Parshat Veyeitzei — Leah's eyes

By Rabbi Avi Billet

Issue of Dec. 5, 2008 / 8 Kislev 5769

A web site which caters to the chareidi community picked up my column on Parshat Chayei Sara in which I argued that Rivka was a more palatable 14 years old at her wedding than the more standard teaching of age three.

The suggestion that Rashi’s “pshat” was not preferred in lieu of a more rational approach of Tosafot was difficult for many to fathom (I prefer to say I do not understand Rashi there), and a heated argument took place in the comments on that web site as to the viability of alternative explanations for commonly understood ideas, especially as they relate to midrashic interpretations of events.

Choosing to ignore the brunt of insults and invectives hurled my way, I’ve been inspired to find more valid interpretations that go against the grain, and it is in this spirit that I hope you enjoy this week’s thought.

After Yaakov arrives in Lavan’s home, before deciding what his wages will be, the Torah tells us, “V’einei Leah rakot, v’Rachel hayta y’fat to’ar v’tovat mar’eh.” (29:17). Leah’s eyes were “rakot” and Rachel was very beautiful and pleasing to look at.

Rashi says Leah’s eyes were weak from crying. Everyone who knew the families said “Rivka has two sons and Lavan has two daughters. The older (Eisav) will marry the older (Leah), and the younger (Yaakov) will marry the younger (Rachel).”

We will avoid questions of whether people actually knew both families. We will avoid questions of the nature of Eisav’s bad reputation from the Torah’s perspective (most of his evil quality comes from the Rabbis, save Malachi 1:3 when G-d declares his disdain for Eisav’s descendants).

Our question is, how are we to understand the depiction of Leah’s eyes? How are we to understand how her eyes are described in comparison to her sister’s beauty?

Onkelos says the term describing Leah’s eyes means her eyes were “beautiful.”

Ibn Ezra quotes Ben Efrayim, who suggests the word “Rakot” is missing an Alef, and should have said “Arukot” –– meaning she had long eyes. Leaving aside the problem with the suggestion that the Torah is missing a letter, Ibn Ezra thinks the suggestion is so foolish he delivers one of the greatest insults in all of commentary when he says Ben Efrayim himself was missing an Alef. In other words, his name should be Ben Parim –– the son of cows.

Rashbam (Rashi’s grandson) says Leah’s eyes were pleasant, as the word “rach” means soft. He concludes that a bride who has pleasant eyes does not need to be inspected for any other beautiful feature. To best understand this interpretation, think of the famous National Geographic girl whose famous eyes captured the world’s attention.

The Daat Zekeinim, who are “Baalei Hatosafot” (descendants of Rashi), have the most innovative interpretation I have ever found. They point out that the word “Rakot” means “soft” (similar to Rashbam) and tender, similar to the term “rach vatov” –– soft and good.

Then they say the parallel comparison of Leah’s eyes to Rachel’s beauty means the following: “She was beautiful because her eyes were beautiful, and she appeared soft and childlike. But Rachel was super praiseworthy in her beauty, save for the fact that her eyes were pained from crying because she feared she would fall into Eisav’s lot. [This fear was grounded in the fact that] she was barren, which would cause Yaakov to divorce her [for she could not bear children to him], which would cause Eisav to marry her off the rebound.”

According to this, Leah’s eyes are mentioned because they were her most beautiful feature, while Rachel’s other beauty is focused upon because her eyes were most unbecoming.

If my initial assertion about the “talk of the town shadchanim” being improbable due to distance and the likelihood that the people who knew Rivka’s family did not know Lavan’s and vice versa, then Rachel’s personal fears of the possibility of not remaining married to Yaakov due to her own (perhaps known only to her) infertility is a fairly logical conclusion to draw.

Most of us might be more fearful of our own conclusions regarding our inadequacies than the conclusions drawn by the “know-it-alls” who live next door. Following this line of reasoning, the Da’at Zekeinim present a phenomenally fresh approach to the tension in the relationship of Leah and Rachel.

Avi Billet welcomes your thoughts and comments at avbillet@gmail.com