פרק ל' פסוק א' Vayetze I'll say. ותרא רחל כי לא ילדה ליעקב ותקנא רחל באחותה ותאמר אל יעקב הבה לי בנים ואם אין מתה אנכי.
Ramban. Hava li banim, אמרו המפרשים שתתפלל עלי. ואם אין מתה אנכי. Lashon Rashi שמי שאין לו בנים חשוב כמת v'hu midrash raboseinu. So then seemingly the pshat in the pasuk is that Rachel Imeinu is requesting that Yaakov daven on her behalf because she's saying that the situation, the current situation, is that I'm k'meis which is a correct comparison. V'ani tameh, says the Ramban, אם כן למה חרה אפו? ולמה אמר התחת אלקים אנכי? ושומע אל צדיקים ה'.
And Rachel's request that Yaakov should daven on her behalf was an appropriate request. ומה שאמר אבא לא היו לו בנים, אני יש לי בנים, ממך מנע ממני לא מנע,
how in the world does one make sense of that? וכי הצדיקים אינם מתפללים בעד אחרים? והנה אליהו ואלישע התפללו בעד נשים נכריות. ונראה שבשביל זה תפסוהו רבותינו.
That's why Chazal take fault with Yaakov Avinu. Amru b'Bereishis Rabbah, אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא כך עונין את המעיקות? Is that how you answer those who are b'tzaar? חייך שבניך עתידים לעמוד לפני בניה. V'al derech hapshat אמרה רחל ליעקב שיתן לה בנים. U'v'emes, דעתה לומר שיתפלל עליה עד שיתן לה בנים על כל פנים.
He shouldn't, he shouldn't relent in his t'fillah until it's answered. ואם אין מתה אנכי, not meta anochi if the t'fillah is not answered I'm chashuva k'meis, ואם אין מתה אנכי shetamis atzma b'tzaar. So let's hold off for a minute on translating those three words of shetamis atzma b'tzaar. Now according to this havana, דבר שלא כהוגן בקנאתה. According to this understanding the Ramban says so we we do understand how Rachel Imeinu spoke inappropriately. She basically laid down the gauntlet as it were: וחשבה כי באהבתה אותה יתענה יעקב וילבש שק ואפר ויתפלל עד שיהיו לה בנים שלא תמות בצערה.
So it's clear the way the Ramban says it originally you wonder I mean can it possibly mean what Rachel Imeinu was threatening suicide Rachmana litzlan? Shetamis atzma b'tzaar. So that couldn't have been what what it meant even if we didn't have the hemshech haramban. But to make it easier for us so we do have the hemshech, it's quite clear that what she's saying is that she's telling him I'm not going to deal with the tzaar, I won't be able to deal with the tzaar and the tzaar will kill me, meaning my my inability to come to terms with with the infertility, I'll die from that. I'm not going to, don't think that that even if I don't have children that eichshehu I'm going to be misgabeir, I'm telling you that I'm not going to be misgabeir. And it's clear that that's a, it's clear in svara that's what it has to mean but b, it's also reinforced that what when the Ramban says it again he said that ויתפלל עד שיהיו לה בנים שלא תמות בצערה. but shelo tamus batzara. Not not שלא תמות עצמה בצרה but shelo tamus batzara and it's clear that that's, that's what it means initially also. But אף על פי כן, it's a type of ultimatum as it were, meaning, don't think that there's a third possibility which is that I'll be misgaber, that I'll deal with it, I'm not gonna be misgaber. And the tza'ar is so great it will kill me unless you, through your tefilla, through your intercession, see to it that that I'm blessed with children. That's why vayichar af Yaakov, שאין תפילת הצדיקים בידם שתשמע ותענה על כל פנים. You know people sometimes like to quote that צדיק גוזר והקדוש ברוך הוא מקיים. So whatever that does mean, it doesn't mean what people think it means when they when they quote it. Ribbono shel Olam owns the world and and the if for some reason the ratzon Hashem is implacably one way because that's the way it's supposed to be, so it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter who the tzadik is, Yaakov Avinu is the bechir ha'avos. It doesn't matter who the who the tzadik is who's davening. Sometimes for for reasons that that we may or may not understand, something is the right thing and that's why the ratzon Hashem is that it has to be that way, and it's not the case that, oh if only you know, if only only the tzadik will will give us a bracha, if only the tzadik will say, then it has to happen. Nothing has to happen, there's no has to happen vis-a-vis Hakadosh Baruch Hu. That's what the Ramban is saying, שאין תפילת הצדיקים בידם שתשמע ותענה על כל פנים. There's no such thing as as even even tzadikim being able to automatically ensure results, being able to automatically ensure that the tfillah will be accepted. ובעבור שדיבר דרך געגועי הנשים האהובות להפחידו במיתתה, chara apo. So that strategy to frighten him with the prospect of her death as though if only he would be frightened, then he could ensure or guarantee results, so that's what what what angered Yaakov Avinu. ולכך אמר לה שאינו במקום אלקים שיפקוד העקרות על כל פנים.
He can daven, he can daven, he can daven and the bottom line is that's that's all he can do. And the biggest tzadik in the world, the bechir ha'avos, cannot guarantee cannot guarantee that a tfillah will be answered. Ve'einenu choshesh badavar, why did Yaakov Avinu, why is he, what's that השמנע ממך ממך ולא ממני? ואיננו חושש בדבר כי ממנו נמנע פרי הבטן ולא ממנו,
why does he say that? וזה לייסר אותה ולהכלימה. You know there there are rachmana litzlan, there are times in life when a person finds himself in extremely trying circumstances. no one would question the reality or the formidability of the person's suffering as the case may be, or the person's nisyonos as the case may be, but it doesn't relieve a person of complying with basic standards in all areas, whether emuna, whether midos, dikduk bamitzvos. Yaakov Avinu is not, again according to the Maharal that the Ramban is presenting here, he's not insensitive, he's certainly not devaluating or invalidating Rachel's suffering, but אף על פי כן אף על פי כן a person has to measure up to whatever the challenge at hand is, no matter how real and how difficult and how formidable. והנה הצדקת בראותה שלא תוכל להסמך על תפלת יעקב שבה להתפלל על עצמה אל שומע צעקה וזהו וישמע אליה אלקים.
So these three lines in the Ramban are, all the lines in the Ramban are extraordinary, but maybe here we can a little bit appreciate that. At the beginning of Sefer Shmuel, וחנה מרת נפש ותתפלל על ה' ותאמר, and we know that that tefilla is answered. אלקי ישראל יתן את שלתך, the tefilla is answered. What happened? So the Rav explained ha'alfei bafela. What preceded Chana's tefilla is their going up to Shilo, Pnina with all her children, her whole brood, and Chana childless. And Elkana gives her the mana achas apayim, the double portion, but Chana's crying. So he says to her, חנה למה תבכי ולמה ירע לבבך הלוא אנכי טוב לך מעשרה בנים.
After that, so then the Navi tells us, וחנה מרת נפש ותתפלל על ה' ותאמר. So says the Rav, as great as Chana's suffering had been, she had a little bit of consolation. She thought that at least her husband, who was devoted to her, could at least empathize and at least understand. Then she sees, he says to her, חנה למה למה תבכי למה ירע לבבך, she sees that he's clueless. He doesn't begin to understand what the suffering is of being childless. She realizes at that point that she has no one in the world, nothing in the world except without tefillah all the years. But now when she realizes that there's no one else in the world, that there's nothing else in the world, so that's when she davens the tefillas Chana as we have it and that's when she's answered. There's a very very beautiful story, a true story. Some stories are beautiful even if they're not true but this is a beautiful story that is true. In the Ukraine in the 19th century, Reb Dovid Tolna was known as a big poel yeshuos. People used to come to him and they would see yeshuos. So the story is that one of his brothers who was also a Rebbe, Reb Yochanan Rachmistrivka asked him bameh kochacha hagadol? How do you do it? People come to me also and I daven for them and I'm mechaven all the kavanos and do everything possible and I'm not able to obtain those results. How do you do it? So his brother answers him, Reb Dovid Tolna answers him, they come to you he says, so right away you embrace them, you greet them with such warmth and you embrace them so lovingly and you give chizuk and you tell them truthfully yes you're going to daven on their behalf. He says they come to me he says first of all they have to wait for four months before they're let in to have an audience. During those four months they're sleeping on the hard bench at night in the cold beis medrash, there's no coals not not burning. He says finally after four months when it's their turn so the gabbai tells him it's going to be your turn now but you have only two minutes with the Rebbe and you should know don't you dare overstay by as much as a second, two minutes and that's it. At this point the guy is so terrified, he says when he gets in he says it takes him a minute to compose himself. He begins to eichshehu present his bakasha and the gabbai opens the door and yells 30 seconds mechutz, 30 seconds and then out. On his way out he says I say something to him which is very very ambiguous. Did I give him a brocha? Didn't I give him a brocha? He leaves my room, he's devastated, totally tzubrochen. He leaves my room, he goes out and he gives a krechts, he gives a sigh and he says this is the one who was supposed to be the poel yeshuos? This was supposed to be my yeshua? This was the last hope and he gives a krechts and he says Ribono Shel Olam, I have no one to turn to, I have no one to rely upon other than You. And Reb Dovid says in shamayim they're waiting for that krechts. That's what this Ramban says וראתה כי לא תוכל להישען על תפלת יעקב. All the time that Rachel Imeinu - was Rachel not davening? Of course she was davening. Avada Rachel was davening. But all the time that Rachel thought that Yakov's tefillah could be poyal, she wasn't davening totally. She wasn't invested a thousand percent lev vonefesh in the tefillah. However וראתה כי לא תוכל להישען על תפלת יעקב, she gave the krechts so then שבה להתפלל על עצמה. Exactly what the Rav says about tefillas Chana. Exactly that story שבה להתפלל על עצמה וזהו וישמע אליה אלקים. And that's what Hakadosh Baruch Hu's waiting for. When a person davens, a person has to daven again that that... 1,000 percent that אין לנו על מי להישען אלא אבינו שבשמים. We're not relying on each other, we're not relying, when a person davens, אין לו להסמך על תפילת יחיד. And then, then the tefilla somehow hits home. They tell a story in one of the, one of the volumes from a Pinkas that was published posthumously. I think he had someone who also, rachmana litzlan, was childless. So they say that Rav Pinkas, again, for years trying, davening, whatever hishtadlus could be made, davening. So then Rav Pinkas picks him up. It's maybe 1:00 in the morning, 1:00 in the morning, goes out to some forlorn abandoned place, drops him off, tells him to daven, and he drives away. Comes back a while later, doesn't see enough tears, doesn't see that his face is, has the traces of enough tears. And again, he leaves him there and says I'm going away. He was trying to engender within that person that sense of giving the koach to the Ribbono Shel Olam, that there is no one else, there is nothing else for me to be, for me to be turning to. Obviously that doesn't mean to the exclusion of any hishtadlus that a person is supposed to be making, but what it means is that when a person davens, that's the, that's the mindset. Not the attitude, not chas veshalom to the exclusion of any hishtadlus that a person is supposed to be making in, in whatever the area is. ואולי נשקול על דעת רבותינו, maybe the pshat in, in the way Chazal understood the pasuk, the difficulty which the Ramban had raised with it is, so Rachel imenu asks Yaakov to daven. She says because right now I'm chashuva kemes. So why is Yaakov angry with her? So according to Chazal, it must be what Chazal understand is the following. כי יעקב כבר התפלל על אשתו האהובה כי עקרה היא אלא שלא נתקבלה תפילתו.
It's not that Rachel is now asking him that he for the first time should daven for her. No, obviously he's been davening all along for her. But his tefilla wasn't accepted. ובאה עתה רחל התעוררה עליו לומר שיתן לה בנים על כל פנים בתפילתו כי לא נופל הוא מאביו שעשה כן.
In which case, so Rachel's, what Rachel is saying is not a request to first daven, but is a demand that he ensure the results, but is a demand that he attain those results. So that's why ויחר אף יעקב ויאמר לה כי הדבר ביד אלקים ולא בידי.
That's why Yaakov Avinu pushes back as he does. ועוד נשמעה תפילתו שהוא צדיק ועתיד להיות לו זרע אבל היא נמנעה ממנה פרי בטן. ונכון הוא.
That's the correct pshat in, in what Chazal mean. Let's perhaps take a look here in פרק ל פסוק ט. ותרא לאה כי עמדה מלדת ותקח את זלפה שפחתה ותתן אתה ליעקב לאשה.
Lo yadati, says the Ramban, מה המעשה הזה ללאה ולמה נתנה שפחתה לבעלה והיא לא היתה עקרה שתיבנה ממנה ואין דרך הנשים להרבות נשים לבעליהן.
Nicha, so Rachel gives Bilhah to Yaakov, ואיבנה גם אנכי ממנה. But Leah's already through Reuven, Shimon, Levi, Yehudah, v'al arban bona, as it says, so what's? What's? Why is Leah giving Zilpah? אבל נצרך לומר כי היו נביאות יודעות כי היו נביאות ואימהות היו נביאות
and as such, yodas, they knew שעתיד יעקב להעמיד י"ב שבטים. ורצתה שיהיו לו רוב הבנים ממנה או משפחתה שהיא ברשותה.
So again, at this point Leah has four of the of what she knows binvua will be twelve. So she wants that either she should be the mother or at least or at least vicariously through her shifcha that rov habanim should be mimena. ולא תתגבר אחותה עליה בבנים. לכך אמר נתן אלהים שכרי אשר נתתי שפחתי לאישי.
So what does this mean? There's a sibling rivalry here between between Leah has vis-a-vis Rachel? There's a very very important yesod in learning Chumash. Let's say later in Parshas Vayeishev. So the Torah records that the Shivtei Kah hated Yosef. וישנאו אתו ולא יכלו דברו לשלום. So how is it possible that the that the Shivtei Kah were guilty of such base emotions as kina and sinah? It's inconceivable. M'idach gisa, it's a pasuk, and אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו. So how do we how do we learn Chumash? משל למה הדבר דומה. Let's say ich veis you're learning, I don't know, let's say you're learning Yerushalmi Shevi'is this year. Learning a Yerushalmi. And you come across a Yerushalmi and you don't have pshat. So you'll go over to Rav Schechter in the Beis Medrash with your Yerushalmi and you'll ask what's pshat? And he'll say, staka shver Yerushalmi. I don't know. I don't know. Okay, then you'll try again. You'll go up to a P1A class with your Yerushalmi and you'll ask one of the kids in P1A what's pshat? And he'll also say, I don't know. So they both said the exact same words: I don't know. Verbatim response. You got the identical response. What's pshat? So Rav Schechter is telling you, yeah, it contradicts another Yerushalmi later, it's against the Bavli here, it's against so much we assume. I don't know the Yerushalmi. The P1A kid is telling you, you know, well we're only up to Hey in the Aleph-Bais. There's a lot of a lot of funny shapes here, but they're not א' ב' ג' ד' ה', so I don't know. I don't know what this means. The same words, it's not an okimta, adaraba, what words mean need to be seen and understood in context. Did the brothers hate Yosef? Absolutely. Absolutely. V'yikan'u oso. V'yisnu oso. It's m'foresh in the Chumash. Does, in our mashal, did Rav Shechter know a pshat in Yerushalmi? No, he told you he didn't know pshat. He said, I don't know. Does that mean that vayasnu ouso of the brothers means the same thing that it means to us when we think of ourselves being guilty of hating someone? Absolutely not. No more than in the mashal of the two I don't know responses meant the same thing. I was once talking about this and I gave that mashal and someone came over later and told me a story that he had heard from the son-in-law of Rav Hirschsprung. Rav Hirschsprung was the in his youth had been the bochan in Meir Shapiro's Yeshiva Chachmei Lublin and then in North America was the Chief Rabbi of Montreal and was a very very very big baki. So his son-in-law told the following story: that an avreich once came over to Rav Hirschsprung and asked him a kasha, I think a kasha on Tosfos. And Rav Hirschsprung said, I don't know. And then the guy walked away and you could see he was feeling very good about himself, you know, his kasha stumped Rav Hirschsprung. So Rav Hirschsprung turned to his son-in-law and said, he thinks that his I don't know and my I don't know are the same. So did the Shivtei Kah hate Yosef? Yes. Is their hatred what it means to us to hate? Absolutely not. What does it mean? I don't know. I don't think we have any musag. But then what do you do with Chumash? So the teretz is that we're supposed to learn pshat, but recognizing that we're understanding pshat of what this means on our level without knowing, without penetrating to what it actually meant on the level of the Avos. How do we know we're supposed to do that? Maybe we should just say we don't understand these pesukim in Chumash. No, because you see Chazal did that. Chazal said, Gemara in Shabbos for instance says, right, so the pasuk says that יעקב אהב את יוסף מכל בניו כי בן זקונים הוא לו ועשה לו כתנת פסים.
That Yaakov Avinu of all the brothers loved Yosef the most. How's the lashon of the pasuk go? וישראל אהב את יוסף מכל בניו כי בן זקונים הוא לו ועשה לו כתנת פסים.
So did Yaakov love Yosef more than the other brothers? Yes. Does that mean that Yaakov Avinu was guilty of violating rule number one of parenthood which is don't play favorites, and even if one child temperamentally is more like you than other children or one child is more accomplished, for whatever reason you have to love all your children equally and you cannot show any favoritism. Does that mean that Yaakov Avinu didn't understand rule A of parenting that we all understand? Of course it doesn't mean that. What does it mean? I don't know. But אף על פי כן Chazal say, the Gemara in Shabbos says on that pasuk that אל ישנה אדם בין בניו. Chazal say, no, you learn from this pasuk that parents should not play favorites. But again, what playing favorites means for us, again on a very very low crude level, this child is an easier child, doesn't give the parents any tzaras, this child is more temperamentally like the parent so it's easier for the parents to understand the child and get along with that child. So Chazal are telling us on that very simple level, on the level in which it relates to us and in which it resonates with us, and they're deriving it from the pesukim, again that's obviously not what was going on with Yaakov Avinu. So the point is that when the Torah describes something like this. So I don't know, maybe, maybe when Rabbi Akiva learned these pesukim, so maybe Rabbi Akiva really understood what what it means that that they had kina and sinah. Maybe Rabbi Akiva really understood, I don't know. We clearly don't understand, so but A, we have to recognize that we don't actually understand, but B, אף על פי כן we're still supposed to understand what that means on our level. Because Torah wasn't given only for Rabbi Akiva, though the Chumash was also supposed to be mastered by us, we're all supposed to be learning Chumash. So the Torah is intended to be understood on our level as well. Chiddushei Harim says, Chiddushei Harim as a preface to in Parshas Chukas to discussing what Moshe Rabbeinu's cheit is. So he'll say, isn't this the ultimate chutzpah? He says, for me sitting here to see sitting in judgment on Moshe Rabbeinu the bechir hamin enoshi פה אל פה אדבר בו ומראה ולא בחידות ומדוע לא יראתם לדבר בעבדי במשה.
So the Chiddushei Harim says, but it's a pasuk in Chumash, it's a pasuk in Chumash, so it means that we're supposed to learn from the pasuk in Chumash. So I'm saying what the cheit was on our level, on the level in which in which we can understand it. Do we think that that corresponds to historically what was? No. Does the pasuk also have a historical meaning? Absolutely yes. I don't know, maybe, maybe some of the greatest chachmei hador of the generations do understand on that level as well. But the point is that it means something on a lower level as well. Same thing here, is this what what does it mean that Leah... I want the majority of the twelve should be from me, they shouldn't be from Rachel? What does that mean? I don't know what it means in terms of what it meant for Leah. I don't know that we can be massig. But lichora we can and we're supposed to understand something that it means on our level, something that that we can relate to. On our level what it illustrates, again not on the historical level of actually what was going on in Leah's mind and what Leah was doing, but on our level, on the level that again which is also a valid level of understanding of the pesukim, מתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה. Part of מתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה means using midos which are not such good midos to achieve good results. There is a natural, sibling rivalry is is something that one often sees, one often sees. If if one looks in the mirror and and recognizes, yeah, yeah, I'm still at an age, a stage, whatever that chronological age may be, where I do experience sibling rivalry, so then what the person is supposed to do is channel it into competing in inyanim ruchniyim, not not competing in inyanim gashmiyim. That doesn't mean that there's a complacency not to try to be mesaikein that mida. But it means if the mida is there anyway, so let me at least channel it letova. Which is basically what לעולם יעסוק אדם בתורה ומצוות אפילו שלא לשמה שמתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה
is predicated upon, is that we're drawing upon not not out of complacency, but just aderaba, but we're drawing upon those less than noble. to advance in in in dvarim ruchniyim. But the first posuk we looked at, it’s again on our level is the same limmud. Vatikane Rachel beachosah. Rachel was jealous. That’s what the words mean. Vatikane means was jealous. So what does it really mean? I don’t know. That’s what Rabbeinu Shlomo says is I don’t know what what Rachel’s kinah is. What does it mean for us? Kinah b’maaseh tovim. Chotsh, we all have a capacity for jealousy. There’s a human capacity for jealousy. Should a person be complacent about it? Absolutely not. But if I know I have that middah of jealousy, so let me at least be jealous of someone else’s middos, of someone else’s hasmadah, of someone else’s yiras shamayim rather than than than things which are outside the the realm of ruchniyus. Doesn’t doesn’t that just reinforce those undesirable traits? If if if it’s one’s sense of sibling rivalry which is pushing one in a certain direction, if it’s one’s jealousy that’s pushing one in a certain direction, so that’s there. But by by by drawing upon it, so is a person just reinforcing it? Is a person just solidifying it? So the answer is, if simultaneously the person is aware that you know jealousy’s not a good thing, sibling rivalry is not a good thing, so then the effect will be that the fact that the fact that he or she is jealous of of the sibling’s middos tovos and because of that no, so I’m gonna I’m gonna get next year’s middos award, not not my brother, not my sister. So that effort to work on the middos, the lishma, the shelo lishma will help gufa helps to undercut the middah that the person is drawing upon. The Torah learning that that a person might be motivated to mitoch kinah, as long as the person is aware of the fact you know this isn’t the ideal, this isn’t the way it’s supposed to be, but this is where I’m holding now, but but the person is is aware that this isn’t the ideal, so then the Torah gufa is gonna be mashpia on him and and have a a cleansing effect and an uplifting and elevating effect that it will that it will help and become a a bigger and and and less petty person. So the fact that that one uses these middos that need correction, that need to be mesukkanos for dvarim ruchniyim doesn’t doesn’t reinforce them. If a person does it without that awareness, if if the person is just learning more out of kinah without a recognition that you know kinah’s not a good thing and this isn’t the ideal, so then ein hachi nami, that doesn’t necessarily yield the the result that that we’re looking for. But if it’s with that awareness, so then a person is supposed to use it, a person is supposed to draw upon it. If if that’s the way to to be mizdarez to do a mitzvah, to learn, to work on middos, so a person does does draw upon it but needs to have that self-awareness you know that this isn’t this isn’t the ideal but this is this is where I’m holding at the moment.