This week's parsha
Unless otherwise noted, "This week's Parsha" comprises articles taken from contributors to the Chabad.org website. We show the original author's name here, so that proper attribution is given. For the sake of brevity, footnotes cited in the original author's writings are omitted from this website. If you need to see the citations, please refer to the original articles on the Chabad.org website.
Why Jacob Loved Rachel ... but also had to marry Leah
The Torah describes Rachel as having beautiful features and a beautiful complexion, and Leah as having tender eyes.
It's unusual for the Torah to spill ink illustrating the people or places mentioned. It is also unusual that Leah is (seemingly) publicly disparaged. On principle, the Torah goes out of its way to avoid unnecessary critical descriptions, and yet it openly contrasts Rachel's beauty to Leah's tender eyes. In light of this principle, the biblical commentator Rashi deduces that Leah's tender eyes allude to her incessant weeping: her eyes were red and soft from the many tears she shed. She wept in prayer, entreating G-d to shift the course of her destiny. She had been destined to marry Esau, coarse and corrupt as he was, and she prayed earnestly that her fate be changed.
Different Yet Identical
In introducing us to the patriarchal family of Isaac, son of Abraham, this week’s Torah portion of Toldot begins: “And these are the offspring of Isaac, son of Abraham -- Abraham begot Isaac.” Since Torah is not given to redundancy, this opening passage raises the question: Once we’re told that Isaac is the “son of Abraham,” what is the point of then stating, “Abraham begot Isaac”?
The Midrash explains that the statement “Abraham begot Isaac” represents divine testimony that Isaac was indeed the biological son of Abraham. That in the face of ridiculers and rumor-mongers who sought to claim that Isaac had been fathered by the Philistine king Abimelech, G‑d formed the physical features of Isaac in striking resemblance to those of Abraham, so that there would be no room for doubt that “Abraham begot Isaac.”
Someone Has to Pay Retail
A friend of mine used to be mortified when shopping with his mother over her insistence on haggling over each and every item purchased. She would negotiate with everyone: storeowners, door-to-door salesmen, even the check-out clerks at the supermarket. Poor kid would be absolutely squirming with embarrassment every time his mother went through her "is this the best price you can offer?" routine.
He must have picked up something though, because now he's the one intimidating shop assistants and bargain hunting his way through life. He claims it's not Jewish to pay retail and the only thing better than 50% off, is 2 for the price of 1.
Strange then that the archetype Jew, our ancestor Abraham, turned down an even better bargain. After his beloved wife passed away, Abraham went plot shopping. He discovered the perfect piece of real estate, a burial cave in Hebron, and enquired about the purchase price.
He was offered the "bargain" of a lifetime: free land. The locals held him in such high regard that they begged him to accept the burial plot, free of charge. Incredibly, not only did he refuse this gift, Abraham insisted on paying full price on his eventual purchase (Genesis 23:9).
But why be so high-principled? Would it have made a difference had he graciously accepted their offer? Why should the way in which he assumed possession affect the end-use of the land?
What's wrong with it?
My wife Leah and I recently noticed something peculiar about the functions we organize for our synagogue. Over the years we've played around with a number of formats and systems to attract locals and members to Torah classes and activities. When we first started, we believed that advertising free-entry was a sure catch to draw in the locals. After all, aren't we here to demonstrate the accessibility and appeal of Judaism?
On reflection, we've noticed that those lecture-series and programs for which we advertise a cover charge seem to attract almost double the turnout than for those where we charge no entry fee, and rely on outside sponsorship to make up the shortfall. Of course we make certain to publicize that no one will ever be turned away for lack of funds, but in general we now charge at least a token fee for most activities.
Not only does this not seem to deter attendance, but I honestly believe people value their time more for having paid for it. It is almost as if when people shell out for entertainment, they give themselves the liberty to drain the cup of amusement to the full, and make certain to gain as much as possible from the lecture and classes they've paid for. Economists have some fancy formula describing how people are influenced by the "sunk-cost," but from my observation, people become suspicious when offered something for free.
Abraham was not just looking for a cheap plot in which to bury his wife; he was investing in the future. His children and grandchildren visit that burial site till today and when we pray to G‑d there, and ask our zeida and bubbe to intercede on our behalf, we're demonstrating our appreciation for his priorities.
Bargain hunting for luxuries may be fun, but when it comes to the fundamentals of life: our professional pride, choice of spouse, and commitment to G‑d, everyone wants to know that they've put in maximum effort to succeed, and that the final reward will be worth the price.