וירא והנה באר בשדה, “he looked, and behold here there was a well on a field.” Every single one of our patriarchs had an encounter with a well and in each case the well was an allusion to future happenings. In Yitzchak’s case the well he encountered was called באר מים חיים. (26,19) Bereshit Rabbah 70,8 explains that to the Jewish people Torah is equivalent to spring water.

והנה שם שלשה עדרי צאן, “and here there were three flocks of sheep, etc.” The Torah could have written והנה שלשה עדרי צאן ושם היה באר, “here there were three flocks of sheep and there was a well, etc.” The reason the syntax was changed was to allude to a similar sequence in Ezekiel 3,23: והנה שם כבוד ה' עומד, “and here the glory of G’d was standing.” Israel is called צאנו של מקום, “the flock of G’d,” as we know from Ezekiel 34,31 ואתן צאני צאן מרעתי אדם אתם, “and you are My sheep, sheep of My pasture- you are Adam, etc.” We have another verse expressing the same thought in Psalms 79,13 ואנחנו עמך וצאן מרעיתך, “and we are Your people and the flock of Your pasture.” The reason the Torah mentioned three flocks is that the Jewish people consist of three flocks, i.e. the Priests, the Levites, and the Israelites. All of the Israelites used to make a pilgrimage to the Temple three times a year in order to be in the Presence of G’d.

כי מן הבאר ההוא ישקו העדרים. והאבן וגו', “for from that well the flocks would be watered; and the stone, etc.” There is an allusion here to the holy name of G’d which was engraved in the Holy Temple. [The first letters in the words ישקו העדרים והאבן yield the basic letters contained in the Ineffable Name. The extra word גדולה after the word והאבן may hint at the fourth letter, i.e. the repetition of the letter ה in that Holy Name.] The line “for from that well the flocks would receive their water,” is a clear hint that the Temple would serve as the basic inspiration of the various sections of the Jewish people. The words והאבן גדולה is a reference to a “golden crown”, i.e. the letter ד in the line שמע ישראל ה' אלוקינו ה' אחד. The last letter ד which is in larger script in the Torah is equivalent to the final letter in the Ineffable Name, which alludes to G’d’s attribute גדולה.

ונאספו שמה כל העדרים, “all the flocks would be assembled there (next to that well);” this is an allusion to all the tribes of Israel from the extreme north to the extreme south who would assemble at the Holy Temple. The word וגללו in the sequence וגללו משם את האבן may be understood as similar in meaning to Berachot 7 ויגולו רחמיך על מדותיך, “they will roll over Your attribute of mercy to ‘exile’ Your other attribute.” The Talmud there discusses the effectiveness of prayer. The words והשקו את הצאן, “they watered the flock,” describe how the Holy Spirit was drawn down in order to provide the Israelites with blessing emanating from the Inner Sanctuary (in the Celestial Temple). The words והשיבו את האבן על פי הבאר למקומה, “and they would replace the stone to its place,” mean that seeing that they had previously elevated the stone (figure of speech) to lofty spiritual regions, once they had absorbed the proper spiritual input from that region they descended from such a spiritual “high.” We find a parallel comment in Sefer Yetzirah 1,4 העמד דבר על בוריו והשב יוצר על מכונו, “leave a matter in its proper state and restore the Creator to His realm.”

A Midrashic approach: Rabbi Yochanan interpreted the words וירא והנה באר בשדה as an allusion to the revelation of the Torah at Mount Sinai. The words באר בשדה are a reference to Mount Sinai. The words שלשה עדרי צאן refer to the Priests, the Levites, and the Israelites. The words כי מן הבאר ההוא ישקו עדרים, “for from that well the flocks would be watered,” refer to the Ten Commandments whereas the words והאבן גדולה are a reference to G’d. The words ונאספו שמה, “they were gathered there,” refer to the Jewish people whereas the words וגללו את האבן refer to the Torah being received and accepted. Finally, the words והשיבו את האבן על פי הבאר למקומה, “they put the stone back on the mouth of the well, its original place,” are a simile for Moses saying to the people at the end of the revelation (Exodus 20,22) אתם ראיתם כי מן השמים דברתי עמכם. “You have seen that I have spoken to you from the heaven.”

לבן בן נחור, “Lavan son of Nachor.” The Torah should have described him as “Lavan the son of Bethuel,” seeing Bethuel was his father. However, this is another instance where the Torah shows that grandchildren are equal to children (Yevamot 62). We have another such example in 20,12 where Avraham described Sarah as “my sister the daughter of my father,” although in effect Sarah was the daughter of Avraham’s brother Haran. He had meant “daughter of my father’s son (Haran).“ It is also possible that the Torah described Lavan as the son of Nachor, seeing that Avraham’s brother Nachor was a well known personality, whereas Bethuel was relatively unknown. When people spoke of Lavan they never referred to him as the son of Bethuel but as the son of Nachor. The Torah simply described things as they were.

ויהי כאשר ראה יעקב, “it happened that as soon as Yaakov looked, etc.” We find that in this verse the Torah repeats the expression אחי אמו, “brother of his (Yaakov) mother” repeatedly. This is partly in order to explain why Yaakov was so concerned with helping to water the flocks as he had pity on Rachel, Lavan’s daughter. Whatever Yaakov did, whatever feat of strength he performed, he did not perform for the sake of Lavan but for the sake of his mother Rivkah. This is why every time the Torah had to mention the name of wicked Lavan, it contrasts him with his sister, Yaakov’s mother. Yaakov remembered his mother who had advised him to go to Lavan.

There is yet another reason for the repeated mention of the words אחי אמו, brother of his mother.” Whenever a person hears or sees an object he desires, he is suddenly capable of performing tasks which he cannot perform in order to secure something which his heart does not covet. The reader of this passage could be forgiven if he had thought that seeing Yaakov was taken with Rachel’s beauty he desired her physically and this is what gave him the strength to move the rock single-handedly. The Torah refers time and again to the fact that Lavan was the brother of Yaakov’s mother in order to make us aware that physical passion had nothing to do with Yaakov’s sudden burst of strength in moving the rock. The Torah was so concerned not to create the impression that Yaakov’s sudden burst of strength was inspired by passion that instead of writing: “as soon as Yaakov set eyes on Rachel he rolled the rock, etc.,” Ithe Torah wrote instead (in a somewhat clumsy style) ”it was when Yaakov saw Rachel the daughter of Lavan, the brother of his mother, and the flock of Lavan the brother of his mother, Yaakov approached and rolled the rock etc.”

ויגש יעקב ויגל את האבן מעל פי הבאר, “Yaakov approached and rolled the rock from the top of the well.” Yaakov clearly displayed superior physical strength seeing that at least three shepherds had been unable to move that rock with their combined efforts. When you consider in addition that Yaakov must have been tired both from the long journey and from Torah study, which traditionally weakens a person physically, (compare Isaiah 28,29 where the word תושיה is applied to Torah seeing its study weakens the body of a person, Sanhedrin 26) his feat was even more remarkable. Yaakov had spent the last 14 years studying in the academy of Ever (even though this detail has not been recorded in the written Torah). We find that when Yitzchak his father commanded Yaakov: “arise and go to Padan Aram and take for yourself from there a wife” (28,2), that he understood that the meaning of the word אשה also included another element, something Yitzchak had not spelled out to him. The hidden meaning of the word אשה was that it referred to Torah. King Solomon in Proverbs 31,10 already alluded to this meaning of the word אשה, when he headlined his last paragraph with the words אשת חיל מי ימצא, “who can find a woman of valour?” He described such a “woman” as עטרת בעלה “the crown of her husband” in Proverbs 12,4. Our sages, when commenting on Deut. 33,4 where Moses described the Torah as מורשה קהלת יעקב, “as an inalienable possession handed down from generation to generation,” that the word ought not merely be read as מורשה, but as מאורשה, something a Jew is betrothed to. In other words, Torah is to us what a wife is to a husband. Keeping this thought in mind, Yaakov decided to fulfill the implied command of his father first and instead of proceeding directly to Lavan he stayed at the Yeshivah for 14 years. The number of years he must have stayed there can be arrived at by comparing the age at which he met Pharaoh (130), [he lived in Egypt for 17 years and died at 147 years of age.] When you deduct 22 years during which he had not seen Joseph who had been 17 years of age at the time of his abduction, this made Yaakov 91 years old at the time Joseph had been born. Joseph was born after Yaakov had stayed at Lavan’s for 14 years. This means he was 77 years of age when he came to Charan. Yitzchak dispensed the blessing when he was 123 years of age, i.e. when Yaakov was 63 years old (compare Rashi who said that when one approaches within 5 years of the age at which either parent died it is time to make arrangements concerning one’s own death. The Talmud Megillah 17 arrives at the same conclusion). All of this supports the view that the only way to account for an obvious discrepancy in dates supplied by the Torah is to conclude that Yaakov studied Torah for 14 years before arriving at Lavan’s house.

וישק יעקב לרחל, “Yaakov kissed Rachel, etc. The reason the Torah referred to Rachel as קטנה, “small,” is that she was still a minor and Yaakov could not consummate marriage vows with her. This was the reason Lavan was not worried to hand his flocks to her instead of to his already adult daughter Leah who was liable to be molested by the male shepherds on account of her age. We should also note that Yaakov did not kiss Rachel on the mouth but on the head or the shoulder, suggesting that there was no sexual element in that kiss (Ibn Ezra).

וישא את קולו ויבך, “he raised his voice and cried.” This was customary when family members met. According to Bereshit Rabbah 70,12 quoted by Rashi, Yaakov’s weeping was prompted by his having a vision of Rachel not being buried with him in the cave of Machpelah.

Another Midrash attributes this weeping to Yaakov’s reflecting on his arrival as a potential suitor empty-handed, whereas Eliezer, his father’s servant at the time when he met Rivkah was loaded with precious gifts. According to that version, the reason that Yaakov was penniless was that Esau’s son Eliphaz whom his father had dispatched to kill him had settled for leaving him penniless, reasoning that a poor man is like a dead man. (Sefer Hayashar).

כי אחי אביה הוא, “that he was her father’s brother.” Yaakov meant that he was related to Rachel’s father. We know that uncle and nephew describe themselves as brothers from 13,8 where Avraham told Lot “for we are brothers.” ...

According to Bereshit Rabbah 70,12 Yaakov told Rachel that when it came to duplicity he was her father’s equal and knew how to take care of himself seeing he was biologically related to him.

הכי אחי אתה, “because you are my brother, etc.” the word הכי which Lavan used here was not really a question in this instance. Rather, it was an affirmation. We have a similar use of that word when Esau exclaimed (27,36) הכי קרא שמו יעקב, “indeed his name is ‘the crooked one.’” Onkelos translates the word there as יאות, “it is fitting.”

ועבדתני חנם, “and you have served me for free.” The meaning of the verse is that “you are most certainly my brother and so far you have served me without compensation for a whole month, as the Torah had testified in verse 14 “he stayed with him for a month.” Lavan implied that if Yaakov wanted to stay on for a longer period he should tell him what kind of compensation he expected to receive for his labour. Yaakov replied: “I will serve you for seven years.”

This is most amazing. What prompted Yaakov to mention right off that he would serve Lavan for seven years? If Lavan had suggested to him that he should serve seven years to secure Rachel’s hand in marriage, it would have been appropriate for Yaakov to try and make a better deal, suggesting a shorter period of service such as two or three years maximum. What could possibly have prompted him to volunteer such a lengthy period of service? Perhaps Rachel was only five years old at that time and Yaakov needed to wait for seven years until he could consummate marriage to her as she would not biologically be able to conceive children before that time. The reason that he said ברחל בתך הקטנה “for Rachel your daughter who is a minor”, a fact which was well known, is that he implied “I cannot marry her now as she is too young. This is why I am willing to wait for seven years during which time I will remain in service with you.” He also implied that though Rachel was old enough to have intercourse with already at this time, he would not indulge his libido if he did not have a reasonable chance that such intercourse would result in his wife’s pregnancy. Marriage to him meant to fulfill the commandment to raise a family.

Rashi writes that the reason Yaakov was so specific in saying “Rachel your younger daughter,” was that as far as Yaakov was concerned his uncle Lavan was a confirmed swindler, and he was afraid that at the end of the period Lavan would present him with a girl from the street whose name was Rachel. This is why he had to say: “your daughter.” The reason he had to add the words “the younger one,” was to prevent Lavan from presenting him with Leah saying: “she is my daughter.” The Torah teaches us that all of Yaakov’s precautions notwithstanding, he was outwitted by Lavan and Lavan still gave him Leah without his being aware of it at the time.

ועיני לאה רכות, “and Leah’s eyes were soft.” Rabbi Avraham [Ibn Ezra] commented on this that someone called Ben Efrayim said that the word רכות really should have been spelled with the letter א, meaning ארוכות. I can only comment that his own name should have been spelled without the letter א. [In other words, his comment is without foundation.]

.טוב תתי אותה לך , “it is good that I give her to you.” Rabbeinu Chananel understands Lavan’s words as follows: “even though giving her to someone else would be preferable, seeing that a woman should not be without a man, nor a man without a wife, [and a delay of seven years is very long, Ed.] I agree.” He bases his commentary on Talmud Jerusalem Berachot 9,1 and Genesis 2,18. Lavan expressed his agreement that Yaakov was the better of two good choices as son-in-law. We encounter the use of the word ...טוב מ also in a different context where it refers to the better one of two bad choices. In Kohelet 5,4 we read טובים היו חללי חרב מחללי רעב, “the ones who were killed by the sword are better off than those killed by famine.” On a third occasion we find the expression ...טוב מ as comparing a good alternative with a bad alternative. We read in Kohelet 4,13 טוב ילד מסכן וחכם ממלך זקן וכסיל. “A poor and wise child is preferable to an old but foolish king.” The expression also occurs when it clearly contrasts two positives but gives preference to one of them. We read in Proverbs 15,17: “better a dish of vegetables served lovingly than a fatted ox served grudgingly.” [The author continues with more examples which I have decided to skip. Ed.]

ויהיו בעיניו כימים אחדים, “they were in his eyes as if only a few days.” We would have expected these years as appearing extremely long in Yaakov’s eyes. However, we must not look at the Torah’s description as referring to the waiting period Yaakov underwent; the Torah refers to the amount of labour Yaakov performed. Viewed from that angle Yaakov did not measure the time in months or years but in days. We find confirmation of this when at the end of the period he said to Lavan “give me my wife for my days have been completed (29,21). He was careful not to say: “my years.”

ואבא אליה, “so that I may sleep with her.” Nachmanides comments on this: This does not appear to be a respectful reference to one’s wife, especially when mouthed by righteous people. The true meaning of the verse is as if the Torah had written: ואבואה אליה, “let me join her.” He did not want to take Rachel as a wife and to leave Lavan at once but he wanted to marry her and complete whatever little time was left in his contract. He explained to Lavan that he had no reason to worry that Yaakov would leave him prematurely and would abandon the herds. Thus far Nachmanides.

Perhaps one may understand Yaakov’s words somewhat differently. The words the Torah quotes him as saying do not reflect Yaakov’s libido speaking. Yaakov spoke rationally. From an intellectual perspective [as was man’s perspective before he ate from the tree of knowledge, Ed.] there is no difference between the various organs of the human body; all serve a useful purpose. Yaakov did not view his genitals as different in any way from the way he viewed his arms or his legs. Each organ had to perform specific functions. Seeing that the patriarchs were on such a high moral level we need not be surprised if words spoken by them had no erotic connotation as they would have had if spoken by ordinary individuals. The same applied to our four matriarchs Rachel and Leah. When we find them quarreling about who would enjoy Yaakov’s company on a certain night, this had nothing to do with the sexual act as an activity for its own sake. They had prophetic knowledge (Bereshit Rabbah 72,5) concerning the fact that Yaakov would father twelve tribes from four wives; they competed as to who would bear how many of these children for him. This was the reason that Leah said to her sister in 30,15: “is it not enough that you have taken my husband, etc.?” As a result Rachel told Leah that seeing that her concern was to bear more of the twelve tribes, she agreed that Yaakov should spend this particular night with her although it was not her turn. When Leah said to Yaakov: “come to me this night for I have hired you,” etc. (30,16), this did not reflect her desire for physical union with him as such, but it merely meant that she had made a special effort to bear more of his children. The patriarchs and the matriarchs were concerned primarily with Mitzvah performance. Therefore, when Yaakov said concerning Rachel ואבואה אליה, he practically prophesied, as all utterances by the patriarchs may be viewed as in that category. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 72,3 were so convinced of this that they attributed the fact that Rachel was not buried in the cave of Machpelah with her husband Yaakov to her foregoing his company for even one night. By volunteering to miss that opportunity to conceive a child from Yaakov on the night she made the deal with Leah about Reuven’s dudaim (the aphrodisiac plant Reuven had found) she was punished. She should have treasured Yaakov’s company more. On the other hand, we are taught in that same Midrash that Leah who did treasure the company of her husband bore two more sons for Yaakov as a result of the deal she made. Issachar was born to Leah as a reward for her giving Rachel the dudaim of her son Reuven in order to secure an extra opportunity to conceive a child from her husband. This is also why the Torah (30,16) does not describe Yaakov as sleeping with Leah בלילה ההוא, but בלילה הוא, the difference being that the word הוא is a reference to G’d whereas the word ההוא simply means “that, “ i.e. “on that night.” Leah realised this when she said: “this is my reward from G’d” (30,18) when Issachar was born. When she used the word שכרי for “my reward,” this is the same word as the Torah used when she traded the dudaim for time spent with Yaakov. She meant that her reward was exactly in keeping with her purpose in trading the dudaim for an extra opportunity to conceive a child. A similar use of that word occurs in Isaiah 40,10 הנה שכרו אתו ופעולתו לפניו, “his reward is with Him, his recompense before Him.” The prophet speaks about the reward being appropriate to the good deed. Furthermore, the words “G’d listened to Leah” (verse 17) are evidence that she must have prayed for this child. There is a tremendous lesson in this apparently insignificant detail of Leah’s and Rachel’s lives. On the one hand, Rachel was punished for doing something perfectly normal, namely securing an aphrodisiac which would help her conceive seeing that she did not have any children yet and paying for it by giving up her husband’s company for one night. On the other hand, Leah, who already was blessed with four children, was so anxious to have more that she traded that very aphrodisiac for a night with Yaakov without artificial stimuli to help her conceive. Leah was rewarded as opposed to her sister Rachel although both her and Rachel’s actions were designed to bring about the same result. In the final analysis, the Torah demonstrates that both women were bent on performing a מצוה.

והנה היא לאה, “and lo and behold it was Leah.” Our sages (Megillah,13) ask the obvious question: “had she not been Leah up until now?” What did the Torah mean by writing “and here it was Leah?” They answer that Yaakov had supplied Rachel with a secret code to protect himself precisely against the duplicity practiced by Lavan under the wedding canopy when the girl’s face is veiled so the groom cannot see her. When Rachel became aware of what her father was doing, she realized that her sister was going to be publicly shamed. She therefore decided to spare Leah the embarrassment and told her of the secret code. Bereshit Rabbah 71,5 phrases it thus: “Rachel made silence her trademark (vocation); as a result all her sons were able to keep secrets, on the other hand, Leah made gratitude her trademark (vocation); as a result we find that all her sons are recorded as confessing errors and giving thanks to G’d. Binyamin, a son of Rachel knew that Joseph had been sold but he kept the secret. Saul, a descendant of Binyamin is reported in Samuel 10, 16 as ואת דבר המלוכה לא הגיד לו not telling even his uncle that Samuel had told him he would become king. [The uncle had been aware that Saul had had an interview with Samuel the Seer and titular head of the nation. The prophet had told him not to worry, that the asses had been located. Ed.] Another descendant of Rachel who was distinguished by keeping silent at crucial times was Queen Esther who obeyed Mordechai’s instructions not to reveal her identity even when such a refusal resulted in the King threatening to depose her.” (Esther 2,20). Leah’s son Yehudah confessed that he had been wrong in bringing Tamar his daughter-in-law to trial as a whore. Moreover, The Torah credits him with giving thanks to the Lord (49,8), and we find David, Yehudah’s most illustrious descendant composing innumerable hymns to G’d including Psalms 136,1 in which he asks the Jewish people to give thanks to the Lord. Another descendant of Yehudah, Daniel, was in the habit of praying to G’d as a way of giving thanks to Him (Daniel 6,11).

גם את רחל מלאה, “also Rachel, better than Leah.” The Torah means that whereas Yaakov did love Leah, he loved Rachel more. This was something contrary to accepted psychology prevalent in those days which claimed that a man’s greatest love is his first wife. This is the reason the Torah commenced this verse with the word גם, “also.”

כי שנואה לאה, “that Leah was hated.” This certainly does not mean that Yaakov hated Leah. [If he did, he would have had to divorce her. Ed.] The word שנואה is strictly relative and tells us that by comparison to Yaakov’s feelings for Rachel, Leah appeared as if she were hated.

ותהר לאה ותלד בן, “Leah became pregnant and gave birth to a son.” In the case of all of the children born by the wives of Yaakov (except Zevulun) the Torah wrote the words ותהר ותלד, “she became pregnant and gave birth,” to show that pregnancy was followed shortly thereafter by giving birth. The Torah thereby hints that all these children were born after only seven months of pregnancy, the shortest period to make the fetus viable at birth. All of the twelve sons of Yaakov plus Dinah, with the exception of Binyamin were born during the second seven years of Yaakov working for Lavan. Let me explain why babies born after seven months pregnancy are generally viable whereas babies born after eight months pregnancy are not. At first glance this seems baffling were it not known to be a fact. Every one of the seven fixed stars [the planets according to earlier astrological concepts. Ed.] dominates the sky for one month. The order of their appearances in the sky is: שבתאי, צדק, מאדים, חמה, נגה, כוכב, לבנה, This contrasts with the order חל"ם כצנ"ש which prevailed at the time of creation during the first seven days of the universe. This is the order of the horoscopes governing the calendar months. Nissan is under the aegis of Saturn, followed by Iyar which is under the aegis of Jupiter, followed in Sivan by Venus, etc. Seeing that the cycle of these planetary rotations is completed after seven months it is natural that a baby born after seven months of pregnancy should be viable. The seventh month, dominated by the planet לבנה, moon, symbolizes life, i.e. it is the specific function of this planet to serve as key of Heaven and Earth. If however, the pregnant woman enters a month dominated by Saturn, a planet representing cold and dryness, the natural symbol of death, it is understandable why babies born when the mother’s eight’s month of pregnancy is in a month when that planet “presides,” is not viable and will die. The biological process of death is that the original drop of semen which fertilized the ovum will dry up and as such be unable to develop into life. Once the pregnancy enters its ninth month and comes under the aegis of the planet Jupiter, a planet associated with “Life” and everything good, based on the fact that most births take place after nine months of pregnancy, viability of babies born after that time is practically assured. Some babies born after or during the tenth or eleventh month of pregnancy i.e. under the aegis of Venus or the Sun will be viable. We have it on the authority of Rava in Yevamot 80 that additional months of pregnancy up to and including 12 months produce viable babies. [Rava ruled that a woman whose husband had left her 12 months prior to her giving birth is believed when she claims that the baby is her husband’s. Ed.] There is an halachic principle, that evidence to the contrary excluded, most women sleep exclusively with their respective husbands and we do not ignore this principle when deciding if a baby is a bastard unless there is specific evidence or a natural impossibility for the baby to be the husband’s.

Of the seven planets mentioned, the planets Jupiter and Venus are considered as especially fortuitous influences whereas the planets Mars and Saturn are considered as especially harmful influences. Sun and Moon are considered as in charge of light and access to the portals of heaven respectively. This leaves the planet Mercury which is considered a neutral influence. When it functions in consonance with a planet which represents a good influence it reinforces that influence, whereas when it functions in consonance with a planet considered a harmful influence it reinforces that influence.

ותקרא שמו ראובן, “she called his name Reuven.” All the names given to the children of Rachel and Leah were inspired by Holy Spirit assisting their mothers in naming them. The names they gave the children all alluded to certain attributes of G’d. When Leah named her first four sons she alluded to the ten emanations from the bottom up. He called the first son Reuven alluding to the attribute of Justice which corresponds to the last letter ה in the Ineffable Name. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 44,12) had said that until Avraham had that letter added to his name he was unable to have a son with Sarah. The word ראובן alludes to ראייה, “seeing, taking note of.” The faculty of seeing is derived from the attribute of Justice, and this is why the עין הרע, “the evil eye” is such a dangerous and powerful characteristic as it directs attention to the attribute of Justice, i.e. retribution. The name שמעון which is derived from שמועה, as Leah said: “for G’d has heard that I am hated,” corresponds to an attribute symbolized by the letter ו in the same four-lettered name of G’d, and the 6 directions in which it extends. When Yaakov blessed Ephrayim and Menashe, the two sons of Joseph, by saying: “they shall be to me just as Reuven and Shimon” (Genesis 48,5), he meant to protect them against this influence of the evil eye which is associated with the attribute hate. Similar considerations prevailed when naming all the rest of the twelve sons. I will go into details when we get to the relevant verses.

.על כן קרא שמו לוי, “this is why He called his name Levi.” The word “He” refers to G’d. This is why the Torah does not write קראה, “she called,” as it had done with the first two sons of Leah. Seeing that this son belonged to G’d as the “tithe” Yaakov had vowed to give of all G’d would give him, it was up to G’d to name what belonged to Him. We had mentioned that the matriarchs had a prophetic inspiration that Yaakov would have 12 sons from four wives. Having given birth to a third son, Leah had received her fair share of sons. When Leah said after giving birth to her third son על כן ילוה אישי אלי, she was not merely referring to the attachment between Yaakov and her; rather, she used the word איש as an acronym for א=כתר, י=חכמה ש,=בינה, as indicated in the Sefer Habahir. (compare the comment in that book on Exodus 15,3 ה' איש מלחמה). Leah meant that the three emanations represented by these letters in the word איש are really part and parcel of a larger concept. This is why the descendants of Levi became teachers of Torah and wisdom in Israel as we know from Moses’ blessing in Deut. 33,10 יורו משפטיך ליעקב , “they will teach Your ordinances to Yaakov." When she gave birth to her fourth son, Yehudah, she gave thanks to the emanation בינה, the emanation from which children originate. As a result of all this we find that all the important elements were represented in the first four sons of Leah. Reuven and Shimon were allusions to G’d (His attribute with the six extremities), Levi and Yehudah being allusions to the three topmost emanations

הפעם אודה את ה, “this time I give thanks to the Lord, etc.” The word י-ה-ו-ה at this point is a reference to the first time this word appears in the list of G’d’s thirteen attributes revealed to Moses in Exodus 34,6. [Rabbi Chavell cites Torat Chayim as believing that there is an error here and that the author meant the second time this word appeared there. Ed] This was the attribute of repentance. The reason this attribute is part of Yehudah’s name is that he was the first person to publicly retract and confess a mistake he had made when he accused Tamar of being a harlot. He was not ashamed to admit his error, which is the greatest impediment to repentance. According to the Talmud in Sotah 7 Yehudah’s repentance led to Reuven’s repentance. This is why King David became one of his descendants. David is reputed to have “been elevated,” i.e. by means of his repentance, in the matter of Bat Sheva (Samuel II 23,1). David was considered outstanding because he unabashedly repented.

As soon as Leah had given birth to four sons whereas Rachel had remained childless, she became progressively more jealous and she went to Yaakov asking him to give her children at least by means of his prayer since merely sleeping with her had not made her pregnant. Yaakov told her that the matter did not depend on him and that the obstacle to her becoming pregnant was G’d. Rachel then proceeded to give Yaakov her maid-servant Bilhah so that her own potential as a mother could be fulfilled vicariously through Bilhah bearing Yaakov’s child on her behalf. Rachel reasoned to herself that her name, unlike Leah or Zilpah, did not have the letter ה in it. On the other hand, Bilhah’s name had two letters ה in it. When Rachel said to her husband Yaakov: “sleep with Bilhah and she will give birth on my knees, so that I will be built up through her,” she meant that the power inherent in the first letter ה in Bilhah’s name would enable her to have a child, whereas her additional letter ה would ensure that she as her mistress would be built up through her vicariously. As a result of Yaakov sleeping with Bilhah she bore a son whom her mistress Rachel called Dan, again involving G’d’s attribute of Justice.