Dedication to the Cause

Sefer Beraishis, as Rashi notes at the beginning of Chumash, is not just a storybook. The episodes recounted within the Pesukim in these Parshios are there for a reason—to teach us something that is applicable to our lives. Further, we understand that the Avos HaKedshim—and by extension the Imahos—were not regular people; they were not “just like us.” Keeping these two facts in mind, there is one section of this week’s Parsha that requires explanation.

We are told that after the births of Gad and Asher, which came about because Leah gave her Shifcha to Yaakov, Reuven went to the fields and found some “Dudaim,” and he gave the Dudaim to his mother Leah. Rochel saw the Dudaim and asked Leah if she could have some. Leah responds: “HaMiat Kachtech Es Ishi, ViLakacht Gam Es Dudaei Bini: Is it not enough that you took my husband, and now you would take my son’s Dudaim as well?” In response, Rochel offers Leah a trade: Yaakov would stay in Leah’s tent that evening instead of Rochel’s in return for some of the Dudaim. Leah accepts the trade and the Torah tells us that Yaakov indeed stayed with Leah that night and Yisachar was born as a result.

I think this is one of the least understood, and perhaps most often misunderstood, of the many stories involving our Avos. There are many questions that are asked, and the Meforshei HaChumash spend much time trying to explain the various details of the story. That said, there are three very basic questions that must be addressed at the outset:

First, when Leah says: “HaMiat Kachtech Es Ishi,” there is no response from Rochel, other than to suggest the “trade.” This itself is outstanding: Rochel was destined to marry Yaakov, and Leah to marry Eisav, and we know that only because of Rochel’s Chesed in giving her sister the signs was Leah able to marry Yaakov. This being the case, how could Rochel stand by and allow Leah to accuse her of “taking” Yaakov by marrying him second? This question is brought in the Sefer Meged Givos Olam in the name of R’ Yerucham Levovitz.

Second, on the most basic level, how do we understand this whole concept of the Imahos “trading” Yaakov’s time? The Ba’al Haturim says that Rochel was punished for giving up that night, and that is the reason that she wasn’t Zoche to be buried with Yaakov. But in truth the entire story seems so transactional, certainly the Imahos weren’t engaging in petty behavior, Chas V’Shalom. How can we understand these events?

Lastly, it seems from the Pesukim that Yisacher’s birth was a direct result of this story. We know that Shvet Yisachar were the Amud Hatorah in Klal Yisrael, as Moshe says in Zos HaBracha: “Simach Zevulan B’Tzesecha, V’Yisachar B’ohalecha.” Why was Yisachar, who represents the Lomdei Torah, specifically born as a result of the story surrounding the Dudaim? Surely there is meaning in this as well.

Based on these questions, perhaps we develop an understanding of why the Torah tells us this story—how we can apply its message to our lives.

I think that the entire story of the Dudaim is really a message about Emunah.

Rochel and Leah were sisters and they each realized that they had a very specific purpose in life: to establish the Shevtei Kah, who would be the forbearers of Klal Yisroel. This was their focus and could be ascertained in all they did. Their entire lives were given over to this most important Avodah, and their every action was intended to further this effort.

Because they were so sure of their purpose, and so strong in the belief that they were indeed destined to bring these important children into the world, they approached their mission with an unbelievable sense of Emunah—they understood that they were doing the Ratzon Hashem and that he would aid them in their efforts—and it is this Emunah that is displayed throughout the story of the Dudaim.

We would assume that when she heard the words “HaMiat Kachtech Es Ishi,” we may assume that Rochel didn’t react because of her Tziddkus—she was Mavir on her Middos and didn’t wish to react when someone criticized her, even falsely. R’ Yerucham explains that this is not the case. Rochel understood that she had one mission in life—Ribuy Kvod Shamayim to be brought about through the birth of the Shvatim—she knew that this was her mission and that Hashem would assist her in this work.

That being the case, she never once thought of Leah as having “stolen” her husband; that entire sequence of events was inconsequential. We should no think that Rochel thought twice about giving the Simanim to Leah. She lived in a world of Emunah—if she was meant to marry Yaakov that eventuality would come about in some other way. Because she never saw herself as the “rightful” wife of Yaakov, she had no reason to react when Leah seemed to accuse her of “stealing” Yaakov.

This can also help us understand another aspect of the story. In some way the Dudaim enabled a woman to become pregnant. This being the case, if Yaakov was going to be with Leah that night, what was Rochel’s purpose in having the Dudaim? Why take the Dudaim only to give up Yaakov? I think the answer is that Rochel understood that the Dudaim would work a different night as well—if she was meant to become pregnant based on the affects of these Dudaim, that could happen at any time—so in giving up that specific night she was not yielding the affect of the Dudaim. In fact, the Passuk seems to indicate that Yosef was born not long after this story—it is certainly possible that the Dudaim in some way affected this. In any case, we once again see Rochel’s single minded focus on her mission—and a manifestation of the sincere belief that Hashem would enable her to fulfill this Tafkid.

This idea also helps us understand why the Imahos seemed to be behaving in such a transactional, and unemotional manner. Leah too understood her mission in life and approached it with an unmitigated fervor. The Miforshim in a number of place throughout the story of the Dudaim point out Diyukim in the Pesukim that show us that was Leah in no way concerned with her own Kavod—she was trying only to fulfill her Tafkid of being Mamid Shevatim.

For example, the Pasuk says that when Yaakov returned from the field that day “VaTeitzei Leah Likraso: and Leah went to greet him.” The Ohr HaChaim Hakadosh points out that while this may not have been seen as the most appropriate action—going outside her tent to discuss this private matter with Yaakov Avinu—her intentions were nothing less than pure. Leah was concerned that Yaakov would have gone to Rochel’s tent—that was his usual course—and it would have then been embarrassing for Rochel if, upon learning that he was to go to her sister’s tent—he left her tent to go to Leah’s. In order to spare Rochel this embarrassment, Leah took the extra step of going outside—even though this may regularly have been a breach of her high level of Tznius.

The Ohr HaChaim calls this “Midah Tova VaChasidah” and then adds: “V’chol Magamasa Shel Osah Tzadekes Lihamid Nitei Ne’eman: And the only desire of this Tzadekes was to establish worthy children.” Leah had a single focus and every aspect of this story must be viewed in that light. While we may look at her actions and them as non-emotional and unsentimental, in fact she was wholly committed to her mission and had committed her heart and soul to its completion.

This is also reflected in the name of Yisachar—the child that was born immediately following the episode with the Dudaim. The Passuk says that Leah named her son Yisachaer from the words Sechar, declaring: “Nassan Elokim Sechari: Hashem gave me my reward,” referring to the fact that she gave her Shifcha to Yaakov. But the Rashbam points out that the name Yisachar is spelled with an extra “Sin” and explains that the extra Sin refers to the fact that Leah “paid” for this child with the Dudaim.

One may ask: why would Leah have alluded to this story—which seems to the casual observer to be a less than lofty exchange between two sisters—in naming her son? But with our understanding of this story—that it is an illustration of the dedication Leah and Rochel had to their goal of establishing the Shevatim, and the Ribuy Kvod Shamayim that would come from that—we can see why this would be something Leah would want to reflect in her son’s name.

Keeping all this in mind, another question may be asked: why did they resort to the Dudaim in the first place? If Rochel and Leah truly believed that their role was to bring the Shevatim into the world, and they had such a high level of Emunah, believing that Hashem would give them the opportunity to fulfill this Tafkid, why did they need the Dudaim, which in some way served to aid them in becoming pregnant? This would, on some level, seem like a declaration that they felt a need to assist the process—a thought that runs counter to the absolute Emunah that we described above.

To understand this, we can turn to a comment the Seforno makes on the Passuk that speaks of Yisachar’s birth. The Passuk there begins: “Vayishma Elokim el Leah: And Hashem heard to Leah.” No where do we see Leah asking for anything though, so why does the Passuk say that Hashem heard her, and she became pregnant as a result? The Seforno explains that really Leah Davened for the additional child, as was befitting, but she sought to bring to her Tefillos an added level of Hishtadlus, and that was the purpose of the Dudaim. Of course Leah had the Emunah, but she understood that Tefillah is part of her job—an integral portion of her Emunah—and that without an action of Hishtadlus, her Teffilos would not bear the same weight.

Taking all this into account, perhaps we can draw a lesson for ourselves from the very fact that Yisachar was born specifically as a result of the story of the Dudauim.

We sometimes wonder how we can reach additional levels of growth in our own Limud HaTorah. We certainly think about how we can ensure that our own children reach their full potential and become Talmidei Chachamim. Maybe the fact that Yisachar, the Amud HaTorah, came from this story holds some level of instruction. The Dudaim, and the entire exchange that surrounded them, are a symbol of the dedication, Emunah and Tefillah that the Imahos poured into their quest to create the Shivtei Kah.

Perhaps we, on our own levels, can seek to emulate the Imahos. If we can apply similar levels of devotion to the task of raising Banim Talmidei Chachamim; if we are truly Maamin that this is one of our Tafkidim and that Hashem will ensure that we reach this goal; and most importantly if all our Hishtadlus is accompanied by sincere Tefillah, we can each be Zoche to raise our own children to lead lives of “Yisachar B’ohalecha”