Tanakh includes several narratives regarding women who are childless. Sometimes they are barren as a direct punishment for a specific wrongdoing,[1] while in other instances – and especially where the woman does eventually bear a child – the question arises as to why she had to suffer years of childlessness and anguish. Chazal address this question, and learn a lesson from it:
R. Yitzchak said: For what reason were the forefathers childless? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, desires the prayers of the righteous. (Yevamot 64a)
However, it seems that in the accounts in Tanakh, prayer alone is rarely enough. We see a number of other measures taken in various stories in order to bring a child to a barren woman.[2]
On a theoretical plane, we can suggest two factors that might prevent a woman from bearing children. First, perhaps God has simply decided that a certain woman will not be able to bring children into the world. Alternatively, it may be that there is some problem, for whatever reason, with having the woman and her children living in the world at the same time. In keeping with these two factors, we find different ways in which a woman who is barren might bear children:
Sometimes either the husband and/or the wife changes his/her name, establishing him/herself as a new personality – one who is worthy of having children. For example, Sara conceives and gives birth to Yitzchak only after her name is changed from Sarai.
Sometimes it is decreed that the woman dies immediately after bearing her child. A prime example of this tragic situation is Rachel: having declared that she will die without children – "Give me children, or else I die" (Bereishit 30:1) – she is punished with that very thing.[3]
The woman may relinquish her child, thereby evading the conflict (for whatever reason it might be a problem, which is beyond our understanding) between her existence and her child's. An example of this situation is Chana, who bears Shmuel only after dedicating him to the Temple (I Shmuel 1:11).[4] Moreover, in her words to Eli, Chana emphasizes that even before he is given to the Temple – "All the days of his life (literally, "the days that he has lived"), he is lent to the Lord" (ibid. v. 28). Since Chana was never destined to be childless, and the whole problem concerned the birth of Shmuel, there is nothing preventing her from bearing other children later on. Chazal therefore conclude that after Shmuel's birth, Chana did indeed bear other children, as she declares in her song: "the barren has borne seven" (I Shmuel 2:5).
In the above cases, it is the wife who is prevented from bearing children, while the husband has children with someone else. Yitzchak's situation is different: both he and Rivka are childless, and God does accede to Yitzchak's prayer, though not to Rivka's.
Sometimes a woman is unable to bear children, but not because of infertility. The Torah states that after bearing Yehuda, Leah "ceased to bear children" (Bereishit 29:35). Yet, immediately after the story of the mandrakes (dudaim), "God heard Leah," and she bears another child (ibid. 30:17).
As we shall see below, another example of a woman who is not decreed to be childless, but who is unable to bear children due to some side reason, is Rachel. Why is Rachel unable to bear children?
"Am I in place of God, who has withheld from you fruit of the womb?"
After giving birth to Reuven, Shimon, Levi and Yehuda, Leah ceases to bear children, for some unstated reason (Bereishit 29:35).[5] Immediately afterwards, the Torah notes that Rachel was jealous of her sister, and demanded of Yaakov, "Give me children – or else I die" (ibid. 30:1). Seemingly, the reason is clear: Rachel knows that twelve tribes are destined to be born from Yaakov, since she saw this in the dynasty that emerged from her grandfather.[6] Nachor had eight sons (including Betuel) from his wife, Milka, and another four sons from his concubine, Re'uma. If this family structure is meant to be reflected in Yaakov's household, then Yaakov's two wives will together bear him eight sons, with another four from the handmaids. Logically, then, Leah stops bearing children after the birth of Yehuda because she has already borne four sons.
At that time, when Rachel finds that she is not conceiving even after Leah has finished bearing her four children, she vents her pain on Yaakov, who offers a vehement response:
"Am I in place of God, who has withheld from you fruit of the womb?!" (30:2)
Let us dwell for a moment on this exchange, in comparison to another couple facing a similar situation. At the beginning of Sefer Shmuel, we are told that Elkana had two wives – Penina and Chana; "And Penina had children, but Chana had no children." Moreover, Penina makes a point of irritating and hurting Chana; Elkana loves Chana more, and Penina seeks to create strife between them. Nevertheless, Chana does not hold Elkana responsible for the fact that she has no children. Instead, she prays that God will grant her a son, whom she will dedicate to God's service. Elkana, likewise, holds no anger towards Chana on account of her childlessness, but tries to comfort her: "Am I not better to you than ten sons?" Eventually, God accedes to Chana's prayer and she bears a son.
The exchange between Rachel and Yaakov seems even more surprising in light of the behavior of Chana and Elkana. Why is Rachel so angry with Yaakov, and why does he respond to her with such a lack of sensitivity?
Perhaps Rachel thinks Yaakov is responsible for her situation because if he had not stolen the blessings, Leah would have married Esav, while Rachel alone would be married to Yaakov. Since Yaakov received both blessings – the one meant for the firstborn and the one meant for the younger brother – he ends up married to both Leah and Rachel, and the fact that Leah is the "wife of the firstborn" finds expression in her bearing her children first, before Rachel. If they both bear children at the same time, it will not be clear which of them are the children of the firstborn and which are the children of the younger; hence, there have to be two separate stages. It is for this reason, perhaps, that Rachel is barren – so that it will be clear which are the sons of Leah and which are the sons of Rachel.
Familiar as she is with the story of the theft of the blessings, and with an understanding of its implications, Rachel waits for Leah's childbearing to be over. When, after that stage, Rachel remains childless, a new possibility occurs to her: perhaps, since Yaakov bought the birthright from Esav, Leah is supposed to be married to Yaakov and Rachel is supposed to be married to Esav! If this is so, Rachel will never be able to bear children from Yaakov; she is meant to be Esav's wife! Therefore, she accuses Yaakov as being responsible for her childless state.
Indeed, this is a sensitive point for Yaakov. From the outset, Yaakov was uncomfortable with the idea of disguising himself as Esav in order to receive his blessings. When Rachel then raises the issue, his reaction is visceral: "Am I in place of God, who has withheld from you fruit of the womb?!" Chazal detect an implicit criticism in his words: "From you He has withheld; from me He has not withheld" (Bereishit Rabba 71:7). He turns the accusation back towards Rachel, perhaps hinting to her: Had you not cooperated with Leah at the time of the wedding, it would not have been possible to exchange her for you, and there would have been no problem.
Indeed, it may be that had Rachel waited patiently and prayed, she would have borne four sons after the children of the handmaids were born. This scenario was not realized, however, because of the episode of the mandrakes:
And Reuven went, in the days of the wheat harvest, and found mandrakes in the field, and brought them to his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah: "Give me, please, of your son's mandrakes."
And she said to her: "Is it a small matter that you have taken my husband? Would you take my son's mandrakes as well?" And Rachel said: "Therefore he shall lie with you tonight, in place of your son's mandrakes."
And Yaakov came from the field in the evening, and Leah went out to meet him, and said: "Come in to me, for I have surely "hired" you with my son's mandrakes." And he lay with her that night. (Bereishit 30:14-16)
It makes sense that Rachel wanted the mandrakes, as they are said to be effective in treating infertility.[7] However, in truth, they cannot cure anything; only God can open the barren womb and enable childbirth. To show Rachel that she is mistaken, God opens Leah's womb, and it is she who bears a child after the story of the mandrakes:
"And God heard Leah, and she conceived and bore a fifth son to Yaakov." (30:17)
Only after Leah bears six sons does God accede to Rachel and open her womb.
"For three things the earth quakes"
There is a passage in the book of Devarim that seems directly relevant to our parasha:
If a man has two wives, the one beloved and the other hated, and they bear him sons – both the beloved one and the hated one – and the firstborn belongs to the hated [wife], then it shall be, on the day that he bequeaths to his sons that which he has, he may not show preference to the son of the beloved wife over the son of the hated, who is the firstborn. Rather, he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated [wife], by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for [the firstborn] is the first fruit of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his. (Devarim 21:15-17)
Only one woman in all of Tanakh is referred to as "hated": "And God saw that Leah was hated" (Bereishit 29:31).[8] Yaakov marries two wives: one is beloved (Rachel) and the other is hated (Leah), and he is prohibited from showing preference to one of Rachel's sons over Reuven.[9]
Moreover, Chazal note a connection between the commandment concerning the rights of the firstborn and the commandment immediately preceding it – the beautiful woman (yefat to'ar) captured in war: "If he marries her [the captive woman], she will end up being hated" (Rashi, Devarim 21:11, from Tanchuma). Rachel is of the few women in Tanakh who is referred to as being yefat to'ar: "And Rachel was of beautiful appearance (yefat to'ar) and fair to look upon (yefat mar'eh)" (Bereishit 29:17).[10] And when she marries Yaakov, Leah ends up being "hated."
The same themes find echoes in the book of Mishlei as well:
For three things the earth quakes, and for four it cannot endure:
For a servant who reigns;
and a scoundrel who is sated with food;
For a hated woman who gets married;
and a handmaid who is heir to her mistress. (Mishlei 30:21-23)
Who are the characters in this parable? As noted above, Leah is the only woman referred to in Tanakh by the title "hated." The "hated woman who gets married," then, is Leah, who stands under the chuppa meant for Rachel and marries Yaakov in her stead. If we continue along this line of interpretation, the "handmaid who is heir to her mistress" is Bilha, Rachel's handmaid, who marries Yaakov and bears him children in Rachel's place. The "slave who reigns" is Yosef, who rises from the dungeon to greatness, and the "scoundrel who is sated with food" is Naval of Carmel, who withholds bread from King David with the insulting comment that "There are many servants nowadays who break away, each from his master." But what is the connection between the four of them?
It seems that the parable is talking about beauty that is expressed in an improper context. Yosef, like his mother, is "of beautiful appearance" (Bereishit 39:6). Chazal tell us he focused on his appearance (curling his hair) at an inappropriate time, while his father was in mourning for him; therefore, he was challenged by Potiphar's wife and thrown into prison (Tanchuma Vayeshev 8). Avigayil, too, is "of beautiful appearance," and David praises her – but she is already married, and her husband is Naval, who is sated with food while David and his men are hungry in the field. Rachel, "of beautiful appearance and fair to look upon," shares with Leah the special signs that are a private code between herself and Yaakov, thereby bringing about a situation in which Leah becomes "a hated woman who gets married" while Rachel herself becomes barren. Finally, Bilha is given to Yaakov in place of her beautiful mistress, and she bears him children in her place.
The parable speaks of beauty that is realized in a way that is problematic. From here it is but a short way to the midrash of Chazal (Rashi ibid.): if a man sees a beautiful captive in the midst of war, and he desires her and takes her as a wife, he will ultimately end up with two wives, one beloved and the other hated, and the hated wife will bear a wayward and rebellious son, who will end up being hanged.
(Translated by Kaeren Fish; edited by Sarah Rudolph)
[1] As in the case of Michal, who scorns King David and is denied progeny (II Shmuel 6:23).
[2] Another potential difficulty is that the Gemara's answer here does not sit well with the story of Rachel, who is not described in the text as praying to God. This may explain Yaakov's response: "Am I in place of God, who has withheld from you fruit of the womb?!"
[3] The Gemara (Makkot 11a) cites the opinion of Rabbi Abahu that "The curse of a sage, even if uttered conditionally, it comes [to fruition]." As proof, the Gemara brings the example of Shmuel, who suffers as a result of the words of Eli, the Kohen Gadol: "So God do to you, and more also, if you hide anything from me of all the things that He spoke to you" (I Shmuel 3:17) – even though Shmuel hides nothing from him. The Gemara could have brought proof from our parasha: Rachel tells Yaakov that if he does not give her children, she prefers to die, and she ultimately dies in childbirth. (Of course, we might also attribute this to Yaakov's declaration to Lavan that whoever is in possession of Lavan's terafim will not live.) As we shall see below, there are many points of similarity between the story of Chana and Shmuel, on one hand, and our parasha, on the other; in citing the example of Shmuel, the Gemara may in fact be hinting at our parasha.
[4] This may also be Hagar's situation: by placing Yishmael at a distance from herself, she allows him to live.
[5] We shall adhere here to the order of the births as they are listed in the Torah. There may in fact have been some overlap between the births of Leah's children and the births of the children of the handmaids. This seems likely, since over the course of seven years (from Yaakov's marriage to Leah following seven years of servitude, until the end of the second set of seven years) Leah bears six sons, Rachel bears one, and the handmaids bear two each.
[6] In the shiur on Parashat Toldot, we noted the parallel between the structure of Betuel's family (Bereishit 22:20-24) and that of Yaakov.
[7] Indeed, were it not for this fact, we could criticize Rachel for "selling" intimacy with Yaakov for mandrakes.
[8] There are women in the books of the Prophets who are described as being hated: Shimshon's wife declares, "You only hate me, and do not love me" (Shoftim 14:16) and the text testifies that Amnon "hated [Tamar] with a great hatred" (II Shmuel 13:15). However, they are not referred to by this term as a title.
[9] It is forbidden to transfer the birthright from the son of one wife to the son of a different wife, but it may be transferred between sons of the same mother. Chazal interpret the term "according to their generations," which appears in relation to the names of the tribes as inscribed on the stones of the Choshen (breastplate of the Kohen Gadol), as indicating that the tribes are to be listed in order of their mothers, rather than in the order of their birth. Thus, Yaakov was able to transfer the birthright from Reuven to Yehuda, but could not transfer it to Yosef. Some of the birthright was nevertheless given to Yosef (see I Divrei Ha-yamim 5:1), and it appears that there were severe consequences, but this exceeds the scope of our present discussion.
[10] Other instances of this description include Rachel's descendants – Yosef (Bereishit 39:6) and Esther (Esther 2:7) – as well as the healthy cows in Pharaoh's dreams (Bereishit 41:18) and Avigayil, wife of Naval (I Shmuel 25:3).
No comments:
Post a Comment