of a more serious betrayal of trust than this in Tanach.
Rachel's behavior is not what we would characterize as being tznua. For example there is another medrash which notes that in order to complete the deception against yaakov - Rachel hid under the bed that Yaakov & Leah were on and when Yaakov spoke to Leah - Rachel answered him so that he would not realize from the sound of her voice that Leah was not Rachel. Thus the modesty was an active deception involving some really problematic behavior. We see this apparent lack of modesty when Rachel sells the right to sexual relations with Yaakov to Leah for the sake of the mandrakes. Or when Yaakov tells Lavan give me my wife so I can have sex with her.
ReplyDeleteאיכה רבה (וילנא) פתיחתות
באותה שעה קפצה רחל אמנו לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא ואמרה רבש"ע גלוי לפניך שיעקב עבדך אהבני אהבה יתירה ועבד בשבילי לאבא שבע שנים וכשהשלימו אותן שבע שנים והגיע זמן נשואי לבעלי יעץ אבי להחליפני לבעלי בשביל אחותי והוקשה עלי הדבר עד מאד כי נודעה לי העצה והודעתי לבעלי ומסרתי לו סימן שיכיר ביני ובין אחותי כדי שלא יוכל אבי להחליפני, ולאחר כן נחמתי בעצמי וסבלתי את תאותי ורחמתי על אחותי שלא תצא לחרפה, ולערב חלפו אחותי לבעלי בשבילי ומסרתי לאחותי כל הסימנין שמסרתי לבעלי כדי שיהא סבור שהיא רחל, ולא עוד אלא שנכנסתי תחת המטה שהיה שוכב עם אחותי והיה מדבר עמה והיא שותקת ואני משיבתו על כל דבר ודבר כדי שלא יכיר לקול אחותי וגמלתי חסד עמה, ולא קנאתי בה ולא הוצאתיה לחרפה, ומה אני שאני בשר ודם עפר ואפר לא קנאתי לצרה שלי ולא הוצאתיה לבושה ולחרפה, ואתה מלך חי וקיים רחמן מפני מה קנאת לעבודת כוכבים שאין בה ממש והגלית בני ונהרגו בחרב ועשו אויבים בם כרצונם, מיד נתגלגלו רחמיו של הקדוש ברוך הוא ואמר בשבילך רחל אני מחזיר את ישראל למקומן הדא הוא דכתיב (ירמיה ל"א) כה אמר ה' קול ברמה נשמע נהי בכי תמרורים רחל מבכה על בניה מאנה להנחם על בניה כי איננו, וכתיב (שם /ירמיהו ל"א/) כה אמר ה' מנעי קולך מבכי ועיניך מדמעה כי יש שכר לפעולתך וגו' וכתיב (שם /ירמיהו ל"א/) ויש תקוה לאחריתך נאם ה' ושבו בנים לגבולם.
The alternative was worse
ReplyDeletewhy was the alternative worse?
ReplyDeleteThe alternative was to publicly embarrass Leah. And this seems to be the 'supreme' virtue in this matter. Rochel also lost out, she also sacrificed a lot. This was a no win situation. So although there was a betrayal of Yaakov, this was done to save Leah being embarrassed in public, which if I understand correctly is yehareg velo yaavor. And even when saving her sister from public embarrassment and shame ("death") Rochel did this in a manner that did not reveal the extent of her relationship with Yaakov to anyone. This was the tznius behaviour. The supreme virtue why she passed over the simanim is the public embarrassment of Leah. Yaakov's embarrassment would have only been private so although painful definitely not as severe.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't think your comparison with an abusive father is relevant here. That is obviously not a special and unique relationship that needs to be preserved. It needs to be exposed to prevent it from happening again. There would be no tznius in concealing that relationship because it is not a relationship. Tznius is only concealing a relationship when there is no need to expose it, when it is not the right time or appropriate to expose.
Still don't understand your reasoning. Leah would be embarrassed by not getting married before Rochel. Tricking Yaakov solved that problem - but obviously Yaakov was embarrassed publicly also. Everyone knew that he was marrying Rochel and thus when it turned out that he was tricked the would be publicly embarrassed.Thus it is public embarrassment of Leah vs Yaakov. Rochel is not held accountable for Leah's embarrassment. Or would you posken that a younger sibling is prohibited to marry before an older one? That is clearly not the halacha.She was responsible for embarrassing Yaakov. So why did she chose to commit the sin of publicling embarrassing yaakov to avoid having her sister embarassed when that wasn't her responsiblity at all? Furthermore Chazal say that as a result of this embarrassment Yaakov wanted to divorce Leah. Rachel therefore destroyed her marriage for the sake of Leah and if Yaakov had divorced Leah she would have been embarrassed anyway.
DeleteI am not talking about the embarrassment of getting married before Rochel. Talking about embarrassment that Rochel knew Lavan was going to give Leah - in other words Leah was going to be under the chuppah. If at that point Yaakov knew it wasn't Rochel he would have called off the wedding. That would be a public embarrassment in front of all the guests. Yaakov's embarrassment is only in the morning when he finds out it is Leah. That is a private embarrassment. So Rochel saved Leah's public embarrassment - that is the supreme value. She did that by giving the simanim to Leah in a way that Leah didn't even know were simanim (heard in name of Rav Schwadron). That was tzanua as it protected her relationship with Yaakov becoming exposed. That tznius is a beautiful middah and what the gemara is praising,
ReplyDeleteStill don't understand your point. Even if it were the embarrassment under the chupah - (don't know where you got this from) - Yaakov still was furious and hated Leah and wanted to divorce her because of this deception. What was so beautiful about having the value of short term concealment that will lead with certainty to long term embarrassment?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, her action is not being praised in the gemora but is portrayed as the result of her having the midoh of tz'niyus and mis-applying it. Her descendant Shaul used it in a better way by hiding non-public items, while Esther utizlized it perfectly by hiding her origins while dropping all sorts of hints. As the gemorah explains "Hatzneah leches im elohecha", even while doing public mitzvos, such as attending a funeral, do it bitzniyus.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, her action is not being praised in the gemora but is portrayed as the result of her having the midoh of tz'niyus and mis-applying it. Her descendant Shaul used it in a better way by hiding non-public items, while Esther utizlized it perfectly by hiding her origins while dropping all sorts of hints. As the gemorah explains "Hatzneah leches im elohecha", even while doing public mitzvos, such as attending a funeral, do it bitzniyus.
ReplyDeleteActually her tznius is being praised by the gemora - both in Megilla and Bava Basra.
DeleteMegilla (13b) In reward for the modesty displayed by Rachel, she was granted to number among her descendants Saul; and in reward for the modesty displayed by Saul, he was granted to number among his descendants Esther.2
Bava Basra(123a): The birthright, [he said], should have emanated from Rachel, as it is written, These are the generations of Jacob, Joseph,32 but Leah anticipated [her with her prayers for] mercy. On account, [however], of the modesty, which was characteristic of Rachel, the Holy One, blessed he He, restored it to her.
BTW Rashi doesn't seem to agree with your explanation
ReplyDeleteרש"י מגילה דף יג/ב
מסרתן - ללאה, והוא צניעות, שלא יתפרסם הדבר שמסר לה סימנין
He says that the tznius of Rachel was the fact that she did not publicize that she gave Leah the simanim. Not that Leah didn't know but that the community didn't know which obviously meant according to Rashi that Leah did in fact know. Also according to the medrash that Rachel hid under their bed and that whenever Yaakov spoke to Leah Rachel answered him- Leah was obviously well aware there Yaakov was being deceived and she participated in the deception.
I always thought that the embarrassment was under the chupah. I don't come up to your ankles in learning but that is just always how I imagined it. I agree that my explanation doesn't work with the midrash you quoted. But even if Rochel was an active part of the deception, the tznius is that her relationship with Yaakov was not made public (by having Yaakov declare under the chuppah that you are not Rochel as we had a prior relationship and I gave her simanim etc). This tznius idea of preserving her relationship with Yaakov from becoming exposed seems consistent with the tznius of Shaul where he didn't divulge the extent of his relationship with Shmuel and Esther who didn't divulge the extent of her relationship with Mordechai. That idea of keeping a relationship that is special and unique private is praiseworhthy. All of the other cheshbonos about what is supreme and what was Rochel's calculation in thinking that she could betray Yaakov etc may involve many other factors including issues of public embarrassment, ruach hakodesh. For example did she know by Ruach hakodesh that Yaakov was going to marry Leah at one point and that she would also be the mother of shevatim?
ReplyDeleteCouple of points. Firstly, R' Eidensohn, I'm not sure why you assume that there would have have been public embarrassment of Yaakov. It seems reasonable to assume that only Yaakov, Lavan and Rachel knew of the agreement to marry Rachel.Why should anyone else have been party to that? The trade off would then have been publicly embarrasing Leah by Rachel getting married first and privately causing pain to Yaakov. In this regard it seems likely that Avrohom is right about Rachel having foreknowledge of Leah's future, given the midrashim about Leahs's foreknowledge of the children she and Rachel would have. So if Leah was meant to be married to Yaakov in any case, then there was ultimately no betrayal of Yaakov by Rachel. I'm not aware of any midrashim indicating that Yaakov was angry Rachel for her actions, or that he felt betrayed by her. This implcitly suggests that this 'betrayal' was not an issue, presumably supported by the gemara you've based this whole qestion on.
ReplyDeleteThe deception was public knowledge
ReplyDeleteMidrash Rabbah - Genesis LXX:19
19. AND LABAN GATHERED TOGETHER ALL THE MEN OF THE PLACE, AND MADE A FEAST (XXIX, 22). He assembled all the men of the town and said to them: ‘You know how we were short of water, and as soon as this righteous man came the water was blessed.’ ' Do as you think fit,’ they bade him. Said he: ‘If you wish it, I will deceive him and give him Leah; and as he loves Rachel better he will work here with you another seven years.’ ' Do whatever you please,’ they answered him. ‘Give me a pledge that none of you will disclose it to him.’ When they gave him their pledges, he went and obtained wine, oil, and meat with them.1 Thus why was he called Laban the Arami? Because he deceived (rimmah) even his townspeople. The whole day they sang his praises, but when evening fell [and they still continued], he asked them, ' What is the meaning of all this? ‘2 ' Because you conferred benefits upon us in your merit,’ they answered him, and continued singing his praises, exclaiming, ’Hi leah, hi leah!’3 In the evening they came to lead her [into the bridal chamber] and extinguished the light. ‘What is the meaning of this?’ he demanded, and they replied: ‘Think you that we are shameless, like you?" The whole of that night he called her ‘Rachel’, and she answered him. In the morning, however, BEHOLD, IT WAS LEAH (ib. 25). Said he to her: ' What, you are a deceiver and the daughter of a deceiver! ' ‘Is there a teacher without pupils,’ she retorted; ‘did not your father call you " Esau ", and you answered him! So did you too call me and I answered you!’
Midrash Rabbah - Genesis LXXI:2
ReplyDeleteR. Judah b. R. Simon and R. Hanan said in the name of R. Samuel b. R. Isaac: When the Patriarch Jacob saw how Leah deceived him by pretending to be her sister, he determined to divorce her. But as soon as the Holy One, blessed be He, visited her with children he exclaimed, ' Shall I divorce the mother of these children! ' Eventually he gave thanks for her, as it says, And Israel bowed down [in thanksgiving] for the bed's head (Gen. XLVII, 31): who was the head of our father Jacob's bed? surely Leah.4
Midrash Rabbah - Lamentations Prologue XXIV
ReplyDeleteAt that moment, the matriarch Rachel broke forth into speech before the Holy One, blessed be He, and said, ‘Sovereign of the Universe, it is revealed before Thee that Thy servant Jacob loved me exceedingly and toiled for my father on my behalf seven years. When those seven years were completed and the time arrived for my marriage with my husband, my father planned to substitute another for me to wed my husband for the sake of my sister. It was very hard for me, because the plot was known to me and I disclosed it to my husband; and I gave him a sign whereby he could distinguish between me and my sister, so that my father should not be able to make the substitution. After that I relented, suppressed my desire, and had pity upon my sister that she should not be
____________________
(1) Cf. Ned. 39b.
Lam. 48
exposed to shame. In the evening they substituted my sister for me with my husband, and I delivered over to my sister all the signs which I had arranged with my husband so that he should think that she was Rachel. More than that, I went beneath the bed upon which he lay with my sister; and when he spoke to her she remained silent and I made all the replies in order that he should not recognise my sister's voice.1 I did her a kindness, was not jealous of her, and did not expose her to shame. And if I, a creature of flesh and blood, formed of dust and ashes, was not envious of my rival and did not expose her to shame and contempt, why shouldest Thou, a King Who liveth eternally and art merciful, be jealous of idolatry in which there is no reality, and exile my children and let them be slain by the sword, and their enemies have done with them as they wished! ‘
בראשית רבתי פרשת וישלח עמוד 168
ReplyDeleteלד, א ותצא דינה. א"ר יהודה ב"ר שלום צריך אדם שיזהיר את אשתו שתהא צנועה ותעמוד בתוך ביתה ולא תהא יצאנית, שכן מצינו ומלאו את הארץ וכבשוה (א' כ"ח), וכבשה כתיב, שהאיש כובש את אשתו שלא תצא לשוק, אבל אשה שיוצאה סוף שתכשל. מנא לן מדינה בת לאה שנאמר ותצא דינה, ונכשלה, וירא אותה וגו'. בת לאה, ולא בת יעקב, אלא מפני שקפצה והעזה פניה ויצאה לקראתו של יעקב, א"ל הב"ה זו מצוה וזו שכרה, זו שכרה של רחל אחותה שמסרה לה אותן סימנין שהיו ביניה ובין בעלה שלא תתביישי, חייך שאני נותן לך בושה גדולה מזו הה"ד ותצא דינה בת לאה.
I believe you've mistranslated the Rashi above. It is not, as suggested, that the tzniut of Rachel was the fact that she did not publicize that SHE gave Leah the simanim. Rashi says "masar lah" which means HE handed over, meaning that Rachel did not want it public knowledge that Ya’akov had given her simanim.
ReplyDeleteRachel could have prevented the the old switcheroo from happening -- all she had to do was let it be known that she and Ya'akov had prepared for such a circumstance, as the introduction of the gemara suggests. But she would not do that because it would have meant exposing the the special relationship she had with Ya’akov (one so special and important that they even had their own simanim!) to people who would have ridiculed it (see Bereishit Rabba, 70:19 and 70:12).
Accordingly, Tzniut means, to refine a comment from earlier, the sensitivity to the possible dismissing of what is unique and dear. This is why Shaul is a good parallel here, because he also refrained from sharing information (i.e., his coronation as king) out of fear of being belittled.
Incidentally, this concern of tzniut is the midah of amalek as leitzan. The leitz takes things that people believe are serious and belittles them. Oh that, this thing you think is important - it's nothing, it's a joke. That is the significance of the bathwater interpretation of asher karchacha. You think you're significant am yisrael? You're nothing, we can attack you right now and prove it.
This is why tzniut has laws governing dress. This is my body, it's not for everyone to see. Not because what's under it is alluring, but because it's being saved for someone who will truly appreciate it and not ridicule it or diminish it or cheapen it.
thank you for the correction to the translation - but it doesn't change my point . How could she hide under the bed and respond to Yaakov instead of her sister? Leah was obviously aware that Rachel was betraying her husband. It would seem that Yaakov also must have known that she betrayed him. so I don't see what she did was preservering her special relationship with Yaakov
DeleteRachel could have prevented the the old switcheroo from happening -- all she had to do was let it be known that she and Ya'akov had prepared for such a circumstance, as the introduction of the gemara suggests. But she would not do that because it would have meant exposing the the special relationship she had with Ya’akov (one so special and important that they even had their own simanim!) to people who would have ridiculed it (see Bereishit Rabba, 70:19 and 70:12).
ReplyDelete===================
You are claim that Rachel's tznius involved concealing that she and Yaakov had a unique relationship. This is rather a strange peshat. The medrashim you quote say that people objected when they saw Yaakov kissing Rachel because this was very immodest behavior. The mere fact that Yaakov was marrying Rachel "revealed" that they had a unique relationship. So what was she hiding?
She in fact was concealing from yaakov that he was being tricked. This is something very strange for a wife who is interested in establishing a unique and special relationship with her husband to conceal from him that he is in bed with a different woman! So while you are correct that she concealed the fact that Yaakov gave her simanim she concealed other significant facts.
This is in fact the correct understanding of all of the use of the word tznius - it simply means concealing. There are many motivations for concealment - it could be for modesty or fear of ridicule e.g., Shaul. It could be because of being in the bathroom. It could be because of embarrasment. But there is also concealment from yourself.
My point is that we collectively misunderstand the meaning of tznius and elevate it to a supreme value when it is multifaceted concepted and must be integrated with other Jewish values.
I will soon be posting a more cogent disussion of the variety of cases presented by Chazal under the name of tznius
I don’t know whether we need to assume that the gemara in Megillah holds from this medrish of Rachel being under the bed, but even if it does, it seems that the point of the story is to stress the lengths to which Rachel would go in order to preserve the unique relationship she had with Ya’akov. From her vantage point, if preserving their special relationship meant hiding under a marital bed – as wild as that is – then so be it. It’s a comment on how much this meant to Rachel, not on the mechanics of the subterfuge. Moreover, it’s not clear that this is a betrayal of Ya’akov at all. Obviously he knew she handed over the simanim to Leah (how else would she have known them?) and he had to assume that there was good reason for her to do so – possibly because he believed just as strongly in the specialness of the relationship as she did. After all, Ya’akov seems just as intent on marrying her after this whole hullabaloo as he was beforehand. If he felt betrayed, why did he continue to pursue her? Lavan betrayed him, not Rachel, or Leah for that matter, and he understood it as such.
ReplyDeleteAs you point out, tzniut means, literally, concealment. The tzniut praised here seems to be circumstances where revelation would possibly inure (immediately) to the benefit of he who reveals (in the case of Rachel, if she’d reveal her relationship with Ya’akov it would thwart her father’s scheme; in the case of Sha’ul, if he’d reveal his coronation, he possibly would be treated with high regard by his uncle and others); but as appealing as such revelation may have looked, it was not worth compromising the integrity of that which was protected. As such, it is all about moments. How does one react in a moment of opportunity? Does he reveal or not. Sometimes it is worth revealing, others it is not. I mentioned the midrashim re Aram to stress the type of place it was. Ya’akov saw early on that it was a place of ridicule – they laughed at his unbridled expression of love to Rachel, his kiss, and he certainly wasn’t going to give them any more fodder to belittle what he cherished.
You keep repeating that Rachel had a unique relationship with Yaakov - what was it? It clearly wasn't on the psychological level - why did he get angry with her when she asked him to help her have children and then he said he didn't need to go out of his way because he had kids already. Why did he tell Lavan - give me why wife so I can have sex with her. He didn't mean anything human when he kissed her on their initial meeting - though people assumed mistakenly that it was from passion. There are other indicators that he did not relate her as a person. Similarly Rachel's bartering a night with Yaakov for mandrakes also indicates that she didn't have a special human relationship with him. In fact Yaakov's lack of human response is also seen in relationship with Dina - his sons were furious and insisted on acting while he simply said "what will the goyim think?"
DeleteIt is also not clear that Yaakov knew she betrayed him. I could not find one source or discussion of this. The only mention is that he was angry with Leah because she said he deserved being betrayed because he betrayed Esav. I could not find a single claim that Yaakov blamed Lavan either.
so to answer your point. Yaakov apparently didn't feel betrayed because he did not have a special relationship with Rachel but rather he was focused on his destiny as the father of the Jewish people. He knew that Rachel was part of that destiny and once he was tricked into marrying Leah she became part of it. His only hesitation seemed to be that she mocked him for being betrayed.
So to repeat tznius simply means concealment. Rachel was good at concealment and that trait was passed on to her decendants Shaul and Esther. Chazal make no attempt to show why the concealment was good and why it out weighed other factors such as betrayal. It simple is a stand alone quality that she excelled at - nothing more and nothing less.
So you believe that the founding of Klal Yisrael was rooted in relationships between people who did not relate to each other as people? Interesting, since Chazal tell us that one of the reasons the Avos and Imahos were akarim and akaros for a while in the beginning of their marriages was to allow for them to strengthen and deepen their relationships with each other. You believe that Yaakov did not relate to the situation with Dina as a human would? You think he meant "Oy! What will the Goyim think?" as a mere concern for his reputation?! He was worried that he did not have the zechuyos necessary to win if they would attack him and his family for what Shimon and Levi did to Shechem. How is that not human? Don't tell me you can't imagine another solution for the situation that Yaakov had up his sleeve other than tricking and killing out Shechem! You are presenting Yaakov Avinu as an out of touch person who is Rosho Higia Hashomayima but not Mutzav Artzah! Everything you have said about Yaakov's lack of a relationship with Rochel runs counter to many statements of Chazal on the issue. Frankly I am quite surprised and disappointed with what you have written here!
ReplyDeleteRabbi Eidenson, It pains me to see you jumping through hoops and turning over mountains in order to maintain that Yaakov Avinu did not have a relationship with Rochel Imeinu as one would relate to a human. You have failed to convince me that your p'shat even remotely fits with the words of Rashi. You seem to assume that if Rochel Imeinu gave the simanim to Leah to keep the prior extent of her relationship with Yaakov hidden, that would enrage Yaakov or somehow destroy their relationship if they had a human relationship. What is so hard about conceiving of a relationship between Yaakov Avinu and Rochel Imeinu that as it was in heaven, so on earth? That his love for her was so deep that it spanned everything that is possible to be used to express ahava, from the most sublime spiritual connection to the most physical? Do you feel that would detract from the greatness of our Avos and Imahos? If anything, this is the whole point of Rochel's tzniyus: Her sensitivity to the need for subtlety, privacy, and demureness. An acute awareness that something so special and unique, when exposed to the eyes of the ignorant and scornful was at risk of being cheapened and ridiculed. The posuk of Hatznea leches im Elokecha teaches us not to teach Divrei Torah in the Shuk. Exposure of something meant to be understood on very advanced and sublime levels is putting the divrei Torah at risk of the same kind of ridicule. Your solution of decoupling Yaakov Avinu from his (and Rochel Imeinu's) humanity is essentially a destruction of Yaakov Avinu's סֻלָּם מֻצָּב אַרְצָה - standing by toward the ground - the purpose of the ladder was to serve as a conduit to be mekadesh Artziyus - our gashmiyusdige reality, וְרֹאשׁוֹ מַגִּיעַ הַשָּׁמָיְמָה, the top of the ladder reaches towards heaven. Chazal tell us of the confusion of the mal'achim in that they saw Yaakov Avinu's face on the Kisei HaKavod and then saw his face down on earth and they were utterly confused. Vihamaskil Yavin.
ReplyDeleteFrom the time Yaakov deceived his holy father, and embezzled Eisav's blessing, he suffered misfortune after misfortune. He was embezzled by Lavan, then by his daughters, then by his own sons who took his beloved Joseph from him. He was chased by Eisav,
ReplyDeleteThis at first blush is not modesty, but midda kneged middah.