1. The Challenge of Yaakov Marrying Two Sisters
The central issue in this week’s parsha that all the meforshim—commentators—are bothered by is how Yaakov could marry two sisters. We see in the Torah that Yaakov marries both Rachel and Leah. Initially, he agrees to work for Lavan for seven years in order to marry Rachel. However, Lavan tricks him at the last moment, switching Rachel with Leah, so Yaakov ends up marrying Leah first. Eventually, Yaakov agrees to work another seven years and marries Rachel as well. From these unions, along with Bilhah and Zilpah, come the twelve tribes.2. The Prohibition Against Marrying Sisters and the Avos’ Observance
The question arises: how could Yaakov marry two sisters when there is a clear prohibition in the Torah against this? The verse states v’ishah el achosah lo sikach (Vayikra 18:18)—“you shall not take a woman together with her sister.” This is one of the explicit prohibitions after Matan Torah—the giving of the Torah. Furthermore, it is well known that the avos—patriarchs—kept the Torah even before it was formally given. In particular, regarding Yaakov, Rashi points out at the beginning of next week’s parsha that when Yaakov says im Lavan garti, “I lived with Lavan,” the word garti has the same numerical value as Taryag, 613, indicating that Yaakov kept all 613 mitzvos.3. Rashi’s Silence and Approaches in Pshat
Given this background, how could Yaakov claim to have kept all 613 mitzvos if he married two sisters, which is one of the prohibitions? The commentaries offer various answers to this question. The Lubavitcher Rebbe’s approach is to look for an answer in the simple meaning of the text (pshat). He notes that Rashi, who generally explains according to pshat, is silent on this issue. When Rashi does not comment, it usually means either he already explained it elsewhere or that it is so straightforward that even a child learning at a simple level would understand it on their own.4. Precedents and Other Unusual Marriages Before Matan Torah
This concept of marrying two sisters or other unions later prohibited by Torah law appears elsewhere among our ancestors. For example, we find marriages between close relatives such as Levi and Yocheved, which were permitted before Matan Torah but prohibited afterward. Each case requires its own explanation as to why it was allowed at that time.5. The Simple Answer: Keeping One’s Word vs. Extra Stringency
In Yaakov’s case, what is the simple answer? The key idea is that Yaakov felt obligated to marry Rachel because he had promised her he would do so. He had given his word and worked seven years for her hand in marriage from their first meeting at Lavan’s house when Rachel was tending sheep. It was only at the last minute that Lavan switched Rachel for Leah. If Yaakov had not married Rachel after all those years and promises, it would have been devastating for her—a tremendous blow and heartbreak. Rashi comments that Rachel was deeply upset not only because she did not have children but also because she feared she might end up marrying Esav (said of Leah? Rashi on Bereishis 29:17) if she remained unmarried; people were saying Yitzchak had two sons and Lavan had two daughters. The point here is that while our forefathers kept all mitzvos before they were commanded (lifnei matan Torah), they only did so when doing so would not violate something else they had accepted upon themselves—such as keeping their word or avoiding causing pain to others. For Yaakov to refrain from marrying Rachel just because of a future prohibition would have meant imposing an extra stringency (chumrah) upon himself at someone else’s expense.6. Avraham’s Delay in Circumcision: A Parallel Case
A similar logic applies to Avraham Avinu delaying his circumcision until age 99 despite keeping all mitzvos beforehand. If Avraham kept all mitzvos, why wait? One answer is that causing oneself a wound (chovel ba’atzmo) was prohibited even before circumcision became a mitzvah, so Avraham could not perform bris milah until directly commanded by Hashem. This principle teaches us that one should not try to be extra religious or strict if doing so will cause harm or violate another important value or commitment.7. Practical Lessons: Chumros vs. Bein Adam Lechaveiro
The Rebbe often emphasized this lesson: striving for personal religious stringency must never come at another person’s expense or violate basic interpersonal obligations (bein adam lechaveiro). There are times when people want to be very righteous or meticulous about certain mitzvos but forget about hurting others in the process. A story about Rav Moshe Feinstein illustrates this point: there was a dispute in Australia about when to begin saying v’sein tal umatar. The disagreement caused serious strife within the community. Rav Moshe pointed out that while being careful about this custom may be only rabbinic or even later in origin, causing discord among Jews is a clear Torah prohibition. The overarching message is clear: while striving for religious excellence is admirable, we must always ensure we do not harm others or neglect fundamental values in pursuit of personal stringencies.<|endoftext|>