The Greatest Story in the Annals of Jewish Book Collecting

As we approach the end of Masechet Yevamot in the Daf Yomi cycle, it seems appropriate to reflect on a legendary story in the annals of Jewish bibliography. This story involves King Henry VIII, the laws of Yevamot, and the greatest private Jewish library in the world.

About thirty years ago, while a medical student in London, I had the good fortune of visiting the Valmadonna Trust Library, that greatest of private Jewish libraries. (How I got there is another story for another time). And while there, I held the Talmud that certainly once belonged to Westminster Abbey. It may also have been owned by Henry VIII, who had brought a Bomberg Talmud from Venice in order to help him end his marriage to Catherineof Aragon, the first of his many wives. The story of Henry VIII’s purchase of the Bomberg Talmud – the first complete printed Talmud – actually hinges on Yevamot, and whether the rules of levirate marriage, or yibum, applied to him. 

Catherine of Aragon was actually a widow, having first been married to Henry’s younger brother Arthur. About six months after Catherine married Arthur he died childless, and in 1509 his older brother Prince Henry married his widow.  One more thing to know: Catherine claimed that her marriage to Arthur had never been consummated; this is important later in the story. (And here is an interesting historic footnote: it was Catherine’s parents, Ferdinand and Isabella who had expelled the Jews from Spain.)

By 1525, Prince Henry had become King Henry VIII, and has had one daughter with Catherine. He wanted a son, and now wished to marry Ann Boleyn. There was, however, a problem:  what was he to do with Catherine, his existing wife?  Divorce, remember, was tricky for this Catholic King. And here is where the Talmud comes in.  

Henry argued that his marriage to Catherine should be dissolved since it was biblically forbidden for a man to marry his sister-in-law. (Henry claimed years earlier that he could marry her because the marriage to his brother had not been consummated. See, I told you that was important information…)

As Lunzer tells us, the Talmud was obtained from Venice to help King Henry VIII find a way to divorce his wife (and former sister-in-law) Catherine, and so be free to marry Ann Boleyn. In fact, it’s a little bit more complicated than that. Behind the scenes were Christian scholars who struggled to reconcile the injunction against a man marrying his sister-in-law found in one part of the Bible, with the command to do so under specific circumstances, found in another. In fact the legality of Henry’s marriage had been in doubt for many years, which is why Henry had obtained the Pope’s special permission to marry.

by Reuven Chaim (Rudolph) Klein

Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein is the author of the newly published Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew [available here]. His book is available online and in bookstores in Israel and will arrive to bookstores in America in the coming weeks. Rabbi Klein published articles in various journals including Jewish Bible Quarterly, Kovetz Hamaor, and Kovetz Kol HaTorah. He is currently a fellow at the Kollel of Yeshivas Mir in Jerusalem and lives with his wife and children in Beitar Illit, Israel. He can be reach via email: historyofhebrew@gmail.com.

For the purposes of this discussion, we shall divide the region of Mesopotamia (the area between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers) into two sub-regions: the southern region known as Sumer (Shinar in the Bible) and the northern region known as Aram. Under this classification, Sumer incudes Babylon and the other cities which Nimrod (son of Cush son of Ham) built and ruled in southern Mesopotamia (Gen. 10:8–10). The northern Mesopotamian region of Aram includes the city of Aram Naharaim, also known as Harran, and Aram Zoba, also known as Aleppo (Halab). Both regions of Mesopotamia shared Aramaic as a common language.

In painting the picture of Abraham’s background, most Biblical commentators assume that Abraham was born in Ur and that his family later migrated northwards to Harran. The Bible (Gen. 11:28; 11:31; 15:7; Neh. 9:7) refers to the place of Abraham’s birth as “Ur Kasdim,” literally “Ur of the Chaldeans.” Academia generally identifies this city with the Sumerian city Ur (although others have suggested different sites).[1]

According to this version of the narrative, Abraham’s family escaped Ur and relocated to Aram in order to flee from the influence of Nimrod. The reason for their escape is recorded by tradition: Nimrod—civilization’s biggest sponsor of idolatry—sentenced Abraham to death by fiery furnace for his iconoclastic stance against idolatry.[2] After Abraham miraculously emerged unscathed from the inferno, his father Terah decided to relocate the family from Ur (within Nimrod’s domain) to the city of Harran in the Aram region, which was relatively free from Nimrod’s reign of terror (Gen. 11:31). It was from Harran that Abraham later embarked on his historic journey to the Land of Canaan (Gen. 12).

Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews mentions a similar version of events. He quotes the first-century Greek historian Nicolaus of Damascus who wrote that Abraham, a “foreigner” from Babylonia, came to Aram. There, he reigned as a king for some time, until he and his people migrated to the Land of Canaan.[3]

Nahmanides (in his commentary to Gen. 11:28) offers a slightly different picture of Abraham’s origins and bases himself upon a series of assumptions which we shall call into question.

He begins by rejecting the consensus view that Abraham was born in Ur Kasdim by reasoning that it is illogical that Abraham was born there in the land of the “Chaldeans” because he descended from Semites, yet Chaldea and the entire region of Sumer are Hamitic lands. He supports this reasoning by noting that the Bible refers to Abraham as a “Hebrew” (Gen. 14:13) not a “Chaldean.”

He further proves this point from a verse in Joshua (24:2) which states, Your forefathers always dwelt ‘beyond the River’, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nahor. The word always (m’olam) in this context implies that Abraham’s family originated in the “beyond the river” region, even before Terah. Similarly, he notes, the next verse there (24:3) states And I took your forefather Abraham from ‘beyond the river’ and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, which also implies that Abraham is originally from the region known as “beyond the river.” For reasons we shall discuss below, Nahmanides assumes that the term “beyond the river” favors the explanation that Abraham was originally from Harran, not Ur Kasdim.

Nahmanides further proves his assertion from the fact that the Bible mentions Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram’s wife and he went forth with them from Ur Kasdim to go into the land of Canaan and they came unto Harran and dwelt there (Gen. 11:31). In this verse, the Bible only mentions that Terah travelled to Harran with Abraham, Sarah, and Lot, yet elsewhere, the Bible mentions Nahor lived in Harran (see Gen. 24:10 which refers to Harran as the City of Nahor). Nahmanides reasons that if Abraham’s family originally lived in Ur Kasdim and only later moved to Harran without taking Nahor with them, then Nahor would have remained in Ur Kasdim, not in Harran. Hence, the fact that Nahor lived in Harran proves that the family originally lived in Harran, not Ur Kasdim.

Elsewhere in his commentary to the Bible (Gen. 24:7), Nahmanides offers another proof that Abraham was born in Harran and not Ur Kasdim. He notes that when Abraham commanded his servant to find a suitable bride for his son Isaac, he told him, Go to my [home]land and the place of my birth (Gen. 24:4), and the Bible continues to tell that the servant went to Harran, not to Ur Kasdim, implying that Harran is the place of Abraham’s birth. He further notes that it is inconceivable that Abraham would tell his servant to go to Ur Kasdim to find a suitable mate for Isaac, because its inhabitants—the Chaldeans—were Hamitic and are therefore unsuitable to intermarry with the family of Abraham (who were of Semitic descent).

In light of his conclusion that Abraham was born in Harran, not in Ur Kasdim, Nahmanides offers a slight twist to the accepted narrative. He explains that Abraham was really born in Aram, which is within the region known as “beyond the river,” and is well within the territory of Shem’s descendants. He explains that Terah originally lived in Aram where he fathered Abraham and Nahor. Sometime later, Terah took his son Abraham and moved to Ur Kasdim, while Nahor remained in Aram in the city of Harran. Terah’s youngest son, Haran, was born in Ur Kasdim. Based on this, Nahmanides explains that when the Bible says Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his birth, in Ur Kasdim (Gen. 11:28), the Bible means to stress that Ur Kasdim only was the city of Haran’s birth, but not the city where Abraham and/or Nahor were born. After living in Ur Kasdim, Terah and his entourage eventually left and returned to Harran (when Abraham was en route to the Land of Canaan).

The Talmud (TB Bava Batra 91a) mentions that Abraham was jailed in the city Cutha and identifies that city with Ur Kasdim. Nahmanides also cites Maimonides (Guide to the Perplexed 3:29) quotes the ancient gentile author of Nabataean Agriculture[4] who writes that Abraham, who was born in Cutha, argued on the accepted philosophy of his day which worshipped the sun, and the king imprisoned him, confiscated his possessions, and chased him away. Nahmanides explains that researchers have revealed that the city of Cutha is not in Sumer, the land of Chaldeans, but is, in fact, located in the northern Mesopotamian region of Aram between Harran and Assyria. This city is considered within the region of “beyond the river” because it lies between the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers (making it “beyond the Euphrates” if the Land of Israel is one’s point of reference).[5] Thus, argues Nahmanides, the Talmud also shares his view that Abraham was born in Aram, not Sumer.

Based on his view of Abraham’s early life, Nahmanides explains an inconsistency addressed by the early commentators. When God commanded Abraham to go to the Land of Canaan, He told him to leave from your [home]land and from the place of your birth and from the house of your father (Gen. 12:1). The early commentators (see Rashi and Ibn Ezra ad loc.) address the following question: If Abraham had already left Ur Kasdim, the presumed place of his birth, and had moved with his father to Harran, then why did God tell him again to leave the place of his birth? Nahmanides answers that according to his own understanding, this question does not even begin to develop because Abraham was not born in Ur Kasdim, he was born in Harran and later moved to Ur Kasdim, only to return to Harran from where God commanded him to go to the Land of Canaan.

In addition to what Nahmanides wrote in his commentary to Genesis, he repeats this entire discussion of Abraham’s origins in his “Discourse on the words of Ecclesiastes.”[6]

As we have already mentioned, Nahmanides’ position is based on several assumptions, each of which needs to be examined. Firstly, Nahmanides asserted that it is illogical to claim that Abraham was born in Ur Kasdim because the inhabitant of Sumer were Hamitic peoples, yet Abraham was a Semite. This claim is unjustified because there is no reason to assume that only Hamites lived in Sumer, only that Sumer was, in general, a Hamite-dominated principality. Furthermore, even according to Nahmanides’ own internal logic, this argument is certainly flawed because Nahmanides himself admits that Abraham and his family did live in Ur Kasdim at some point, thus he clearly concedes that Semites could live there.

Secondly, Nahmanides maintains that while Terah and his two eldest sons were born in Harran, he later relocated with Abraham alone to Ur Kasdim. Nahmanides fails to explain Terah’s rationale for moving with Abraham Ur Kasdim and why he did not take Nahor with him. This vital part of the story should have been explained by the Bible or at least by tradition. Abarbanel (to Gen. 11:26) raises this issue as one of five difficulties with Nahmanides’ approach. He compounds the difficulty by arguing that if Terah’s family originally lived in Harran and only later moved to Ur Kasdim, then the Bible should read and he went forth with them from Ur Kasdim to go into the land of Canaan and they returned to Harran and dwelt there, to imply that they had once lived in Harran. Yet, instead the Bible says and they came unto Harran and dwelt there, implying that they reached Harran for their first time.

Furthermore, Nahmanides proves that Abraham’s family originated in Harran not Ur Kasdim from the fact that after Terah took Abraham, Sarah, and Lot from Ur Kasdim to Harran—leaving Nahor where he was—Nahor was also found in Harran, even though he did not come there with his father. However, this proof is also unjustified and had already been addressed by Ibn Ezra (in his commentary to Gen. 11:29). Ibn Ezra writes that it is likely that Nahor arrived to Harran either before or after his father and for that reason he is not listed amongst Terah’s entourage when relocating from Ur Kasdim to Harran. In fact, there is Biblical precedent for Ibn Ezra’s first suggestion, for when Jacob and his family relocated from the Land of Canaan to Goshen in Egypt, Judah was sent there ahead of the rest of his family (see Gen. 46:28). In the same vein, it is likely that when Terah relocated his family from Ur to Harran, Nahor was sent ahead of everyone else.

In addition, Nahmanides proves from Abraham’s incarceration at Cutha that he lived in Aram at the time; however, contemporary scholars seem to agree that Cutha is actually in Sumer, not in northern Mesopotamia as Nahmanides mentions in the name of other researchers.[7]
Nonetheless, to Nahmanides’ credit, there is some proof that Cutha is in northern Mesopotamia, not in Sumer: The abovementioned Talmudic passage (TB Bava Batra 91a) notes that in addition to his incarceration at Cutha, Abraham was also jailed at Kardu. Where is Kardu? When the Bible tells that the Ark of Noah landed at the mountains of Ararat (Gen. 8:4), all the Tagumim (Onkelos, Jonathan, Neofiti, and Peshitta) explain that Ararat is Kardu. This leads to the conclusion that the location of Abraham’s imprisonment was Armenia, north of Assyria and northeast of Aram, the region in which the Ararat mountains lie (in present-day Turkey). In fact, the name Kardu is preserved by a contemporary nameplace in that region: Kurdistan and its inhabitants who are called Kurds.[8] Based on this, one can argue that if Abraham was incarcerated at Kardu, then Cutha is also likely in that same general area, placing the city closer to Aram than to Sumer.

R. Nissim of Gerona (1320–1376), in his commentary to the Torah, quotes Nahmanides and then proceeds to disagree. He argues that even if Ur Kasdim is in Sumer as Nahmanides assumes, the verse Your forefathers always dwelt ‘beyond the River’ is still not true. This is because the word always implies that Abraham’s family never lived elsewhere, yet even Nahamanides freely admits that the family lived in Ur Kasdim, which he does not consider within the region of beyond the river. R. Nissim reasons that if Haran and Lot were born in Ur Kasdim, then Terah’s family must have stayed there for at least thirty years (a reasonable age of fatherhood in the post-Babel era, see Gen. 11:10–26) for Haran to be born, mature, and father Lot.

Instead, R. Nissim proposes that Ur Kasdim is, in fact, considered beyond the river. Accordingly, he understood that Ur Kasdim is actually located in northern Mesopotamia [9] and Abraham was born there, as were Haran and Lot, before the family relocated to Harran, which is also within the same region. According to this explanation, Your forefathers always dwelt ‘beyond the River’ literally means that Abraham’s family never left that region, even when they lived in Ur Kasdim.[10] This view is also adopted by Abarbanel.[11]

In addition to the two difficulties mentioned above and R. Nissim’s question, Abarbanel points out two more difficulties with Nahmanides’ approach. He quotes the verse And Abram and Nahor took for themselves wives… (Gen. 11:29) and notes that by grouping together Abraham and Nahor’s respective marriages, the Bible implies that Abraham and Nahor married their wives together—at the same time and place. If so, this passage is at odds with Nahmanides’ explanation who understood that at that time, Nahor was in Harran while Abraham was in Ur Kasdim.

Abarbanel’s fifth and final difficulty is with Nahmanides’ assumption that Ur Kasdim is not considered beyond the river. He cites two Biblical verses which together imply that Ur Kasdim is considered beyond the river. When God identified Himself to Abraham He said unto him: ‘I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur Kasdim, to give thee this land to inherit it’ (Gen. 15:7). Quoting God, Joshua says I took your father Abraham from beyond the River, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac (Josh.24:3). When analyzing these two verses collectively, one concludes that Ur Kasdim and beyond the river are synonymous, casting suspicion on Nahmanides’ view that Ur Kasdim is not considered beyond the river. (Nahmanides himself addresses this issue by differentiating between being “brought out of” Ur Kasdim and being “taken” from beyond the river, a distinction which Abarbanel rejects.)

Another issue with Nahmanides’ abovementioned explanation (although not necessarily crucial to his position on Abraham’s birthplace) is his assumption that the Chaldeans were Hamites who did not live together with Semites and would certainly not marry them. This assumption is clearly at odds with other early commentators who assume that the Chaldeans were indeed Semitic peoples. Furthermore, the Bible never explicitly mentions the “Chaldean” people in connection with Sumer until the time of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon; thus, there is no reason to assume that the Chaldeans occupied Sumer in the time of Abraham.

The notion that the Chaldeans are Semitic peoples has its roots in early works. Josephus writes in Antiquities of the Jews that the Chaldeans descend from Arphaxad, the son of Shem,[12] an assertion echoed by R. Gedaliah Ibn Yahya (1515–1587).[13] Interestingly, the last three letters of Arphaxad’s name (KHAF-SHIN-DALET) spells Kesed (Chaldea), the eponym of the Kasdim (Chaldeans).

Ibn Ezra (to Gen. 11:26) writes that while Abraham was born in Ur Kasdim, the city was not yet known under that name in his time because Kasdim are descendants of Abraham’s brother Nahor.[14] It seems that Ibn Ezra understood that in Abraham’s time, the Chaldeans had not
yet developed into a nation. Similarly, Radak (to Gen. 11:28) writes that Ur Kasdim was not actually called “Ur of the Chaldeans” at the time that Terah’s family lived there because the Chaldeans did not yet exist. He explains that the Chaldeans are descendants of Terah’s grandson Kesed, son of Nahor (mentioned in Gen. 22:22, see Radak there) who was born later. Radak mentions this a third time in his commentary to Isaiah 23:13 where he notes that the Chaldeans, who descend from Kesed, son of Nahor, conquered the cities originally built by Assur and his descendants.

Maharal of Prague (1520–1609) explains[15] that the Chaldeans were mostly descendants of Assur (a son of Shem, see Gen. 10:22) but were called “Chaldeans” because the descendants of Kesed conquered them. Maharal also equates the Chaldeans with the Arameans, implying that the Chaldeans were not a Hamitic nation, but rather a Semitic nation descending from Aram, another son of Shem (see Gen. 10:22). By equating the Chaldeans with the Arameans, Maharal understood that the Chaldeans were not a Hamitic nation; but were Semitic. Maharal elsewhere[16] also identifies the Chaldeans with the Arameans and notes that his explanation is inconsistent with the words of Nahmanides in Parshat Hayei Sarah, but does not specify what Nahmanides says or even to which passage in Nahmanides he refers. Given our discussion, it seems that Maharal refers to the passage in question in which Nachmanides writes that the Chaldeans are descendants of Ham. In fact, Maharal in his commentary to the Torah (Gur Aryeh to Gen. 24:7) explicitly rejects much of what Nahmanides there writes.[17]

In short, most commentators understand that the Chaldeans were actually Semitic peoples, unlike Nahmanides’ assumption that they were Hamitic. Nonetheless, there is some support for Nahmanides’ position in the apocryphal Book of Jubilees (11:1-3) which tells that Reu, the great-grandfather of Terah, married the daughter of Ur, son of Kesed, who founded the city Ur.[18] While according to Radak, the Chaldeans descend from Kesed, a grandson of Terah, Jubilees seems to maintain that the Chaldeans descend from an earlier person named Kesed who already lived in the time of Reu, Terah’s great-grandfather, and merely married into the Semitic family.[19] Either way, there is certainly no validation of Nahmanides’ assertion that the Hamitic Chaldeans and the Semites were completely separate.

There is one Talmudic source which, by reasonable extension, might serve as a source for Nahmanides’ assumption that the Chaldeans were Hamitic peoples. The Talmud (TB Hagiga 13a) states that Nebuchadnezzar was “a son of a son of Nimrod.” As explicitly noted in the Bible, Nimrod was a Hamite (a son of Cush, son of Ham).[20] Prima facia, the Talmud explains that Nebuchadnezzar was a grandson of Nimrod, thereby making Nebuchadnezzar a Hamite. Although the Bible never mentions explicitly that Nebuchadnezzar was a Chaldean, it certainly implies such by calling his subjects in Babylonia “Chaldeans.” Furthermore, the Talmud calls Nebuchadnezzar’s granddaughter Vashti a Chaldean (see below), implying that Nebuchadnezzar himself was also Chaldean. All of this together raises the likelihood that the Talmud understood that Chaldeans are Hamites.

Rashi (to TB Pesahim 94b) endorses a somewhat literal reading of the Talmud and explains that Nebuchadnezzar was not really Nimrod’s grandson; he was simply a descendant of Nimrod (a view shared by Tosafot to TB Yevamot 48b). Rabbi Aryeh Leib Ginzberg (1695–1785) favors this approach in his work Turei Even (to TB Hagiga 13a), giving credence to the notion that Nahmanides took this Talmudic passage literally as well.

However, the Tosafists (there) reject a literal reading of the Talmud. They argue that since there is no source to the notion that Nebuchadnezzar was a descendant of Cush (Nimrod’s father), then the Talmud must not mean that Nebuchadnezzar was literally a grandson or even descendant of Nimrod.[21] Instead, the Tosafists explain that the Talmud was simply drawing an analogy between Nimrod, who was a wicked ruler of Sumer and persecuted Abraham, and Nebuchadnezzar, who was also a wicked king there and persecuted the Jews, as if to imply that Nebuchadnezzar was his “spiritual” heir. Furthermore, there is a Jewish legend which states that Nebuchadnezzar descended from the union of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba.[22] According to this legend, Nebuchadnezzar was certainly not paternally Hamitic.[23]
Finally, some commentators understand that the Talmud does not mean that Nebuchadnezzar was literally a genealogical descendant of Nimrod, rather that he was a reincarnation of Nimrod.

All in all, there is no clear proof from the Talmud’s assertion about Nebuchadnezzar that the Chaldeans were Hamites.

We shall now turn to a discussion concerning the Chaldean language, which may help us better understand the origins of the Chaldean people and whether they were Hamitic or Semitic.

The prophet Isaiah relates that God said, I will rise up against them—the word of God, Master of legions—and I will discontinue from Babylonia its name and remnant, grandchild and great-grandchild—the word of God (Isa. 14:22). The Talmud (TB Megillah 10b) tells that R. Yonatan would expound this verse as an introduction to the Book of Esther. The Talmud understood that this verse refers to the Chaldeans (the people of Babylonia) who destroyed the First Temple. R. Yonatan would explain that its name refers to their script, remnant refers to their language, grandchild refers to their monarchy, and great-grandchild refers to Vashti—the last scion of the Babylonian royal family who was wed to the Persian king Ahasuerus and was executed at the beginning of the Book of Esther. Accordingly, declares the Talmud, the Chaldeans are a nation that has neither script nor language.[24]

However, in actuality, the Chaldeans did have a language, for the Chaldeans spoke Aramaic. Why then does the Talmud not reckon with the fact that they spoke Aramaic? This question is asked explicitly by the Tosafists (to TB Megillah 10b, Avodah Zarah 10a) and is addressed by many commentators.

Rashi[25] explains that the Talmud does not mean that the language spoken by the Chaldeans would cease to exist, but rather that the Chaldeans borrowed their language (Aramaic) from other people (Arameans). According to this understanding, the Chaldeans were the inhabitants of Southern Mesopotamia (i.e. Sumer, where Babylon lies), while the Arameans were the inhabitants of Northern Mesopotamia (i.e. Aram) and are not the same people, they simply shared a common language. Although Rashi fails to explain the significance of the fact
that the Chaldeans borrowed Aramaic from the Arameans, his explanation does shed light onto the Talmud’s declaration that the Chaldeans do not have a language; the Talmud means that the Chaldeans do not have their own language.

The Tosafists (there) offer another answer. They explain that the when the Talmud states that the Chaldeans have neither language nor script, this does not refers to a common language and script, but rather to a royal language and script. That is, the Talmud acknowledges that the Chaldeans spoke Aramaic, but understood that they are to be “discontinued” in that their royal class would no longer have a special language of its own. It seems that the Babylonian royalty originally spoke a separate language (perhaps Akkadian[26] or the even older Sumerian) than did the rest of the nation, and this language was eventually lost as punishment for their role in the destruction of the First Temple.[27]

R. Shlomo Alkabetz (1500–1580) proves this explanation in the introduction to his work Manot HaLevi (a commentary to the Book of Esther). He shows from the fact that Nebuchadnezzar and all the Babylonian kings after him spoke Aramaic—by then the dominant language in the Ancient World—that the original Chaldean language fell into disuse. In fact, he notes, the Bible tells that the Chaldean language had to be taught to members of the royal household (see Dan. 1:4), proving that it was by then relegated to obscurity. It is unlikely that the “Chaldean Language” referred to is actually Aramaic because one would assume that members of the royal court in Babylon already knew Aramaic![28] R. Alkabetz further notes that by the time of Ahasuerus, king of Persia, the Chaldean language was almost extinct and with the demise of Vashti, the language completely died, allowing Ahasuerus to declare each man shall rule over his house and speak the language of his nation (Est. 1:22), marking the utter end of the language of Babylon.

Interestingly, R. Moshe Ashkenazi Halpern (c. 1555)[29] writes in his work Zikhron Moshe (to Est. 1:22) that Vashti justified her impudence by claiming not to understand the language of Ahasuerus. He explains that this is the meaning of the verse the queen Vashti refused to come at the king’s commandment (Est. 1:12) which can super-literally be translated as the queen Vashti refused to engage in the king’s words. Because of this, upon executing Vashti, Ahasuerus proclaimed that each man should be able to speak the language of his nation, i.e. without his wife claiming not to understand him.

Maharsha and R. Yehuda Aryeh Leib Alter (1847–1905)[30] reject a literal reading of the Talmud and instead explain it esoterically. They understand, in slightly different ways, that when the Talmud mentions that the language of the Babylonians would be discontinued, it does not refer to their actual language but to the “essence” of their existence, which their language represents. They are therefore not bothered by the question of the Tosafists that Aramaic continued and continues to exist as a spoken and written language because they understood that the Talmud was not actually talking about the discontinuation of their language, it was discussing the discontinuation of their core essence. Once their core essence disappeared, they needed to adopt the “essence” of other nations in order to continue to exist, thereby losing their own identity. If this meta-physical reality was mirrored by physical reality (a point which is unclear in those sources), it would probably mean that the Chaldeans originally spoke Akkadian and/or Sumerian, but when their “essence” was lost, they needed to borrow Aramaic from the Arameans, their northern neighbors (similar to the understanding of Rashi).

However, Maharal, who similarly interpreted this passage esoterically[31] and understood that the Chaldeans and Arameans are one and the same (as mentioned above), would certainly not agree with this theory. Instead, Maharal cites a Talmudic passage (TB Sukkah 52b) which relates that God “regretted” that He created the Chaldeans. Because of this “regret,” the Chaldeans are considered non-existent, personae non grata. If the Chaldeans do not exist, then their language, Aramaic, is to be considered equally non-existent, lingua non grata. For this reason, explains Maharal, Aramaic is not counted in the seventy languages.[32]

To summarize, according to Maharal, the Chaldeans and the Arameans are one and the same, so the Chaldean language is to be identified with Aramaic. This explanation precludes the view of Nahmanides who maintains that the Chaldeans were Hamitic people (as opposed to the
Arameans who were Semitic). In fact, we have already shown that Maharal explicitly disagrees with Nahmanides on this issue.

On the other hand, Rashi (and perhaps others) understood that the Chaldeans took Aramaic from the Aramean inhabitants of northern Mesopotamia. According to this explanation, the Chaldeans are a distinct people from the Arameans. This explanation leaves open the possibility for Nahmanides’ view that the Chaldeans were the original Hamitic inhabitants of Sumer, albeit their Semitic neighbors to the north influenced them linguistically.

Similarly, according to the Tosafists, the Chaldean language was spoken by the royal court in Babylon in tandem with Aramaic. This explanation also leaves open the possibility for Nahmanides’ explanation that the Chaldeans were the Hamitic inhabitants of southern Mesopotamia, and despite their acceptance of Aramaic (which originated from their neighbors to the north and had spread throughout most of the civilized world), they also maintained a distinct Chaldean language to be used by the ruling class.

In short, Nahmanides proposes a new theory that Abraham was actually born in Harran (in the northern Mesopotamian region of Aram), before his family relocated to Sumerian Ur and eventually returned to Harran. Nahmanides offers several justifications for his theory, most significant of which is the notion that Sumerian Ur, which was inhabited by the Chaldeans, was Hamitic territory and it is therefore unlikely that Abraham’s family, who were Semitic, originated there. We cast doubt on this proof by noting that even if the Chaldeans occupied Sumer at that time, they were not necessarily Hamitic peoples and certainly there is no justification for arguing that non-Hamitic families could not live there. Additionally, we explored the possibility of Hamitic origins for the Chaldean by surveying various commentators’ understandings of the “Chaldean Language” mentioned in the Talmud. While some of those explanations definitely allowed room for Nahmanides’ position, none of them directly support it. Finally, each of the proofs that Nahmanides offers for his view is based on certain assumptions and we have shown that each of those assumptions is not universally agreed upon.

How many children did Michal have? Explanation of a Talmudic passage in light of the writings of Josephus Flavius[1]

 By Chaim Sunitsky

The following Talmudic passage appears in Sanhedrin 19b (we are using mostly Soncino translation):

R. Yossi was asked by his disciples: How could David marry two sisters while they were both living? He answered: He married Michal after the death of Meirav. R. Yehoshua ben Korha said: His marriage to Meirav was contracted in error, as it is said, Deliver me my wife Michal whom I betrothed unto me for a hundred foreskins of the Philistines. How does this prove it? — R. Papa answered: Because he said, My wife Michal but not ‘my wife Meirav’. Now, what was the error in his marriage [with Meirav]? [It was this:] It is written, And it shall be that the man who kills [Goliath], the king will enrich him with great riches and will give him his daughter. Now he [David] went and slew him, whereupon Shaul said to him: I owe you a debt, and if one betroths a woman by a debt, she is not betrothed. Accordingly he gave her to Adriel, as it is written, But it came to pass at the time when Meirav, Shaul’s daughter should have been given to David, that she was given to Adriel the Meholatite to wife. Then Shaul said to David, ‘If you still wish me to give you Michal to wife, go and bring me hundred foreskins of the Philistines.’ He went and brought them to him. Then he said: ‘You now have two claims on me, [the repayment of] a loan and a perutah’. Now, Shaul held
that when a loan and a perutah are offered [as kidushin], he [the would-be husband] thinks mainly of the loan; but in David’s view, when there is a loan and a perutah, the mind is set on the perutah. Or if you like, I will say, all agree that where a loan and a perutah [are offered], the mind is set on the perutah. Shaul, however, thought that [the hundred foreskins] had no value, while David held that they had value at least as food for dogs and cats. How does R. Yossi interpret the verse, Deliver me my wife Michal? He explains it by
another view of his. For it has been taught: R. Yossi used to interpret the following confused passage thus: It is written, But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Ayah whom she bore to Shaul, Armoni and Mephiboshet, and the five sons of Michal, the daughter of Shaul, whom she bore to Adriel the son of Barzillai, the Meholatite etc. But was Michal really given to Adriel; was she not given to Palti the son of Layish, as it is written, Now Shaul had given Michal, David’s wife, to Palti the son of Layish . . .? But Scripture compares the marriage of Meirav to Adriel to that of Michal to Palti, to teach that just as the marriage of Michal to Palti was unlawful, so was that of Meirav to Adriel. Now as to R. Yehoshua ben Korha, surely it is written, And the five sons of Michal the daughter of Shaul whom she bore to Adriel. R. Yehoshua [b. Korha] answers thee: Was it then Michal who bore them? Surely it was rather Meirav who bore them! But Meirav bore and Michal brought them up, therefore they were called by her name. This teaches you that whoever brings up an orphan in his home, Scripture ascribes it to him as though he had begotten him.

The accepted understanding of this passage is that according to Rabbi Yossi David married Michal only after her sister had five children from Adriel and died. Michal later brought up the five children as her own. The commentators[2] ask how Meirav could possibly have five children within just two and a half years of Shaul’s reign and answer that she was pregnant with twins twice, and once with the fifth child.  However, according to the calculation of all the events that had to occur before David married Michal and after he ran away from Shaul, there is not enough time left for three pregnancies of Meirav[3]. We need to look for a simpler understanding of the Talmud.

The difficulty of the Gemara is with the following verse from the end of David’s life (Shmuel 2:21:8): “And the king [David] took two sons of Rizpah daughter of Ayah whom she bore to Shaul, Armoni and Mephiboshet, and the five sons of Michal, the daughter of Shaul, whom she bore to Adriel the son of Barzillai, the Meholatite …” Five children of Michal and Adriel are mentioned in this verse. All the commentators follow the explanation of our Gemara that the children were born to Meirav and Michal only raised them. But a careful reading seems to reveal that R. Yossi is not the one who holds that the five children were Meirav’s. This explanation is provided by the Gemara later according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha. If so, R. Yossi must hold that indeed Michal was the one to have the five children. Since David only took her back seven years after he became king, there was plenty of time for her to give birth to five children. But Michal was never married to Adriel, she was “married” to Palti. It’s important to understand what Rabbi Yossi is implying by his words “confused passage” (מקראות מעורבין literally mixed up verses). Apparently he means that while Michal married Palti, the verse is using the expression “married to Adriel” to teach us that the marriage of Michal to Palti was just as sinful as the marriage of Meirav to Adriel. Both marriages were based on an incorrect decision of Shaul and his Bet Din. David’s Kidushin with Meirav was declared invalid and his later Kidushin with Michal was declared invalid again[4]. Indeed Josephus Flavius (Antiquities 7:4:3) says that Michal had five children from Palti.

Now we can offer a simple understanding of the entire Talmudic passage. The students asked R. Yossi, how could David marry two sisters? They are obviously assuming that some form of Kidushin was involved when Shaul offered his (presumably older[5]) daughter to the one who kills Goliath[6]. If David was technically married to Meirav he could not marry Michal even if Meirav was incorrectly given to a different man. R. Yossi answered that Meirav died before David married Michal. R. Yehoshua ben Karcha however holds that there was no kosher Kidushin between David and Meirav. He learns it from the words in a verse: “my wife Michal”, meaning only Michal is my wife, Meirav is not. The Gemara goes into the technical explanation of why Michal’s Kidushin was valid and not Meirav’s according to R. Yehoshua ben Karcha. R. Yossi however only learns from this verse that Michal was David’s wife meaning her Kidushin was valid just as Meirav’s, and giving her to Palti was incorrect. He learns that the verse (Shmuel 2:21:8) describing David’s giving five children of Michal and Adriel to Givonim[7] were really Michal’s children from Palti and is using the expression “mixed up verses” to teach us that Michal’s Kidushin with David was valid just like Meirav’s was.[8] R. Yehoshua ben Karcha however says the verse in Shmuel 2:21:8 is not talking about Michal’s children but about Meirav’s children whom Michal raised. The Gemara goes on to give other examples where children raised by someone are considered like one’s own children.

בתחילת הפרשה (ויצא, כח: י) כתב רש”י: ויצא יעקב. על ידי שבשביל שרעות בנות כנען בעיני יצחק אביו הלך עשו אל ישמעאל, הפסיק הענין בפרשתו של יעקב, וכתיב וירא עשו כי ברך וגו’, ומשגמר, חזר לענין הראשון.

פתיחתו של רש”י בדיבור זה מוקשה, מהו כפל הלשון “על ידי” “שבשביל”, הרי משמעותם אחת היא!? והיה די לו לרש”י לנקוט אחד מהם.

על קושי זה, עמדו הראשונים וראשוני האחרונים, ביניהם: מושב זקנים; חזקוני; ר”א מזרחי ועוד רבים, ותירוץ על פי פשטות נאמר על כך על ידי רבים מהם, כפי שנביא בהמשך. אך קודם נביא תירוץ מעניין, דבר שנמצא אצל שניים מגדולי האחרונים, והוא קשור ושייך לדרכם של הסופרים בימי קדם, וכפי שנרחיב בזה.

רבינו ישראל מברונא, (ק”ס-רל”ו), תלמידו של הגאון בעל תרומת הדשן, בגיליון כתב יד של ‘פירוש הטור על התורה’ הוסיף הערות וביאורים[i], אם דברים הקשורים לדברי בעל הטור בפרט, אם דברים על המקרא ומפרשיו בכלל, ובריש פרשתנו הזכיר קושי זה בדברי רש”י, וז”ל:

פרש”י “ע”י שבשביל כו'”, ומק”ה (=ומקשים העולם) למה פרש”י ב’ טעמים, ‘על ידי’ וגם ‘שבשביל’.

ובתחילת דבריו כתב מהלך אחד ליישב הדברים, אח”כ מביא בשם ‘י”א’ מהלך אחר שקשור בטעות סופר, יעו”ש דבריו. ולאחרונה הוא מוסיף לומר בדרך שלו, וכך הם דבריו:

וכהאי גוונא[ii] נראה לי דרש”י לא כתב רק ‘על ידי’, והתלמיד כתב בגיליון ‘על ידי’ פירוש ‘בשביל’, כדתנן בפרק הפועלים (ב”מ צג א) ‘קוצץ אדם “על ידי” בנו ובתו’ ופרש”י ‘”בשביל” בנו ובתו’.

דבריו נאמרו בקצרה – סתם ולא פירש – ואינם ברורים בלי שנכיר סדר כתיבת והעתקת ספרים בטרום המצאת הדפוס, על כן נפרט קצת הדברים.

בימינו, וכך כבר במשך כ-500 שנה, מחבר ספר, או מי שרוצה להוציא ספר של מחבר אחר, עושה זאת על ידי שמביאו לבית הדפוס, וכך מוציא לאור עולם מאות עותקים, כולם זהים. אבל לפני המצאת הדפוס בשנת ה’ אלפים ר”ל בערך (1470), דבר זה היה בלתי אפשרי, ומי שחיבר ספר והיה ברצונו להפיצו היה צריך לעמול קשה ולהוציא על כך הוצאות מרובות דמי סופרים – מעתיקים, שיעתיקו עבורו את הספר. וכמובן שלא ימלט שיהיו בו שגיאות קטנות, או אפילו גדולות, שייעשו על ידי שהמעתיק יחסיר איזה תיבות או אפילו שורות שלימות, או שיטעה בקריאת המקור או בהעתקה. ולכן על פי רוב ספר שהיה מבוקש הועתק לבקשת הלומד, ולא על ידי המחבר. וכדבר הזה כן הוא גם לגבי ספרי חז”ל כספרי התלמוד – גמרות, ומדרשים וכדומה.

מי שהיה בידו טופס של ספר כזה, כתוב בעט ובדיו, אם ימצא בו איזה טעות, או איזה חיסור, כמובן שיתקן זאת כדי לקיים “אל תשכן באהליך עולה” (איוב יא, יד; כתובות יט ב). את התיקון יעשה בדרך כלל על ידי שיוסיף בגיליון – בצד הטקסט – את החסר, או את התיקון למה שנכתב בטעות. דבר זה נמצא לאלפים ולרבבות בכתבי היד. אחר כך, מי שבא להעתיק את הספר מתוך עותק זה, היה עליו להעתיק את הכתוב בגיליון בתוך הספר, דהיינו להעתיק הדברים בשלימותם, דהיינו את ההוספה שבגיליון היה עליו להעתיק בתוך רצף הטקסט, ובכך לתקן את המעוות שנוצר על ידי המעתיק הקודם.

אולם, לפעמים היה הלומד בספר מוסיף על הגיליון לא רק תיקונים, אלא גם הגהות אחרות, אם הגהות וחידושים משלו – כפי שראינו למעלה גיליונות שכתב מהר”י ברונא בעותק של פירוש הטור שהיה בידו – ולפעמים הוסיף רק פירוש לכתוב בספר. ואף דבר זה היה נפוץ ביותר, וספרות שלימה הגיעה לידינו שהיא בעצם מהגהות שכתבו חכמים על ספרי קדמוניהם – לדוגמא בעלמא: הגהות רבינו פרץ (שנכתבו מסביב לסמ”ק ולתשב”ץ); הגהות מיימוניות (שנכתבו מסביב ספר יד החזקה להרמב”ם); הגהות אשרי (שנכתבו מסביב לפסקי הרא”ש) וכן עוד רבים.

מעתה, הוטלה על המעתיק עבודה קשה ויסודית, להבחין בשעת העתקה איזה גיליון בא להשלים תיבות חסרות שנחסרו ע”י המעתיק הקודם והשלימם על הגיליון – אשר זה עליו להשלים בתוך רצף החיבור אשר הוא מעתיק; ואיזה גיליון הוא תיקון לכתוב בפנים – אשר אז צריך לכתוב רק את הגיליון ולא את פנים החיבור; ומה אינו אלא ביאור או הוספה לכתוב בחיבור – אשר אינו שייך לתוך החיבור, ואם ברצונו להעתיק זאת, גם עליו להעתיקו בגיליון.

מה שקרה לפעמים – ובפרט אם הסופר המעתיק לא היה יודע ספר, ולא הבין את תוכן הדברים שהוא מעתיק – שלא ידע הסופר להבחין מהו תיקון טעות ומהו השלמה, ומה אינו אלא הוספה חיצונה.

כך קרה – לפי הצעתו של רבי ישראל מברונא – עם דברי רש”י שלפנינו, לדבריו רש”י כתב רק “על ידי שרעות…”, ובא התלמיד והוסיף בגיליון הפירוש של
‘על ידי’, דהיינו “שבשביל”, ולאחריו בא מעתיק ובחשבו שמדובר בתיבה שנחסרה העתיק את שניהם כאחד “על ידי שבשביל שרעות…”. ומאז והלאה השתלשלה הטעות וכפל הלשון.

**

כמאתיים שנה לאחריו, מביא הגאון ר’ נתן שפירא מהוראדנא[iii] (בערך ר”נ-של”ז) בספרו ‘אמרי שפר’ על התורה, שמצא כתוב כדבר הזה; וזה לשונו:

ואף על פי שמצאתי מי שכתב וז”ל: ראה ראיתי באמת כתיבת ידו של רש”י ז”ל, שלא היה כתוב בה אלא ‘על ידי’ שרעות בנות כנען כו’ ולא היה כתוב בה בפנים מלת ‘שבשביל’, אלא שום תלמוד (צ”ל תלמיד) היה כותב בחוץ בגליון מלת ‘שבשביל’, להורות שמה שכתו’ בפנים ‘על ידי’ פירושו הוא ‘שבשביל’, ואחר כך טעו הסופרים וחשבו שמלת ‘שבשביל’ הוא גם כן לשונו של רש”י ז”ל, כתבו בפנים ‘על ידי שבשביל’, עד כאן לשונו. כך מביא הגר”נ שפירא מאותו אחד שאת דבריו מצא באיזה מקום. אך הוא מגיב על זה בלשון הזה: ואני אומר אם זה האמת (כוונתו למה שכתב הכותב הנ”ל ‘ראה ראיתי “באמת” כתיבת ידו של רש”י…’) הוא אמת, הרי טוב וקבלה נקבל, ואם לאו הרי כבר פירש הרא”ם ז”ל מה שפירש… וכאן ממשיך ומביא פירושם של הראשונים וגדולי האחרונים בזה, וכפי שנביא מהם להלן.

**

מתגובתו של הגר”נ שפירא על דברי הכותב נראה שאין ברצונו לקבל הדברים, וכלשונו: “אם זה האמת אמת הוא”, ואכן לשונו של הכותב שצריך להעיד על דבריו בלשון כזה “ראיתי באמת” אכן נותנים לנו הרגשה שחשש שלא יאמינו לדבריו, אולם יש להסתפק אם עצם הרעיון לא היה ניחא ליה להגרנ”ש – ליישב הדברים באופן כזה שמדובר בגיליון שנשתרש לתוך דברי רש”י – או שהעדות שמעיד שראה “כתיבת ידו של רש”י” היה נראה בעיניו דבר רחוק. עכ”פ כל עוד ולא נדע מיהו הכותב קשה לדון כלל בדבר.

**

והנה, בעיני רבים אולי נראה דבר כזה – ליישב נוסח מוקשה ברעיון כזה, כדבר רחוק ומופרך, אשר על כן אמרתי להביא שני מקורות – מתוך רבים – שמצאנו לגדולי הדורות שכתבו כדבר הזה.

ראשונה נביא תשובה שנכתבה על ידי רב שרירא גאון (ד”א תרס”ו-ד”א תשס”ו), או על ידי בנו רב האי גאון (ד”א תרצ”ט-ד”א תשצ”ח), כפי הנראה לבני קירואן, ששאלו ממנו לבאר לו פירושה של תיבה אחת בגמ’. הגאון מזכיר השאלה: וש’אלת הא דאיתמר אמ’ר רבא כת’ שור ושור פסולי המוקדשין שננחו. מהו כת’ שור. הדברים מוסבים על גמ’ במסכת בבא קמא, דף נג א-ב, שם איתמר בדין שור ושור פסולי המוקדשים שנגחו, ולפניו היה נוסח ‘אמר רבא כת’ שור ושור פסולי המוקדשים’, מהו תיבת “כת'” שנראה כֿ’כתיב’, הרי מה שייכותה כאן?

והשיב לו הגאון: זה שכתבתם כת’ אינו בתלמוד כל עיקר, והא שמעתא הכין גרסינן לה איתמר שור ושור פסולי המוקדשין שנגחו אביי אמ’ משלם חצי נזק רבינא אמ’ משלם רביע נזק. ופירושו שור פסולי המוק’ דעדאן (=דעדיין) לא פריק. ואנו לא גרסנן בשמועה זו אמ’ רבא כאשר כתבתם. ואף רבנן דגרסי השתא אינן אומ’רים בה אמ’ רבא. אלא שנמצא בנוסחי דגמ’ דבי רב ישי שכתוב בהן אמ’ רבא שור ושור פסולי וכול’. הגאון מביא שבנוסחאות הגמ’ שלהם לא נזכר כלל “אמר רבא” אלא “איתמר” (וכן היא בגמרא בדפוסים שלנו), ויש נוסח בגמרא דבי רב ישי אשר שם כתוב “אמר רבא” במקום “איתמר” (וגירסה כזו הובאה שם גם ע”י הרמב”ן).

ועתה מבאר לנו הגאון מנין באה הגירסה שהיתה לפני השואל: וכן ניראו לנו הדברים, כי אדם כתב את התלמוד בלשון שלנו ‘איתמר שור ושור פסולי המוקדשין שנגחו’ כשאין בה ‘אמ’ רבא’. וכשמצא נוסחא דכתי’ב בה ‘אמ’ רבא’ כאשר פירשנו למע’לה תלה על ראש השמועה ‘אמ’ רבא כתי” – כלומ’ר מצאתי שכתוב ‘אמ’ר רבא’. ובא הנוֹסח (=המעתיק) ומצא שם תלוי כך, וחשבו כשאר דברי התלמוד, ולא ידע כי זכרון הוא, ונסח (=והעתיק) את הדברים כולן בקולמוס אחד ‘איתמר אמ’ רבא כתי’ שור’ וכול’.

הגאון מפרט לנו בטוב טעם היאך קרה זאת, שבגיליון הוסיף אחד “אמר רבא כתי'” להורות שיש גירסה “אמר רבא” במקום “איתמר”, ולאחר מכן בא המעתיק והעתיק את שניהם כאחד עם תיבת כת’, וכך נגרם שבא לידי אותו שואל גמרא ובה נוסח כפול, ואף נוסף בה ההוראה ‘כתיב’! ומסיים הגאון:

והרבה מצוי כן שתולין בקצה הנוסח (=בגיליון) או בין טורין (=בין השורות) תיליא דאדכרתא (=מילים לזכרון) או דפירושא או לשון אחר, ובא הנוסח וחושבו עיקר וכותבו כולו כאחד, ומטעה הוא, עד שיפול בידי חכם שהוא מצרף את הדבר ומוציא את כל מילה לטעמה[iv]. עד כאן לשון תשובת הגאון, והדברים מדברים בעד עצמם.

כך מצאנו גם ל’רבינו תם’ בספר הישר[v], שכתב על גמ’ במס’ נדרים יט א: אבל תלמידים כתבו ברייתא דפירקא קמא דפסחים דמיתנייא הכי לאקשויי על הך שמעתא, וטעו סופרים וכתבוה בפנים[vi].

**

ראינו שליישב קושי בנוסח בדרך זו, מקובל הוא, מעתה נחזור לדברי רש”י. הנה כשנבדוק את דפוס הראשון של פירוש רש”י, שנדפס ב’ריג’ו די קלבריה’ שבדרום איטליה, בשנת רל”ה, שם אכן הנוסח הוא: “על ידי שרעות בנות כנען…”, ואין בו “שבשביל”, דבר זה מתאים היטב להשערה הנזכרת שתיבה זו רק נוספה בגיליון כפירוש ל’על ידי’, ולכן אינה כאן.

אולם באמת, אין נראה כלל לסמוך על מקור זה לומר שמקורי הוא, אלא יותר נראה הדבר כתיקון שנעשה על ידי מגיה, שבא לתקן כפל הלשון ולכן מחק תיבת ‘שבשביל’, שכן כבר בכתבי היד הקדומים והחשובים של פירוש רש”י נמצא כפל לשון זה, וביניהם כתב יד לייפציג[vii], כתב יד שנכתב על ידי חכם אחד בשם ‘מכיר’ במאה הי”ג (=1300-1200), שהעתיק את הפירוש מתוך פירוש רש”י כתיבת ידו של רבינו שמעיה תלמידו הגדול של רש”י [ראה צילום]; וכן בכתב יד מינכן 5, כתב יד שנכתב בשנת ד’ אלפים תתקצ”ג (=1233).

וכן יעידו שאר דפוסים הקדומים, בהם הנוסח הוא כשלפנינו. וראיה לכך, שכן מצינו גם כתב יד[viii] (מאוחר יחסית) בו נעשה תיקון הפוך, שכתוב בו רק ‘שבשביל’ בלא ‘על ידי’, דבר המעיד שסופר/מעתיק היה עלול לתקן בהעתקתו את כפל הלשון, בהבאת רק אחד מהם.

מעניין הוא להביא כאן מעוד כתב יד[ix], שנכתב כנראה בארצות המזרח בסביבות שנת ק’, ונוספו עליו השלמות ותיקונים בכתב מאוחר אשכנזי, אשר הסופר כתב ברש”י רק “על ידי שהיו רעות בנות כנען…”, והמגיה המאוחר, הוסיף “שבשביל”, ולא בתור פירוש, אלא בתור הוספה, כאשר יוכיח ההוספה בתחילת שורה הבאה, ולא בסמוך ל’על ידי’.

**

אשר על כן, ולסיומא, נביא הפשט הפשוט בכוונת רש”י, אותו כתבו כמה וכמה מגדולי מפרשי רש”י, ונביא דבריו הקולעים והקצרים של המהר”ל ב’גור אריה’: כפל הלשון ‘על ידי’ ‘שבשביל’, מפני שמלת ‘בשביל’ – לומר: בשביל שרעות בנות כנען הלך עשו אל ישמעאל, ו’על ידי’ – לומר: על ידי זה הפסיק הענין בפרשתו של יעקב. וראה עוד ב’ביאורי מהרא”י’ לבעל ‘תרומת הדשן’, שכתב שהיה אפשר לסרס הלשון, ולכתוב כל אחד בנפרד, אלא שאז היה רש”י צריך לומר “על ידי כך”, ועכשיו הרוויח שאין צריך לתיבת “כך”. וה’לבוש’ ב’לבוש האורה’ כתב כעין זה, אלא לדבריו הרוויח פחות מזה, שהיה צריך לכתוב “שהפסיק” ועתה הרוויח אות שי”ן וכתב רק “הפסיק”. יעו”ש דבריהם.

“Is taking my husband not enough?” (Gen 30:15)

Rabbi Nathan Kamenetsky of Jerusalem

Rabbi Nathan Kamenetsky is the author of the much-talked-about-book, Making of a Godol: A Study of Episodes in the Lives of Great Torah Personalities. A Hebrew version of this essay for Parashat Va-Yetze was first published last week at the Seforim blog [here] and the translation was prepared by Rabbi Daniel Tabak of New York.

*                      *                      *                      *

If we study the Bible without the words of Hazal, we may think that Leah was on the level with Jacob when her father hoodwinked him and swapped her with her sister. That is, Leah was in the dark about the agreement between her father and his nephew that the latter would marry “Rachel, his younger daughter.” The agreement was then breached by Laban, and Leah believed that she had been chosen from the outset to be Jacob’s wife. Therefore, when Rachel entered Jacob’s tent after her own week of celebration, Rachel was an interloper. And so, some years later, when Rachel requests the jasmine that Reuben found, Leah protests: “Who asked you to marry my husband? And now you want my son’s jasmine? Sister, I’ve had it up to here with you.” That is how the story goes without the words of Hazal.

I recall that in the beginning of 5708 [late 1948], World War II had ended even in the Pacific Theater with Japan’s defeat, and hundreds of Mirrer Yeshiva students in Shanghai were already permitted to emigrate to the United States. They settled in a Jewish neighborhood in Brooklyn called “East New York.” A spacious synagogue on Ashford Street was transformed into their study hall, where they continued to study Torah diligently and the legendary mashgiah R. Yechezkel Levenstein of blessed and saintly memory delivered his ethical talks.[1]

In the first decade of 5700 I was a young student learning in Mesivta Torah Vodaas, and on the sabbath of Va-Yetze I was a guest at my sister and brother-in-law, Rabbi Yisroel and Malka Shurin, may their repose be in Eden. I went to see with my own eyes what a European yeshiva was. A common saying of Rabbi Avrohom Kalmonovitch, the dean of the Mirrer Yeshiva who carried it as a caregiver cradles an infant through its long exile in Shanghai, had echoed in the yeshiva world during that period. He asked: is it possible that after Noah had fed the ark’s lion day-in and day-out at great personal risk, bringing the food late once warranted such a bite that left him with a limp? He answered that the lion was not any old lion, like the ones we see in the zoo, but the last lion in the entire world, and one cannot delay in feeding such a lion even once. Rabbi Avrohom spoke figuratively of the Mirrer yeshiva, the only European yeshiva to survive a destroyed world, a yeshiva that needed to be cherished. For a yeshiva student like me, it was appropriate to travel a great distance to see this singular yeshiva and become aromatized by its atmosphere.

As the sky grew dark on that sabbath in the dim, crowded study hall, the mashgiah delivered an ethical sermon that has been seared into my memory for more than sixty-six years. He based his talk on the words of Rabbi Joshua b. Levi in tractate Yoma (72b): ‘What is the meaning of ‘this is the Torah that Moses placed (śam)’? If one is worthy, it turns into an elixir (sam hayyim) for him; if unworthy, it turns into poison (sam mita).’ He explained that if we do not study biblical verses as Hazal interpreted them, then the Torah itself becomes poisonous. He exemplified the matter in that week’s Torah reading, saying that without the words of Hazal we believe that after Jacob was well-on in years he decided that the time to marry had arrived, looked at both of Laban’s daughters – each with their own appearance – and chose one of them, after which he said ‘when will I be able to work for my household etc. etc.’ What was Jacob our forefather’s intention? To settle down and raise a family like everyone else. Such an understanding, however, is venomous. When is the Torah an elixir? When we comprehend the verses as Hazal did when they explained ‘and Laban had two daughters’ (29:16) as two beams stretching from one end of the world to the other (meaning, don’t read ‘daughters’ [banot] but rather ‘builders’ [bonot], along the lines of ‘don’t read it as your sons [banayikh] but your builders [bonayikh], for these are the two sisters who built the world), one raising kings and the other raising kings […] to this one were given two nights and to this one two nights, to Leah the night of Pharaoh and Sennacherib, to Rachel the Night of Gideon and the night of Mordechai (Yalqut Shim’oni #124 [end]). In other words, Jacob viewed both of them as architects of the Jewish people and that people’s perpetuity, so everything that he did was with the establishment of the Jewish people in mind. If we look at every step that Jacob took in this light, then our Torah study becomes an elixir. When the mashgiah expounded in this manner to the students of the Mirrer Yeshiva, who had no longer been young for quite some time, whose families had perished in Europe, who were exhausted from the many years of wandering in far-flung locales, he was saying that they should not cook up fresh plans in this new land such that every man would become engrossed in tending his field or vineyard, as poison was in that pot (per II Kings 4:40), but they should take stock as to the best way to build their lives in a way that would contribute to the general good of the Jewish people and its endurance. Notwithstanding the fact that I am a fan of the text’s simple meaning and love the literal-contextual meaning of the text, I have carried with me until today the mashgiah’s admonition to study the Bible in a way that makes it an elixir.

Here, too, if we study the narrative of the two sisters as Hazal did, we can imagine how Rachel, after believing for seven years that she would marry Jacob and planning to do so, could not stand — even in that happiest of moments before the wedding — her older sister being ashamed, and she decided to teach her the secret code. We are impressed by Rachel’s sensitivity, which seems like something humanly unattainable! Hazal had good cause for saying that it was our matriarch Rachel who will persuade God (as it were) not to jealously punish the Jewish people when they worship foreign gods and “the bed is too short to stretch oneself out” (Is 28:20)[2] because she patiently brought a co-wife into her house without jealousy, and through this merit God will return his children to their borders (the end of petihta 24 of Lamentations). Leah knew full well that she was deceiving Jacob by taking her sister’s place; moreover, her sister helped her pull it off. Is there any header student who doesn’t know that Rachel gave her sister the secret code? Only then does Leah’s charge “is taking my husband not enough?” become so difficult to comprehend – did Rachel forfeit her right to Jacob because she heroically facilitated Leah’s marriage to him? On the contrary, according to Hazal Rachel brought her co-wife into her house, unlike Leah’s claim that Rachel was crashing her party. I know full and well that this difficulty forced two commentators – Nahmanides and the Or ha-Hayyim – to posit that Leah was complaining that Rachel was supplanting her in their relationship with Jacob. Nahmanides explains that Leah alleged that Rachel was acting as the mistress and making Leah the maidservant, but such behavior on Rachel’s part is absent from the Torah, making this a difficult position to take. Perhaps one can point to Rachel’s answering first when Jacob requested his wives’ consent to leave Aram for Canaan (31:14) as a sign that she felt dominant over Leah. The opinion of Rabbi Jose, however, is that Rachel could speak before her older sister because Jacob had called her first (31:4; Midrash Rabba 74:4). Furthermore, none of this appears until after the request for the jasmine. The Or Ha-Hayyim argues that Leah was upset that Jacob’s fixed bed was with Rachel, which is also difficult since the proximity of Rachel’s tent to Jacob is not mentioned until Laban chased Jacob and searched for his idols, according to Rashi (commentary on 31:13), and Nahmanides completely disagrees with his interpretation of that verse (see there). Rashi on 31:4 does note before Jacob’s flight from his father-in-law that Rachel – not Leah – was the mainstay of the house, and Hazal find evidence of this in Simeon ’s birth where “and Rachel was barren (aqara)” (29:31) is taken to mean “foundation of the house (‘iqqaro shel bayit),” which should have been a grievance directed not at Rachel but Jacob since the husband decides which of his wives will predominate. Our teachers Nahmanides and the Or Ha-Hayyim of blessed memory both interpreted the verses in their own way, because it never occurred to them to take Leah at her word.[3] I have found an interesting interpretation in the widespread contemporary series Da’at Miqra, which usually understands the verse in its literal-contextual meaning, that agrees that Leah took part in the deception with Rachel’s knowledge (as above), and even depicts an imaginable scene where Leah sits in a dark corner of Rachel’s wedding party wearing a bride’s veil as her disguise, and at the critical moment her father brings her to Jacob in lieu of his wife (“Laban took his daughter Leah and brought her to him”). Regarding Leah’s subsequent charge “is taking my husband not enough?” Da’at Miqra says laconically “here Leah was ungrateful for Rachel’s kindness,” but nothing more. In my humble opinion this approach is unacceptable: God forbid that we should describe one of our matriarchs as having poor character. Da’at Miqra depicts Rachel and Leah, who
together formed the Jewish people, as respectively sensitive to a fault and lacking basic human decency. It is bewildering! Now, it is true that there is an approach among medieval commentators which disagrees with Rabbenu Behayye’s opinion that “the matriarchal prophetesses had nothing ugly about them nor any moral failing” (commentary on 29:20), and so Nahmanides can write about the Torah’s statement that “Sarah oppressed” Hagar (16:6) that “our matriarch sinned in this oppression” (and Da’at Miqra agrees with Nahmanides there and also cites Radak who says “Sarah did not act in accordance with ethics or piety in this matter”), but why, then, did Nahmanides not write here what he did regarding Sarah, for here too “Leah sinned in speaking to her sister thus,” instead of twisting Leah’s words to fit a forced interpretation? We must conclude that Nahmanides knew that if we take Leah’s words in the simplest way, as the author of Da’at Miqra did, we would end up with not just a failing of morality or piety but a basic lack of humanity (as mentioned above), and Leah’s sin would be so egregious to an extent that we cannot suspect of our matriarchs. God forbid that we should even entertain such a notion about these great women.

I will now speak my piece about this, and I hope that Heaven has left me enough room to make a contribution. At the end of Toledot, Rashi admitted ‘I do not know what it is teaching us’ regarding the final words of the verse ‘Isaac sent Jacob and he went towards Padan Aram to Laban son of Bethuel the Aramean, brother of Rebecca, the mother of Jacob and Esau (em Ya’akov ve-‘Esav)’ (28:5). Rashi found the words difficult because we already know the identity of Rebecca’s children, so why did the Torah need to add these three words? The question can be answered by way of the cantillation. One would have thought that the etnahta should have been placed under ‘Jacob,’ as the words that follow ‘and he went towards Padan Aram’ lead into the rest of the verse ‘to Laban son of Bethuel…’ to mean that Jacob went to Laban in Padan Aram. The Masoretes, however, placed the etnahta under ‘Aram,’ implying that they understood the rest of the verse beginning with ‘to Laban’ as referring back to the sending off, i.e. Isaac sending Jacob to Laban, and the words ‘and he went towards Padan Aram’ constitute a parenthetical statement letting us know that Jacob did indeed fulfill this mission. This would be similar to what it says further on (verse 7) about Esau observing Jacob’s actions — ‘Jacob listened to his father and to his mother and went to Padan Aram’ — namely that Esau saw that Jacob listened to his parents and left Beersheba, and in the end, in fact, went to Padan Aram (see Rash ad loc.). The Masoretes took the verse to be speaking not about Jacob’s arrival in Padan Aram but about the separation from Isaac for a simple reason, namely, if the verse wanted to convey Jacob’s arrival in Padan, then it would be anatopistic, as the proper place is later when the Torah narrates Jacob heading eastward (29:1). It was therefore preferable to construe the words ‘to Laban…’ as referring back to the sending off. We still need to comprehend, however, what all of verse 5 teaches us, because (1) it already says above in verse 2 that Isaac commanded his son to go to Padan Aram to take one of Laban’s daughters as a wife, so what is this verse adding, and (2) it says in verse 2 that he sent him to the house of Bethuel and in verse 5 no house is mentioned, only Laban’s name. We are forced to propose that aside from Isaac blessing Jacob with the Abraham’s blessing and commanding him what to do in a general sense (verse 2), Isaac subsequently had parting words for Jacob when the latter was actually ready to leave: ‘now, my son, I will explain in more detail what you need to do when you get to your destination of Bethuel’s house. Speak to Laban, who will certainly be instrumental in helping you settle in, because you are his nephew. He will agree to give you one of his daughters as a wife, and given that I now knew that you purchased the birthright from my older son Esau, remember that when you arrive there, because you are now the ‘older’ son and Esau the ‘younger.’’ The order in ‘mother of Jacob and Esau’ fits perfectly. What did Isaac intend by telling him this just as he set out to fulfill his charge? He meant to tell him that until then he had only outlined the general intention of marrying one of Laban’s daughters without specifying which one to take, whereas now he is saying outright that since Jacob was “eldest,” he needed to marry Leah, eldest of Laban’s daughters. That is the purpose of verse 5.[4]

The Torah only hints at this new command of Isaac’s for a simple reason. When Jacob reached Haran and saw Laban’s two daughters, it was specifically the younger one who found favor in his eyes. The Torah emphasizes more than once Jacob’s deep love for Rachel[5] to justify disobeying his father Isaac’s command to marry Leah, because our forefather Jacob followed the law as codified in Shulhan ‘Arukh (Yore De’a, end of no. 240) that a son does not have to obey his father’s command not to marry a specific woman, and the same goes for a command to marry a specific woman that the son does not want to marry. Instead of the Torah stating explicitly Jacob’s command to marry Leah, a hint sufficed, because although Jacob was in the right about not listening to one’s father in choosing a spouse, there was no need to draw attention to his disobedience, and just as it is inappropriate for a son to broadcast the permissibility of not listening to one’s father, so the Torah concealed the matter. Lest the reader respond with Rabbi Judah b. Bathayra’s remark to Rabbi Akiva when the latter revealed that the wood-gatherer was Zelophehad (a baraita on Shabbat  96b) “you will have to answer for this: if it is as you say, the Torah hid it and you revealed it,” note the continuation of the Talmud there (at the top of 97a) that says “but he [R. Akiva] derived it from a gezera shava,” with Rashi’s comment “and if so, the Torah did not hide it for it is practically explicit.” If a derivation by means of a gezera shava is not considered hidden, then certainly something derived from the literal and contextual reading of the text is not. More generally, what I am conveying about our forefather Jacob is that he followed the Torah’s laws — since the Torah did not say outright that Jacob did not listen to his father but said it allusively, i.e., in a manner that requires a kind of discovery, one does not find Jacob defying his father. Note this well.[6]

When dawn broke the morning after Jacob’s wedding and “behold, it was Leah,” the couple had a conversation. Jacob reproached Leah for deceiving him and here is her riposte: “I learned to do this from you, because you hoodwinked your father when he intended to bless Esau and you took his place. There is no master without students” (Bereshit Rabba 70:19). In my humble opinion I would like to lengthen and fill out this conversation. Leah did not have the last word or parting shot; Jacob continued the conversation. “You should know that when I arrived in Haran seven years ago, I told your sister that I wanted to marry her, but she warned me that her father would try to deceive me and replace her with her older sister. I responded that he would not succeed in tricking me because ‘I am his brother in deception’ (Megilla 13b). Now know this, Leah, what I told her is true that no-one can pull one over me, even if my new father-in-law is the son of swindlers and from a place of skullduggery (Bereshit Rabba 63:3). Ask, then, how did you succeed last night? Well, when I was about to leave my righteous father for Beersheba, he confirmed that the birthright I purchased from my brother Esau many years prior, when I was only fifteen years old (Bava Batra 16b), was a transaction with everlasting force, making me – and not Esau – the firstborn. He therefore commanded me to marry you, the older sister. Although I did not want to obey and marry you, and notwithstanding that I was not obligated to heed his command, nevertheless it constituted a decree by a righteous person about which it is said that ‘what you decree, will be done’ (Job 22:28, see, inter alia, Shabbat 59b). That is to say, you and your father did not succeed in cheating me, but my father (may he live a long, good life) triumphed in compelling me to marry you just as he wanted.” In that way Jacob demonstrated to Leah that he was a man of Truth and not full of deceit as she had thought.[7] He was not a Rav-sheqer; he did not have proteges in the art of lying. He hadn’t tricked his father at all in taking the blessings intended for Esau forty-eight years after he purchased the birthright, because Isaac intended to bless his firstborn and believed that Esau was the firstborn, when in reality Jacob was already the true firstborn. Only then did a lightbulb go off in twenty-two-year-old Leah’s head (Sefer ‘Olam Rabba, ch. 2) since she now realized that her lifelong worry about marrying Esau had been in vain; all those years of crying (Bava Batra 123a) had been for naught. Forty-seven years before she was born Jacob took Esau’s place as firstborn, and at the moment of her birth she was already destined for Jacob and not his wicked brother. In the wake of this conversation Leah already knew enough that when the first of Jacob’s vigor was born, her son Reuben, she could say “see the difference between my son and my father-in-law’s son […] After my father-in-law’s son Esau sold the birthright and it was my husband’s for some time, Esau protested so strongly that my entire life I mistakenly thought that Esau was the firstborn, as did all of my contemporaries, until my father-in-law had to reiterate in Jacob’s presence, before their parting, that Jacob was the firstborn, and he decreed by the decree of the righteous that he should marry me, the firstborn.”

Do not let my novel understanding that Isaac wanted his son to marry Leah put you off on account of its absence in the literature of Hazal, for I have found the following in Rabbenu Behayye (commentary to 28:5). He asked why Jacob was punished for absenting himself from his parents’ residence for twenty-two years with the absence of his own son Joseph for the same number of years (Megilla 16b-17a), when in fact Jacob was sent to Padan Aram by his parents, in which case how could his absence constitute a violation of the commandment of honoring one’s parents for twenty-two years? Rabbenu Behaye answers: “they thought that he would take Leah and return as soon as they sent for him, but he set his eyes on the younger Rachel for her beauty.” This implies that Rabbenu Behayye believed that had Jacob married Leah upon arriving in Haran, Laban would not have expected him to work for him at all, and it was only because Jacob wanted Rachel that he was forced to obligate himself to work for her father for seven years. He seemingly derived this from what Jacob said to Laban – “I will work seven years for Rachel, your younger daughter” – which he took to mean that since she is young and unfit for marriage, I will work for seven years so you will be willing to marry her off before the older daughter. Rabbenu Behayye’s comment appears slightly difficult given Isaac’s explicit command to “marry one of the daughters of Laban, your mother’s brother” (28:2), which implies that he could choose whichever one he wanted to marry, the corollary being that if his choice required him to be absent from his parents’ home, it should not constitute a negation of the imperative to honor one’s parents. Why, then, did he deserve punishment for being absent from his father’s house?[8] In addition, the first part of Rabbenu Behayye’s comment, in which he writes that “they thought he would take Leah,” makes it seem as if Jacob had no choice whatsoever in choosing his wife, which is hard to fathom. It must be the case that Rabbenu Behayye understood verse 5 — “Isaac sent Jacob…” — in accordance with my innovative approach that at the moment of departure from his parents Jacob was given a hint about his new charge, that he would not choose his wife but would marry Leah specifically, which makes Rabbenu Behayye’s comment harmonious. Rabbenu Behayye’s innovative understanding that Jacob would not have had to work to marry Leah appears contradictory to Nahmanides’ understanding of the words “complete this week,” meaning complete the time period that you are still obligated to work for Leah (see there), yet he should not have had to work for Laban’s older daughter at all! Moreover, why was Jacob unable to use the seven years he had worked for free to get Rachel? Why did he have to work another seven years for her? And if we say Laban only required it because Jacob wanted to marry the younger daughter before the older was married, why did he have to work for Rachel after Leah was already married? Perhaps Laban originally intended to deceive Jacob and give him his oldest daughter (just as Rachel had warned Jacob immediately upon meeting him, as noted above), but he also knew that Jacob had a special divine providence watching over him as in his statement “I have observed the signs and God has blessed on account of you” (30:27). After seeing that Jacob was prepared to work seven years for Leah, he decided that Heaven was showing him that he should demand seven years of work for Rachel as well, so he asked for seven years of work for Rachel even after it was her turn to marry. It’s obviously hard to know exactly a swindler is thinking. I should add parenthetically that the explanation appearing in the continuation of Rabbenu Behayye’s comment, that Jacob’s parents thought he would immediately return when they sent for him, notwithstanding Rabbenu Behayye’s terseness clearly means that Rebecca had sent a messenger immediately upon his arrival at Laban’s house to inform him that the danger posed by Esau had evaporated and he could return home at once, in which case his entire twenty-two-year stay was against the wishes of his father and mother. I found as much in the Hiddushei Haggadot of the Maharsha (end of the first chapter of Megilla, 16b, s.v. gadol talmud Torah) who wrote: “Why was Jacob punished for those twenty-two years given that he left at their will and command, which means that ostensibly they forewent their honor? The author of the Imrei No’am answered in the name of the Ri of Paris that at the end of the fourteen-year stint in the house of Eber, Esau’s anger subsided and Rebecca sent her wetnurse Deborah after him to Laban’s house, but he stayed there for twenty-two years.” I checked the Imrei No’am, an anthology of medieval commentaries on the Torah reprinted in Jerusalem in 5730 (1970), for his exact phrasing and found the following: “R. Judah of Paris responded that by the end of the fourteen years during which Jacob served in the house of Eber Esau gave up hope of finding him, and afterward he arrived in Haran. When Rebecca found out that Esau’s anger had subsided she sent her wetnurse Deborah after him, as Rashi explained in Va-Yishlah on the phrase ‘Deborah died.’ It turns out that when Deborah came to Jacob he had only been at Laban’s house for a year but he did not want to return and was therefore punished for remaining there twenty-two years after his mother’s command.”[9] R. Judah explained at length what Rabbenu Behayye wrote concisely, “that he would return as soon as they sent for him.”[10] Taking R. Judah’s answer on its own (as it
is in fact cited in the Maharsha) proves quite difficult, for only Rebecca was told that Esau was looking to kill Jacob and so sent Jacob to Haran to deliver him from Esau’s hand (27:43-45), whereas Isaac was wholly unaware that Jacob was fleeing from Esau and his command to Isaac was to go to Bethuel’s house to marry one of Laban’s daughters. Even if one could argue that his mother’s command lapsed after his extended underground stay in the house of Eber, his father’s remained in force, so why would he punished for his absence from his parents’ house? We can resolve this by positing that the two answers complement each other. Rabbenu Behayye explains why honoring his father through the command to marry did not entail remaining in Haran because he was to marry Leah and return forthwith, and R. Judah clarifies why honoring his mother by fleeing from Esau also did not force him to remain in Haran because Esau’s anger had subsided. This is truly wonderful, thanks to God’s help.[11][12]

With this new understanding of verse 5 we can appreciate Leah’s words to Rachel anew, “is taking my husband not enough?” Leah is not referring to Rachel’s marriage to Jacob after having given her the secret code and helping her marry him, because Rachel would not have lost her right on account of that, as we mentioned above. Rather, Leah is referring to Rachel stealing Jacob’s heart at their first meeting, when Jacob the “firstborn” was not meant for her, Laban’s younger daughter, but for Laban’s older daughter. That was Leah’s contention against her sister. Yet, Leah could not have had any grievance against her sister about this, because Rachel had believed throughout her life that she was designated for Jacob, just as Leah herself mistakenly believed that she was to marry Esau and even weeped so much that her eyelashes fell out (Bava Batra 123a). Leah puts it to Rachel simply: “is it not enough to unwittingly take the man designated for me that now you want to knowingly take my son’s jasmine?” This resolves the difficult language of taking (qiha) used here, for the Torah more generally puts the man in the active role. It says “when a man takes (yiqah) a wife” and not “when a woman (tiqah) takes a husband,” as a wife is acquired by her husband and not a husband by his wife. It does not even write “when a wife is taken (tillaqah) by a man” (see Tosafot Ri Ha-Zaqen in the margins of the Vilna Talmud at Qiddushin 5b) because the man is the active one. If it were putting things as they seemingly should be put, Leah should have told her sister “is giving yourself to my husband not enough?” and not “is taking my husband not enough?” which would have blunted her conclusion “that you need to take my son’s jasmine too,” seeing as Rachel had not  taken anything at all. According to the new interpretation, however, the use of ‘taking’ here works out, because the attraction – witting or unwitting – generated by a woman to draw a man close is called “taking (qiha), as the sage cautioned his son about being ensnared by a wicked woman by saying “Do not covet her beauty in your heart, and do not let her take you (tiqahekha) by her eyes” (Prov 6:25). The development of a relationship between a man and woman is as follows: after the woman “takes” the man, so that she becomes desirable and he loves her,[13] the curse of Eve kicks in, “your desire will be to your husband and he will rule over you” (Gen 3:16), which was said to Eve after she had already “taken” her man (“your husband [ishekh]”). The next stage has the man marrying her as she becomes passive. We can perhaps include within this Rashi’s brief statement on this verse, “it is all from him and not from you,” which says that the husband takes a wife and not vice versa (see Qiddushin 5b-6a where even the betrothal formula “I am now your husband [hareni ishekh]” is unequivocally invalid, because it can be construed to mean that she stole his heart as a prelude to the transaction even though he was the active party in the transaction in giving the monies, and the same implication of attraction by the word ishekh is true in our verse as well). When Leah asks “is taking my husband not enough?” she is talking about the earlier stage in which Rachel actively attracted Jacob, by which she “took” Jacob when he was designated for Leah.

Let me conclude this devar Torah by adding that it is superfluous for a ben Torah who grew up in the yeshiva world, which brings this full circle to my introduction that the Torah is an elixir only when studied in the appropriate way, and if we study it any other way it transmogrifies into, God forbid, a poison. When we speak about our ancestors, and it goes without saying our patriarchs and matriarchs, and their emotions and behaviors, be they Jacob’s love for Rachel leading him to disobey his father or Rachel’s “taking” of Jacob, we are not speaking about feelings that normal people of our generations feel but about matters that are the secret of this world’s foundation and endurance, along the lines of my citation at the beginning of the piece of Reb Chatzkel’s quote from the Yalqut that “Laban had two daughters” means two who built an everlasting nation. It is possible that with Isaac’s trait of Fear (Pahad), he would consider together with what “they used to say at the crossroads”: such were the stipulations (between Rebecca and Laban according to the Matnot k’hunah, or from God implanting it in their natures according to the explanation of the Maharzu), the older [daughter] for the older [son] and the younger for the younger” (Bereshit Rabba 70:16 and Bava Batra 123a), whereas Jacob as man of Truth did not have to adopt what “everyone used to say” (Rashi on 29:17). On the contrary, given his trait of splendor, he chose Rachel and her patience over Leah. When we say that our matriarch Rachel “took” Jacob, we are simply expressing what Hazal taught us in Bereshit Rabba (17:7) that everything comes from one’s wife, in which case Jacob’s utter righteousness developed through her as well, causing Leah to complain to her sister that she had inspired Jacob’s service of God when it had been Leah’s right, and, as such, we are talking here about the sublimest matters.

[1]
It is well-known that it did not take long for Reb Chatzkel to detest America
and make aliyya to the Mirrer Yeshiva in Jerusalem, and after the passing of R.
Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler he moved to Bnei Brak to fill his post in Ponevezh
Yeshiva.

[2]
See Rashi on Yoma 9b, s.v. shenei re’im.

[3]
The Seforno apparently did take her
at her word.

[4]
Perhaps Rashi’s masoretic tradition had the etnahta
under ‘Jacob,’ and the latter part of the verse would be taking about his
arrival in Padan Aram and not his mission, which is why Rashi did not know what
the Torah intended. The Torah records that he eventually arrived in Haran after
spending several years in the tents of Eber as background for the later verse
in which Esau saw that Jacob had listened to his parents and went to Padan
Aram.

[5]
See Da’at Miqra, pp. 402-405, where
R. Yehuda Kiel of blessed memory presents the idea that Jacob’s love for Rachel
hovered in King Solomon’s mind as a template for love when writing Song of
Songs.

[6]
Parenthetically, I should explain the second part of R. Judah ben Bathayra’s
remark to R. Akiva in that baraita –
“if not, you are spreading lies about that righteous man” (in the Sifrei on the episode of the
wood-gatherer in Shelah, we do not
have this reading at all). He was telling R. Akiva that even if his colleagues
challenged the identification of Zelophehad and R. Akiva ended up agreeing, his
statement about Zelophehad would remain on record and the sin he would have to
answer for was baselessly suspecting a righteous person.

[7]
In Bereshit Rabba (50:3) a man named Rav-Sheqer (full of deceit) is
enumerated as one of the five chief justices of Sodom.

[8]
We must perforce deduce from Rabbenu Behayye’s words what later commentators
did (whom I will mention in footnote 12 below) that Jacob was punished for
violating the nuance of honoring one’s parents. Even though his father gave him
permission to choose, he should have specifically chosen the option that would
allow him to return home as soon as possible, i.e. Leah, and God is exacting
with those closest to him unto a hairsbreadth.

[9]
The Maharsha omitted what the Ri of Paris wrote — “It turns out that when
Deborah came to Jacob he had not even been at Laban’s house for a year” —
because it is in fact difficult to discern R. Judah’s intent. If I were not
afraid to do so I would suggest an emendation from ‘year’ to ‘month,’ as R.
Judah would be saying that Deborah arrived after Jacob had resided with Laban
for a month (29:14) and not more, i.e., before Jacob was obligated to work for
seven years and could still return without reneging on any sort of obligatory
arrangement with Laban.

[10]
What Ri of Paris cites from Rashi on Va-Yishlah
(which Rashi claimed to have learned from R. Moses the Darshan), that Deborah
was the messenger telling Jacob to return home, and upon which he bases the
idea that Deborah was sent as soon as Jacob arrived in Haran, is not
universally agreed upon. In Moshav
Zeqenim, another collection of Tosafist comments on the Bible, I found the
following on the verse “I will send and take you from there” (Gen 27:45): “It
is perplexing. We do not find that she [Rebecca] sent or who the messenger was.
It appears to me that God was the messenger as it says ‘God said to Jacob:
return to the land of your forefathers and your birthplace’ (31:3). See how
great the righteous are that God himself mobilizes on their account to do their
bidding, in fulfillment of the verse ‘he completes the counsel of his mal’akhim’ (Is 44:26).” But if the
command of God was Rebecca’s messenger, why do we find God speaking to Jacob
about returning to Israel only after staying at Laban’s house for twenty years
(31:41), after Joseph’s birth (30:25), after becoming wealthy (31:2-32:2), and
not immediately after his arrival in Haran.

[11]
Regarding the Maharsha who cited R. Judah of Paris without connecting his ideas
to Rabbenu Behayye, the question of Jacob’s necessary stay in Haran to marry
remains in force. An even more troubling aspect is the Maharsha’s mention of
Jacob’s departure at the will and command of his parents, whereas the answer
only relates to his mother’s desires. This requires serious investigation.

[12]
See the Ben Ish Hai’s Ben Yehoyada’
on Megilla (ad loc.) and the Keli Yaqar
at the beginning of Va-Yetze, who
answer the question of why Jacob was punished. They say that although Jacob’s
activities in Haran were worthwhile, he intention was not. In other words, God
was extremely exacting with Jacob. The Ben
Yehoyada’ writes that Jacob staying for six more years after finishing his
seven for Rachel created an opening for Satan to claim that the entire
twenty-two year stint in Haran was not a fulfillment of his parents’ mission
but of his own (and the entire punishment of his beloved son Joseph’s absence
was to quiet Satan). The Keli Yaqar
believes that Jacob did not just “go” to Haran as his father said “arise and go
towards Padan Aram” but he “left” Beersheba, meaning that he forgot about his
father’s house, and for that he was punished.

[13]
Through this “taking” she takes him as a prince and king over her (see
Maimonides, Hilkhot Ishut 15:20),
that is, she coronates him.

December is nearly here and that means that it is the height of Judaica Auction season. Following strong showings by Kestenbaum (Nov 13th), Greenstein (Nov. 24th), Kedem (Nov. 25th), the season reaches its culmination with an exceptionally rich offering of over 170 lots of Important Judaica by Sotheby’s New York. The auction will be held on December 4th, with public viewing, for four days only, from Sunday Nov. 30 through Wednesday, Dec 3.

Sotheby’s annual auction features an outstanding array of Hebrew books and manuscripts, important paintings, and ritual silver and metalwork. The sale is headlined by over 120 rare books and manuscripts, with over 80 lots drawn from a Distinguished Private Collection., carefully curated over the past four decades, and chronicling more than five centuries of Jewish culture. The auction offers a wide range of works with price points accessible to both new collectors as well as to those with more established collections. Including an important selection of Judaica Americana. The lots to be auctioned will be on public view in Sotheby’s York Avenue galleries (1334 York Ave.) from 30 November through 3 December, from 10:00am-5:00pm each day.

Among the highlights:

The Bologna Tehillim, (est. $70/90,000) the first part of the Hebrew Bible ever printed (accompanied with the perush of Radak.)

The Mahzor Le-Kol Ha-Shanah Ke-Minhag Ashkenaz; Sefer Tehilim (Ashkenazi Prayer Book For The Entire Year; Book Of Psalms—est. $550/750,000). This is the second work ever created by Aryeh Judah Leib Sofer ben Elhanan Katz, the scribe and artist of this outstanding mahzor, was influential in launching an artistic renaissance in the early decades of the 18th century, when Court Jews in Germany and Central Europe began to commission elaborately decorated Hebrew books as luxury items.

Seder Pirkei Shirah…Ve-Sefer Tehillim…Ve-Seder Tefilat Yom Kippur Katan (est. $750,000/1 million), by the scribe and artist Meshulam Zimmel ben Moses of Polna. Renowned for the accomplished delicacy of his line, Zimmel is especially skilled in his depiction of animals. The inspirational texts of this composition when joined with the unique talents of this accomplished scribe have combined to make this book one of the finest eighteenth-century decorated Hebrew manuscripts in existence.

A highlight of the Judaica Americana section is The Occident and American Jewish Advocate by Isaac Leeser (est. $150/250,000). The present lot is a complete run of Leeser’s periodical, The Occident, which ran from 1843-1869 and ultimately defined American Jewry and American Judaism for the 19th Century. It is arguably the single most important historical record of mid-19th century Jewish life in the Western Hemisphere. An entire run of The Occident has never before appeared at auction.

Perhaps the most unique piece of American Judaica offered in the current sale is a 1791 letter from Hyam Nathan of New York to Isaiah Isaacs of Richmond (est. $5/7,000) providing the only known record of the first visit of a Jewish emissary from the Holy Land to the United States. The visit of Rabbi Eleazar bar Joseph is unknown from any other source and this letter, including a derasha of Rabbi ben Joseph, illuminates an otherwise unknown episode in American Jewish history.

All lots may be viewed online in either e-catalog format or as a PDF of the printed catalog:

E-cat: http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/2014/important-judaica-n09239.html
PDF:  http://www.sothebys.com/pdf/2014/N09239/index.html

Queries may be directed to : david.wachtel@sothebys.com