The Jacob-Rachel-Leah Story
It is recommended that the series “A New Way to View The Women of the Bible,” “Women are Equal to Men,” and “Jacob and Esau Birthrights and Blessings” be read before reading the posts in this series.
Review of the previous post.
The previous post, post number 1 of 8, introduced the topic and raises several questions about the story in general.
Preview of this post.
This post, post number 2 of 8, discusses several possible explanations for the questions raised about the story.
II Possible explanations
- Rachel, Leah and Jacob were human and Jacob wished to fulfill his responsibilities
(1) The participants were human
With regard to the human perspective, Jacob, Rachel and Leah participated in this bigamous arrangement either actively or passively. The biblical narrative seems to indicate that they acted passively to Laban’s actions. An explanation involving an active participation includes a view that Rachel and Leah (as well as Jacob and Laban[1]) were human beings and acted as such. During the first seven years that Jacob worked for Laban to “earn” Rachel, both Jacob and Rachel were probably teenagers[2], or at most in their early twenties. As such, they could be expected to act like any other healthy youngsters who are in love and are marooned far away from others – Jacob and Rachel “got together[3].” Seven years living in close proximity to the woman you love, especially one as beautiful as Rachel was purported to be, and still remain celibate is a lot to ask of a man, especially a young man. It is also a lot to ask of a young woman. Therefore, by the time the first seven years were up, Jacob and Rachel probably knew she might not be able to conceive, or at least would have great difficulty conceiving[4].
As discussed in the series “Jacob and Esau, Birthrights and Blessings,” it was likely that Jacob was part of a plan devised by his parents, Isaac and Rebecca, and had the responsibility of carrying on the Abraham/Isaac line which had been promised by God. This is quite a responsibility and certainly involves finding a fertile wife. As discussed in that essay, Jacob, the obedient and dutiful son who was charged with carrying on the Covenant by extending the Abraham/Isaac line, would take to heart this responsibility. Combine this responsibility with the knowledge that Rachel may be either barren or will have great difficulty conceiving, and much of what ensues regarding Jacob, Rachel and Leah makes sense.
It might be assumed that Rachel and Jacob discussed the situation in light of Jacob’s responsibility and, like Abraham and Sarah before him, recognized and agreed that she would have great difficulty conceiving, and may even be barren. Taking this view, it is likely that they discussed the situation and decided together that perhaps Jacob needed another person (seedbed?) who was more fertile than Rachel to carry on the line and fulfill Jacob’s responsibilities. Even though they both loved each other, they, like Abraham, Sarah and Hagar, did what they thought was best for perpetuating the nation: they allowed Jacob to be with another woman. This would have had to be a painful decision for both of them.
Since the next closest woman (both in physical proximity and in lineal proximity) was Leah, and she was one who could be brought into the plan, perhaps, they persuaded Leah to “try” Jacob (this would not appear to be too farfetched, since there is precedent in the Bible for women to allow other women, specifically, handmaidens, into their husband’s bed), or Jacob may have seduced Leah, or the two of them may have gotten into a situation that ended up in bed. However it transpired, Jacob, Leah and Rachel could all have come to know that Leah was fertile and to believe that Rachel was not. Thus, Leah would be the better choice to continue the Abraham/Isaac/Jacob line than Rachel. Again, this may have been painful to Leah as she knew she was second choice and was not the one Jacob loved, yet she consented to go along with the plan for the greater good of the nation. Laban probably was also involved in the plan and gladly went along with it because it was a win-win situation for him – he got an extra seven years labor from Jacob and got both of his daughters, especially Leah, married off.
It might even have been the case that Leah was actually pregnant with Jacob’s child on the night designated for Rachel to wed Jacob. One commentator notes, to this end, that there may been an “early pregnancy” for Leah[5]. A forced marriage perhaps? Therefore, Rachel, Leah and Jacob pulled the “switch” of Leah for Rachel, and all three of them were aware that Leah was being substituted for Rachel. Jacob would have been aware that it was Leah, and not Rachel, who was sharing his wedding bed with him, and there would be no need for Rachel to hide beneath the bed and speak so Jacob would “think” it was she and not Leah in his bed as some Midrash suggests. Even if the case were as suggested by the Midrash, it does not seem reasonable to believe that Jacob would be fooled into believing that Rachel was in his bed – after all, Jacob had lived with these two women for seven years, he certainly would know who is in bed with him, and be able to identify that a voice was being projected from beneath the bed. The explanation offered in this post seems to make more sense than the suggestion that Rachel hid beneath the martial bed and tricked Jacob into believing he was with her and not Leah.
This view of the relationship seems to be confirmed by the way the two marriages are described in Genesis. The marriage to Rachel follows the usual pattern: wedding feast (Genesis 29:28), followed by gifts (of her handmaiden Bilhah) (Genesis 29:29), then sex with Jacob (Genesis 29:30). However, the pattern is different for Leah: wedding feast (Genesis 29:22), sex with Jacob (Genesis 29:23), then gifts (of her handmaiden Zilpah) (Genesis 29:24). The sexual encounter was out of order. Could this confirm that Leah and Jacob had already had sex? It also should be noted that when Jacob first met Rachel, he kissed her, which is the only time the Bible reports a single, unmarried man, kissing an unmarried woman in public[6]. Could this foreshadow what was to follow during the seven years Jacob worked for Laban? In ancient Israel, this act of a single man publicly kissing an unmarried woman would have been quite shocking and revolutionary.
Preview of the next post.
The next post, post number 3 of 8, continues the discussion of possible explanations for the general questions and begins a discussion of Leah’s part in the story.
[1] Laban is often depicted as a sly trickster who tricks Jacob into working for free for fourteen years. However, look at the situation from Laban’s perspective. Jacob shows up on his doorstep; Jacob is really a momma’s boy who has spent all his time studying, etc in and around the tent; Jacob has tricked his brother out of his birthright so he is not entirely trustworthy; Jacob has no experience in farming or raising livestock, yet here he is asking Laban to take him in, feed him, clothe him, and teach him to farm. In fact, Laban did all that, plus give Jacob his daughters and part of his flock. Maybe Laban was not so devious after all.
[2] In spite of some midrash which considers Jacob an aged man when he arrives at Haran.
[3] In fact, in 29:21, Jacob demands of Laban: “Give me my wife, for my time is fulfilled, that I may cohabit with her.” This seems to indicate that Jacob was a pretty lusty guy.
[4] Regarding Rachel’s barrenness, see, Culi, Torah Anthology, 3a:75-76.
[5] S. Dresner, Rachel (Minneapolis: Augsbury Fortress, 1994) print, p. 61.See also, Culi, Torah Anthology, 3b:517. The outcome of this pregnancy is Reuben, which might lend doubt as to the legitimacy of Reuben and hence the legitimacy of his offspring and his tribe. Some midrash (Midrash Rabbah, Gen. 98.4; Rashi, Commentaries, 1:153n3) uses Jacob’s statement at the end of his life that Reuben was his firstborn, first fruit of his vigor (Gen 49:3) to imply that Reuben was the result of his first seminal emission.
[6] N. Sarna, JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989) pp. 202–3.