Vayeitzei Haters

As Yaakov reached Charan, he encounters Rochel Immenu at the Be’er. The Torah tells us that they had a conversation after which Rochel ran to fetch here father, Lavan. Thus we are introduced to Rochel, so to speak, as a through her interaction with Yaakov Avinu. The same, however, is not true of her sister, Leah. We hear about Leah only later, when the Torah mentions that Lavan had two daughters: “U’LiLavan Shtei Banos Shem HaGedolah Leah V’Shem HaKettana Rochel.” Considering that Leah was the mother of most of the Shevatim, and almost certainly our actual forebearer, the way the Torah describes her, throughout the Parsha, is certainly of note.

The next Passuk tells us a little more about the two sisters: “V’Einei Leah Rachos V’Rochel Haysa Yefas Toar V’Yefas Mareh.” The Torah chooses to describe these two Imahos in terms of their physical attributes, telling us that the eyes of Leah were “soft”, and Rochel was very physically attractive.

There are a few questions which arise in understanding this Passuk on the most simple level.

First, why does the Torah resort to a physical description of the two sisters, rather than speaking about their character. When we are told about Yaakov and Eisav the Torah tells us about their essence: Yaakov was an “Ish Tam Yoshev Ohalim” while Esav was an “Ish Yodeah Tzaid Ish Sadeh.” Certainly the Imahos, the mothers of the Shivtei Kah, had qualities which set them apart—why not mention them?

The actual description given is also difficult to understand. We know what Yefas Toar V’Yefas Mareh means—clearly Rochel was quite beautiful—but what does “V’Einei Leah Rachos” mean? Is this a complimentary term or is the Torah contrasting Leah’s appearance with Rochel’s abject beauty? If “soft eyes” are not a positive attribute, we must of course understand why the Torah chose to point this out, and Leah’s appearance is being complimented, why does the Torah seem to be contrasting Lean and Rochel?

As always, in order to fully understand the Passuk, we must rely on the Divrei Chazal as presented by the Meforshim.

Rashi paraphrases a Gemarah in Bava Basra which explains why Leah’s eyes had this appearance: Rav says that everyone knew that Rivka had two sons and Lavan two daughters, and it was assumed that the older son, Esav, would marry the older daughter, Leah, and the two younger siblings would be wed as well. Once Leah found out what about Esav’s actions, and his character, she was gripped by dread, crying at her lot to the point that her eyes were soft, and her eyelashes fell out.

This approach to the words “V’Einei Leah Rachos” is well-known, but it is important to note that it is not the only Pshat in the Passuk. The Daas Zekenim, for example, notes that soft eyes are the mark of youth and can be considered quite attractive—one does not have to assume that the Torah was pointing to a negative attribute of Leah to explain these words. The Rivash offers an even more novel approach: Leah was just as beautiful as Rochel, but the shape of her eyes made it difficult for her to walk in the wind, and so Rochel was the one sent out with the flocks, even though she was younger.

Why then does Rashi choose the Pshat of the Gemarah in Bava Basra, that Leah’s eyes were affected by her tears, and not one of the more complimentary Pshatim offered by others? Although Rashi will generally favor a Pshat that is brought in the Bavli over others, this is not even the only opinion in the Gemarah there—R’ Elazar explains the words differently than Rav. Why then does Rashi subsume this approach in his Pirush?

It would seem that Rashi chose the words of Rav because they answer most of our original questions on the Passuk. Indeed, the words “V’Einei Leah Rachos” describe an attribute of Leah that was perhaps less than attractive, but the Torah tells us this L’Shvach, as a compliment. So intense was Leah’s sadness at the prospect of being matched with Esav that her tears were unceasing, to the point that they permanently affected her physical appearance. At least in the case of Leah, the Torah was not relating a mere physical description, but telling us of her character, as exemplified by this story.

That said, there is an important question that must be asked.

In next week’s Parsha, the Torah tells us that Yaakov went with his wives and eleven sons to greet Esav upon their return to Eretz Yisroel. The Medrash Rabba asks: “V’Dinah Heichan Hi? Nasna B’Teiva V’Naal Bifaneha.” Dina is not mentioned in the Passuk, say Chazal, because Yaakov hid her in a box, so that Esav would not see her and chose to take her as a wife. The Medrash there continues, explaining that the story of Dina and Shechem was a punishment for this—because Yaakov was, in a sense, over-protective of Dina, she ended up in the situation she did.

This is a difficult Medrash to understand—how could Yaakov Avinu have been punished for not wanting Dina to marry Esav, the consummate Rasha? There is a Tanchuma, however, that seems to suggest that the Yaakov was held responsible for preventing an opportunity for Dina to have affected Esav positively. Perhaps if they had married, Dina would have been able to steer Esav from his path, and brought him to the Derech Hashem? It was for this minor lack of confidence or foresight that Yaakov was punished, so to speak.

This being the case, why were the “Enayim Rachos”, as Rav explains them. a praise of Leah? Even if Leah believed that ultimately she would be given to Esav, why did she not accept this as her fate and take it upon herself to try and improve him? Is there not the same “Tayna” on Leah that there was on Yaakov? It would seem that the affect her tears had on Leah’s eyes were perhaps less than complimentary?

Perhaps we can find the answer to this question in a Passuk that appears later in the Parsha, that is also addressed by the Gemarah in Bava Basra.

After Yaakov marries Leah and, shortly thereafter, Rochel, the Torah begins to tell us of the birth of the Shevatim. The Passuk says: “Vayar Hashem Ki Senuah Leah Vayiftach Es Rachma.” The literal translation of these words is quite jarring: Hashem saw that Leah was hated, and he opened her womb, allowing her to have children. Those Meforshim who follow the Derech HaPshat have no choice but to explain that Yaakov hated Leah. Most assume that this hatred was tied to the way that they ended up married, but this is still quite difficult to bear. Did Yaakov in fact hate his own wife, to the point that Hakadosh Baruch Hu allowed only her, and not Rochel, to bear children so that Leah would find favor?

The Gemarah in Bava Basra itself addresses this question, from a slightly different perspective. As it had earlier, when discussing the words “V’Einei Leah Rachos”, the Gemarah assumes that the Torah never speaks negatively—as indicated that non-Kosher animals are referred to as “Ainenu Tehorim” rather than “Temeim”—and so, even if she was hated, the Torah would not mention it. Rather, the Gemarah explains, the Torah is referring to Leah’s own state of mind: “Ra’ah Hakadosh Baruch Hu SheSenuin Maaseh Esav B’Fananeha VaYiftach Es Rachma”. Hashem saw that the deeds of Esav were “Sanuah”, that Leah hated the actions of her wayward cousin, and it was because of this that she was given children.

How are we to understand this Passuk. How does Leah’s hatred of the Maaseh Esav relate to the birth of the Shevatim? Did Rochel not dispise Esav? Did she not understand what he represented? What is the Torah teaching us by mentioning the hatred of Leah?

The truth is that the words “Ki Senuah Leah” are themselves questionable. If the Torah meant that Leah hated Esav, why not write that? Why does the Torah write it in a way that can by misconstrued as understanding that Leah was herself hated? Perhaps the answer is that the Torah is not just telling us how Leah felt—it is telling us who she was. Leah was a Senuah, one who hated. Her Sinah for the actions of Esav was not just another part of her character—it defined her, and was the Zechus that led to her bearing Shevatim.

If this is the case we must of course understand what is meant by this term. What is Sinah, and how did Leah’s Sinah for Esav manifest itself? Perhaps we can explain the Sinah of Leah by examining two aspects of this Middah, which is generally seen as a Middah Ra’ah.

Chazal, in a numerous places, use a terminology to express the destructive nature of hatred: “Sinah Mikalkeles Es HaShura” Looely translated, this means that Sinah destroys the natural order of things. This idea can be best illustrated with an example we are familiar with.

The Torah tells us that Pharoah sent messengers to do a study after Makas Dever, and they discovered that not one animal belonging to a Jew was killed in the Makah. The Passuk concludes: “Vayichbad Lev Pharoah V’Lo Shilach Es Ha’Am.” The Meforshei Hachumash explain that the Torah is telling us that although Pharaoh should have been affected by this Nes, he was not and so Bnei Yisroel were not sent free.

R’ Yerucham Levovitz, however, explains that the Passuk can be read differently: the first half was the cause of the second half. When Pharaoh saw that a Nes had occurred, and not one Jewish animal had perished, this caused him to harden his heart and not free Bnei Yisroel. This, explains R’ Yerucham, is a prime example of “Sinah Mikalkeles Es HaShura”. When someone has such a deep and pervasive hatred for something, he acts totally irrational. There is nothing that can be done to steer him from his path—even an open Nes will deepen the Sinah rather than allowing the hater to see the light.

This is one aspect of Sinah: it causes one to act irrationally.

Another aspect can be learned from a particularly destructive case of Sinah. About the Shevatim and Yosef Hatzaddik, the Passuk tells us “Vayisnu Oso V’Lo Yachlu Dabru L’Shalom.” The Malbim explains that the Shevatim so hated Yosef, that they could not bear the fact that he spoke to them. This is because, generally, one can cause Sinah to be abated through interaction. One can appease his enemy through speech, and common ground can be found through discussion. Thus, the Shevatim, who saw Yosef as such a destructive force, did not wish even to speak with him, lest their hatred be diminished.

When it came to the Maaseh Esav, Leah was a Senuah—she was filled with hatred. She therefore could not entertain the idea of being married to him, and therefore affecting him positively, because of these two characteristics of this Middah. The total hatred that Leach had for Esav prevented her from any sort of rationalization—there was no reality in which she could imagine being associated with him, because Sinah Mikalkeles Es HaShura. Further, she did not wish even to interact with him, lest this hatred be diminished in any way through speech. Indeed the Torah speaks the highest praise with the words “V’Einei Leah Rachos”, for this signifies the total Sinah felt by Leah towards Esav.

We see, then, that Leah’s defining characteristic was that she had absolute Sinah for the Maaseh Esav, and it was this Middah that primed her for motherhood of the Shevatim. When Hashem saw “Ki Senuah Leah”, that she was in fact so complete in her hatred of Esav, “Vayiftach Es Rachma”, he opened her womb, so that she could infuse the Shevatim with this Middah.

We are the beneficiaries of this birthright. In each of us is the influence of Leah Immenu. She put into us a Sinah for the Maaseh Esav that is so complete that we should shudder at the thought of any interaction with his offspring. As we go though life it is our task to revive this hated, to avoid blending with the children of Esav, or emulating his Maasim, so that we may be a proud source of Nachas to Mama Leah