Parshas Vayigash
1. On the verse "ובני שמעון גו׳" ("And the sons of Shimon, etc.")1, Rashi says: "בן הכנענית — בן דינה שנבעלה לכנעני" ("The son of the Canaanitess — the son of Dinah, who was violated by a Canaanite"). That is, "the Canaanitess" here does not mean what it plainly means, a Canaanite woman. Rather, the verse means Dinah by this, and it calls her "Canaanitess" because she "was violated by a Canaanite"2. Rashi then adds: "כשהרגו את שכם לא היתה דינה רוצה לצאת עד שנשבע לה שמעון שישאנה" ("When they killed Shechem, Dinah did not want to leave until Shimon swore to her that he would marry her").
In this, the following is not understood:
a) Why does Rashi cite from the verse also the word "son" ("son of (the Canaanitess)"), and why does he also afterward, in his commentary, say "son (of Dinah, etc.)," when his commentary seemingly has nothing to do with "son," but only with "the Canaanitess"?
b) From where does Rashi in fact take this interpretation, that "the Canaanitess" here means only "violated by a Canaanite," and not an actual Canaanite woman3?
c) For what reason is it necessary to mention (in the verse), in the matter of "And the sons of Shimon, etc.," that Dinah "was violated by a Canaanite," and why, on this account, does the verse designate her by the name "Canaanitess"4?
d) What is Rashi's purpose in adding immediately, in detail, the event "When they killed Shechem, etc."? That is, what is difficult in the explanation "the son of Dinah, who was violated by a Canaanite," that thanks to this addition the explanation becomes understandable and correct5?
e) According to the plain meaning, a sister from the same mother is forbidden also to a Noahide6. Since this is so, there is a difficulty: how did Shimon take Dinah, who was his sister (also) from the same mother7?
2. The first two questions stated above — why Rashi places in his commentary also the word "son," and from where it is implied that "the Canaanitess" is Dinah — are answered each by means of the other. To preface, one more question: why does the verse say "the son of the Canaanitess" at all?
In counting all the sons of the Tribes in this parsha, and also with the other sons of Shimon themselves, only the name of the father is mentioned. With Shaul, by contrast, the verse also mentions who his mother was. Why the difference8? Rashi anticipates this question: "the son of the Canaanitess" means "the son of Dinah"9, and therefore the verse relates who Shaul's mother was, in order to trace his lineage to Yaakov also through his mother10.
According to this, however, it becomes even less understandable that the verse designates Dinah by the word "the Canaanitess." Since the whole reason it mentions Shaul's mother here is to relate his praise, the distinction of his lineage, that his mother too was a daughter of Yaakov, how does this fit with the expression "the Canaanitess," which on the contrary relates something to Dinah's discredit ("who was violated by a Canaanite")?
The explanation of this is that the verse's calling her by the name "Canaanitess" (and likewise Rashi's adding "When they killed Shechem, etc.") serves to explain how she was permitted to Shimon11, as will be explained below in sections 8 and 9.
3. This will be understood by first considering what Rashi says in an earlier parsha12, that Lavan's saying "בנותי בנותי" ("my daughters, my daughters") — twice — was because "אף בלהה וזלפה בנותיו היו מפילגש" ("Bilhah and Zilpah too were his daughters, from a concubine"). There too the question arises: Yaakov kept all 613 mitzvos13, so how did he take Bilhah and Zilpah14, who were seemingly forbidden to him because of "ואשה אל אחותה לא תקח" ("And you shall not take a woman in addition to her sister")15 — both because they were sisters to Rachel and Leah, and because they themselves (Bilhah and Zilpah) were sisters to one another?
One cannot answer16 that since they "were his daughters, from a concubine," they are therefore not reckoned as his children and consequently not as sisters17 — as is also proven from the wording of the verse18 "וללבן שתי בנות" ("And Lavan had two daughters") — because:
a) Plainly, it must turn out that the children of a concubine too have, with respect to the father, the status of lineage of children. And although they are indeed not exactly like the children of a married woman [which is why it says "And Lavan had two daughters," and also why, when Lavan called them "my daughters," he said "my daughters, my daughters — twice," emphasizing by this the very distinction between Rachel and Leah and Bilhah and Zilpah], nevertheless it does not stand to reason to say that daughters of a concubine are entirely without the lineage of children, and therefore also without the status of sisters to one another and with respect to the other daughters.
[A proof of this: the verse19 relates: "ולבני הפלגשים אשר לאברהם נתן אברהם מתנות וישלחם מעל יצחק בנו בעודנו חי גו׳" ("And to the sons of the concubines that Avraham had, Avraham gave gifts, and he sent them away from Yitzchak his son while he was still alive, etc."). In the plain sense, the reason Avraham had to send away the sons of the concubines (and the verse adds — and what, seemingly, does it teach us? — "while he was still alive") is that otherwise they too would have inherited Avraham's property. This shows that they had the status of sons, and were therefore entitled to be heirs20.]
b) Rashi's wording "were his daughters, from a concubine" (in the singular) implies that both Bilhah and Zilpah were daughters of the same concubine. This means, then, that they were sisters from the same mother (for even granting that daughters of a concubine are excluded from the lineage of children and sisters, this can be said only with respect to the father, but not when speaking of the mother). So the difficulty remains: how did Yaakov take two sisters (from the same mother)?
4. This will be understood by explaining the meaning of "פלגש" (pilegesh, "concubine") according to the plain sense. The word pilegesh already appears twice in the earlier parshiyos, once in Parshas Vayeira21 and a second time in Parshas Chayei Sarah22. We find a puzzling matter here: in Parshas Vayeira, where pilegesh is mentioned for the first time, Rashi does not explain the difference between a pilegesh and a wife. Only the second time, in Parshas Chayei Sarah, does Rashi explain: "נשים בכתובה פלגשים בלא כתובה" ("Wives are with a kesubah, concubines without a kesubah"). Why does Rashi not explain this earlier, the first time?
From this we see that in general the word pilegesh requires no special explanation. Plainly it means this: when a man married a maidservant who did not have the standing of his wife and life partner, she was called a pilegesh23 (which is why Rashi24 compares the (sons of a) pilegesh to the (sons of a) maidservant — because a pilegesh is a maidservant25). Therefore Rashi has no need to explain the word in Parshas Vayeira; it is understood from his drawing a comparison between a maidservant and a pilegesh.
This is not the case with the word "הפלגשים" ("the concubines," in the plural26) in Parshas Chayei Sarah, by which Hagar is meant [not only when Avraham took her the first time27, when she was a maidservant28, but also] when "ויוסף אברהם גו׳ ושמה קטורה" ("And Avraham went on, etc., and her name was Keturah")29, at which time "קטורה זו הגר" ("Keturah is Hagar") was no longer a maidservant30 (as stated in an earlier verse, "וישלחה" ("and he sent her away")31). Rashi must therefore pause and teach that "the concubines" here means "without a kesubah," and not as the plain meaning everywhere else32.
(This also makes it understandable why Rashi brings a proof for this explanation of his from the Gemara in Sanhedrin33, which speaks of "the concubines of David" — even though the word pilegesh is mentioned many times in Tanach34 before this account of David. The reason is that the concubines in all those earlier places are (or one can say that they are) not a "wife" at all, and not merely "without a kesubah.")
According to this it is understood with regard to our subject that Bilhah and Zilpah, who "were his daughters, from a concubine," were daughters of a maidservant [for by the word pilegesh, with reference to the mother of Bilhah and Zilpah in Rashi, what is certainly meant is a pilegesh as everywhere else35]. Since this is so, they did not have the status of sisters, as will be explained below.
5. When Esav said to Yitzchak, "הלא אצלת לי ברכה" ("Have you not reserved a blessing for me?"), Yitzchak answered him, "הן גביר שמתיו לך גו׳" ("Behold, I have made him a master over you, etc.")36. Rashi explains37: "מה תועלת לך בברכה, אם תקנה נכסים שלו הם .. מה שקנה עבד קנה רבו" ("What use is a blessing to you? If you acquire property, it is his ... what a slave acquires, his master acquires").
One could seemingly ask: if not a blessing for possessions and wealth, he could still have blessed Esav with a blessing for children? From this we see that "what a slave acquires, his master acquires" holds not only in relation to "property" (possessions and wealth), but also with regard to children. The children of a slave too do not belong to him as children belong to their father; rather, they belong to the master, as if they were the master's children.
We find this even more clearly in another verse38. When Bilhah bore a son to Yaakov, Rachel said about him, "ויתן לי בן" ("And He has given me a son"), that is, that G‑d gave her (Rachel) a son. The reason is understood39: since Bilhah was Rachel's maidservant, her son too did not belong to her, but to Rachel40.
If so, the same is true with regard to Bilhah and Zilpah themselves: since they were born of a maidservant, they did not have the status of children to their mother, and consequently also no status of sisters to one another.
6. All this explains only one side, why they are not sisters from the same mother, since their mother was a maidservant. But why were they not called sisters from the same father?
Seemingly one could answer this too on account of the same reason. There is the rule41 that "אין אישות לשפחה" ("there is no marriage to a maidservant"). Since with regard to Lavan's maidservant there was no marriage, with regard to her daughters too there was no relationship of daughters of Lavan. Thus they were not sisters even from the same father, as Rashi says on "ערות בת אשת אביך" ("The nakedness of your father's wife's daughter") — "שאינו חייב על אחותו משפחה" ("that one is not liable for his sister from a maidservant")42.
But this answer does not hold up:
a) From the verse "ערות אחותך" ("The nakedness of your sister")43, one would plainly have assumed that there is liability also for one's sister from a maidservant, which is why a special derivation from "The nakedness of your father's wife's daughter" is needed, that "one is not liable for his sister from a maidservant." It follows necessarily that with all the other forbidden relations connected with sisters — among them also "And you shall not take a woman in addition to her sister, etc." — sisters from a maidservant are forbidden as well44.
b) The rule that "there is no marriage to a maidservant" was newly established after Matan Torah. Before Matan Torah, marriage was applicable also with a maidservant (in the manner of a pilegesh)
[and this plainly answers why Avraham took a maidservant (Hagar45) and also why Yaakov took maidservants (Bilhah and Zilpah46). For the reason for "לא יסב גברא מבני ישראל אתתא אמתא" ("A man of the Children of Israel shall not take a maidservant as a wife") is that after Matan Torah "נעשה קדש על ידה שכל בעילותיו בעילות זנות, שאין קדושין תופסין לו בה" ("he becomes a promiscuous person through her, for all his relations are relations of promiscuity, since kiddushin does not take effect for him with her")47. But before Matan Torah, when there was marriage to a maidservant48 (at least in the manner of a pilegesh), this prohibition did not apply].
Since this is so, it means that before Matan Torah a sister born of a maidservant also had the status of a sister, even with regard to the prohibition of "your sister, your father's wife's daughter."
7. The explanation of this will become clear when we understand the reason why the children of a slave49 are not reckoned as his own. Seemingly, granted that since a slave is entirely acquired by his master, it is not possible for him to possess anything that could be called his [to the point that the commentators50 explain that "what a slave acquires, his master acquires" does not mean that the slave acquires the thing for himself and through him it becomes acquired by his master, but that from the outset it is his master who acquires it].
But seemingly this fits only with regard to possessions and the like, things to which the idea of "acquiring" applies. When it comes to children, however, we are not dealing with things that are acquired; they are by nature bound up with the very existence of the parents. So why should the slave's children not be considered his children?
We have from this a proof that a slave is acquired by his master to such an extent, and the acquisition is so powerful, that the slave is not an entity in his own right at all; his whole being is the property of the master. In the words of the verse51: "כספו הוא" ("He is his money"). Therefore it is not possible that a slave or a maidservant should have, with their children, a connection and the status of a father or a mother52, for by this they would be an entity in their own right53.
In this way it becomes understood why Bilhah and Zilpah did not have the status of sisters, not even from the same father: because as children of a maidservant54 they had no family relationship at all to a father or a mother. Their entire existence was: the money of Lavan, and afterward of Rachel and Leah55.
8. According to all the above we will also understand how Shimon was allowed to take Dinah.
On "וישב ממנו שבי" ("And he took some of them captive")56 Rashi says: "אינה אלא שפחה אחת" ("It was only one maidservant"). Seemingly, from where does Rashi get to say that the captive was a maidservant, and not simply a woman who was captured? The meaning, rather, is this: it makes no difference what she was. Even if she was simply a woman, falling into captivity made her a maidservant.
From this it is understood with regard to Dinah: through "ויקח אותה" ("And he took her")57, through Shechem, the son of the prince of the land, who "was the most honored of all his father's house"58, taking her by force — although he did not compel her like a maidservant to work, nevertheless, since he enslaved her to the point of "she was violated by a Canaanite" [which indicates more than enslavement to labor] — she ceased to be an entity in her own right. She became a part of that which belongs to Shechem, and she received the title "Canaanitess"59. Consequently she did not have the status of a sister to anyone, not even to Shimon.
That is why the verse says "the son of the Canaanitess": not to relate something to her discredit, heaven forbid, but on the contrary, to explain that she was permitted to Shimon.
9. One can still ask, however: at birth Dinah was a free woman, and all the time before "And he took her" she had the status of kinship with her family. After she was freed from her subjugation to Shechem, one could say that the change is only that she becomes free, but one could also say that she receives back her earlier status, and consequently also that of Shimon's sister?
To answer this, Rashi adds: "When they killed Shechem, Dinah did not want to leave until Shimon swore to her that he would marry her." Since Dinah herself made her departure from Shechem's domain conditional on Shimon marrying her, and otherwise she would not leave, it is understood that her becoming free took place in such a manner that she would remain a "Canaanitess" and be permitted to marry Shimon.
10. From every matter in Torah one can and must derive a directive in the service of G‑d, especially since Rashi's commentary also contains "the wine of Torah"60. It is therefore understood that from the matter discussed above too — that a slave's being acquired by his master applies not only to his possessions, but also to his very existence — there is a directive as to how much a Jew, about whom it is written "עבדי הם" ("They are My servants") and "כי לי בני ישראל עבדים" ("For the Children of Israel are servants to Me")61, must be subservient to G‑d.
In this lies the advantage of a "servant" over a "son"62 [the title "sons" the Jewish people had even before the Exodus from Egypt63, but the title "servants" was newly established only at the Exodus from Egypt64]. For when a Jew fulfills G‑d's will out of love, as a son fulfills his father's will because of the great love he has for him, there is mixed in also the sense of his own existence. By contrast, when he serves G‑d out of kabbalas ol, as a servant serves his master, then his service is pure of any sense of his own existence (since his whole being is only "the money of the master"). Here only the existence of the Master is felt, the Supreme King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He.
And this very fact, that through kabbalas ol he ceases to be an entity of his own, raises him up and he becomes united with the King — as Rashi65 says: "עבד מלך — מלך" ("A king's servant is a king"). He becomes the master, the king over the entire world, through whom G‑d's kingship is revealed everywhere, up to "ויאמר כל אשר נשמה באפו ה׳ אלקי ישראל מלך ומלכותו בכל משלה" ("And all that has breath in its nostrils will say: the L‑rd, G‑d of Israel, is King, and His kingship rules over all")66.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Mikeitz and Shabbos Parshas Vayigash (and Rosh Hashanah) 5728)
Notes
1) Our parsha, 46:10 [OCR unclear].
2) And although regarding Shechem it is written (Vayishlach 34:2) "Shechem the son of Chamor the Hivite," all seven nations are called Canaanites (Rashi, Bo 13:5). See also above, Noach 14, 15 ff. [as printed].
3) In Gur Aryeh here (and so too in the Re'em): "One cannot say an actual Canaanite woman; is it possible that Avraham commanded that his son not take from the daughters of the Canaanites, and Yaakov would allow Shimon to take a Canaanite woman? Rather, it means the son of Dinah." (See below, Sicha 2 on Parshas Vayechi, that this is also one of the proofs for Rashi (Vayeishev 37:35) to explain (in his first, main explanation) according to the view of R. Yehudah that "twin sisters were born, etc., and they married them," and (ibid. 38:2) "Canaanite — a merchant," as explained there in notes 5 and 34; but see there in the marginal gloss to note 34.)
But this is not understood, since one could have explained here "Canaanitess — a merchant woman" (as the Re'em asks here). And as for what the Re'em writes, that the proof is from the words "and they took Dinah from the house of Shechem and left" (as in Bereishis Rabbah 80:11): (a) this is not mentioned at all in Rashi's commentary; (b) if Rashi's inference were from "and they took," he would have had to explain this there, in Parshas Vayishlach.
Nor can one say that Rashi's explanation "the son of Dinah, etc." follows his second explanation in Parshas Vayeishev (37:35), "they were Canaanite women," for according to this it is difficult: since all of them were sons of Canaanite women, why is "Canaanitess" written regarding Shaul more than all of them (see Gur Aryeh and Sifsei Chachamim here; see also Re'em, Vayechi 50:13)? On the contrary, it is the opposite of the way of the plain meaning to explain that with all those who were sons of Canaanite women this is not mentioned, and specifically Shaul, who was the son of Yaakov's daughter, is called "the son of the Canaanitess" because Dinah was violated by a Canaanite!
In addition: from what Rashi writes (Vayechi 50:13), that Yaakov commanded "Let none of your sons [carry my coffin], etc., for they are of the daughters of Canaan" [and he excluded all the Tribes (except for Menasheh and Ephraim), as is explicit in Rashi there: "and He established for them a place, three to the east, and likewise for the four directions"], it is proven that Shaul too was the son of a Canaanite woman.
It is forced to say that since he excluded the other sons of the Tribes, he therefore excluded all his grandchildren, also Shaul (and Shelah) [and Menasheh and Ephraim are different, since "they are mine, in the count of my other sons" (Vayechi 48:5 and Rashi there)], for:
(a) If Shaul (and Shelah) were not of the daughters of Canaan and were fit to carry his coffin, why would he exclude them (and it is not reasonable to say this was so that there would be three for each direction)?
(b) From the plain wording of Rashi, "and not one of your sons, for they are of the daughters of Canaan," it is implied that the reason for "each one of your sons" is that he is of the daughters of Canaan. From this it is understood that Rashi's explanation too, "Canaanite — a merchant" (Vayeishev 38:2), is only according to R. Yehudah, unlike what Gur Aryeh writes there (or that it is also according to R. Nechemiah, only that nevertheless there was also an actual Canaanite, as below in the aforementioned sicha, in the aforementioned marginal gloss).
*) Just as we find that after Rashi cites several explanations on some matter, he sometimes later explains according to one explanation only (see Likkutei Sichos vol. 9, p. 3, note 18), because for the other explanations the verse needs no elaboration, since it is understood by itself, and the like. And in this matter too, the explanation "Canaanite — a merchant" (Vayeishev 38:2) is only according to R. Yehudah, and the explanation "for they are of the daughters of Canaan" (Vayechi 50:13) is only according to R. Nechemiah (as explained at length below in Sicha 2, end of section 10).
4) Especially according to what they said, "Even regarding the disgrace of an impure animal the verse did not speak, etc." (Bava Basra 123a). And this is so also in the plain sense (which is why Rashi did not need to explain (Noach 7:8) why the verse used eight extra letters. And what Rashi cites (ibid. 6:9), "And some interpret it disparagingly," has been explained at length in the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Noach 5725; see there (printed below, p. 280 ff.)).
5) It is obvious that one cannot say Rashi's intent is to explain how Dinah's son was among the sons of Shimon, for (besides that this is understood even without his explanation) to explain this it would have been enough to say "and Shimon married her" (as in the Radak here).
6) Rashi, Vayeira 20:12. In the Re'em here: that in Parshas Vayeira Rashi explains according to R. Eliezer (Sanhedrin 58a) and in our parsha according to R. Akiva. But it needs great study how this view can be said in Rashi's commentary on the Torah. It seems obvious that Rashi would not contradict himself from one place to another, for a five-year-old beginning Scripture, whose understanding of Chumash is only through Rashi, would not accept at all that one verse contradicts another! (Only when he cites several explanations in one place does he sometimes explain in another place according to one explanation only, as in the marginal gloss to note 3.)
7) The Ra'av here cites the reading "שישיאנה" ("that he would marry her off") (to another). But [besides that according to this it is not understood why Shaul is counted among the sons of Shimon] "שישאנה" ("that he would marry her") is the reading in all the printings and manuscripts of Rashi (especially since it is so too in Radak here and in Parshas Vayishlach 36:26; in the Tur HaAroch and Moshav Zekeinim here; in Matnos Kehunah on Bereishis Rabbah there; and in many places).
8) Further: what is "the Canaanitess" (with the definite article), in what is she famous? According to the explanation "the son of Dinah" it is understood, since it is known that she was violated by a Canaanite.
9) According to R. Nechemiah, who explains "the Canaanitess" as actual (see note 3 above), one can say that this is because only she was of the actual family of Canaan [unlike the other wives of the Tribes, who were of the others of the seven nations (and what Rashi writes, "they were Canaanite women," is because "all are included in 'Canaanite'": Rashi, Bo 13:5; see note 2 above)]. And since the main title "Canaanite" applies only to one of the seven nations (Lech 15:20-21; see also Rashi, Bo there), even though "all are included in 'Canaanite'" — which itself implies that it is the main one among them — he was therefore called "Shaul the son of the Canaanitess" (similar to Rashi, Vayishlach 36:3: "she is called by his name"; see above, pp. 164, 168 ff. and the notes there).
10) According to R. Yehudah, that they married the twins (see note 3 above, that this explanation follows R. Yehudah), perhaps one can say that since it is obvious (according to R. Yehudah) that the Tribes married the twins (as explained below, p. 269 ff.), the verse did not need to emphasize this with the other sons of the Tribes. Shaul is different, since he was born of Dinah, who is mentioned (several times) in Scripture.
11) See Gur Aryeh here.
12) Vayeitzei 31:50.
13) Rashi, Vayishlach 32:5.
14) As for Yaakov's marrying Leah and Rachel, even though they were two sisters, see above, p. 141 ff.
15) Acharei 18:18.
16) The intent of the sicha is not that Rashi's intent in writing "from a concubine" is to answer this question, for even without it he had to add "from a concubine" to explain why Lavan said "my daughters, my daughters," twice. Rather, according to Rashi's explanation this question too is answered automatically.
17) Accordingly it is understood simply what Rashi writes (Vayeitzei 29:18), "And perhaps you will say, I will exchange Leah, change her name and call her Rachel; therefore it says 'the younger.'" For seemingly there is still room for concern that he would change the name of Zilpah (who was the youngest of all (Rashi, ibid. 30:14 [as printed])) and call her Rachel, since he had already said to him "your daughter" (see Levush there, 29:18).
18) Vayeitzei 29:16.
19) Chayei Sarah 25:6.
20) One should not ask from what is written (Vayeira 21:14 [as printed]; see Rashi there), "The son of this maidservant shall not inherit with my son" [that because he is "the son of the maidservant" — which is one and the same as the son of a concubine (as below, section 4) — he therefore "shall not inherit"]. For on the contrary, from there is a proof that the son of a maidservant too inherits, only that he "shall not inherit with my son."
21) 22:24.
22) 25:6. Note also Rashi, Lech 16:1.
23) See Ibn Ezra, Chayei Sarah 25:1: "And the meaning of pilegesh is maidservant."
24) Vayeira 22:20.
25) What Rashi writes there, "Enough the sons of maidservants ... enough the sons of a concubine" — even though according to what is written in the main text Bilhah and Zilpah too were concubines, and Re'umah too was a maidservant — is because this is the wording of the verse in each case.
26) For the main meaning (especially in the plain sense) follows the way the word is read (and in our case, even according to the way it is written, from the written form hapilagsham (with the addition of a mem) it necessarily means two concubines; see the commentators on Rashi here).
This is why Rashi had to add "she is Hagar, she is Keturah": for by this he comes to explain* "the concubines" in the plural. Since he married her twice — when her name was Hagar and when she was called Keturah — it was as if there were two concubines (see Levush HaOrah here; Yefeh To'ar on Bereishis Rabbah 61:4; and see note 32 below).
*) But one cannot say that his intent in this is to explain what he wrote before this, "that there was only one concubine" (for seemingly it would be difficult: from the sequence of the verses ("And he took ... Keturah, and she bore him, etc., and to the sons of the concubines, etc.") it is implied that the sons of the concubines are the sons of Keturah, while Hagar too was a concubine (see notes 28 and 30 below), and therefore he explains "she is Hagar, she is Keturah"). For he already wrote earlier (25:1) "Keturah is Hagar," and he does not need to explain it again.
27) For it is obvious (in the plain sense) that "the sons of the concubines" (in the plural) includes the sons of Hagar as well (unlike Ohr HaTorah and Be'er Mayim Chaim here), since there is no hint in the verse or in Rashi to distinguish between them. On the contrary, regarding Yishmael it is explicit in the verse that he would not inherit with Yitzchak. See also Sanhedrin 91a, end: "The sons of Yishmael came ... 'and to the sons of the concubines, etc.'"
28) And thus she was a concubine (according to the concept of a concubine in many places).
In Bereishis Rabbah 45:3: "as a wife and not as a concubine" (see also Ramban, Lech 16:2; and it needs study, since he contradicts himself in Parshas Chayei Sarah 25:6). That is, Sarah freed Hagar (as stated in Bereishis Rabbah there: "that she is a mistress like her"). But according to the plain sense, from the fact that she is called a maidservant also afterward (Lech 16:5 ff.), and even the angel said to her "Return to your mistress and submit, etc.," and Yishmael is called "the son of the maidservant" (Vayeira 21:14 [as printed]; see note 20 above), it is proven that she had not yet been freed. As for what is written (Lech there, 3) "as a wife," see note 31 below.
29) Chayei Sarah 25:1.
30) See similarly Be'er Mayim Chaim, Chayei Sarah there; Nachal Kedumim there.
In Be'er Mayim Chaim there: "'And he took a wife' — an actual wife," and in Nachal Kedumim there (and he explains Rashi this way): "Until now she was a concubine, and now a wife with a kesubah." But from what is written, "concubines" in the plural, it is implied as in the main text. And so too in Zohar I, 133b: "a concubine at first and a concubine now."
31) Vayeira 21:14.
But one cannot say that Rashi's proof is from the words (Chayei Sarah 25:1) "and he took a wife" (as in Ramban (25:6) and Be'er Mayim Chaim (25:1)). For [besides that regarding Hagar too it is said (Lech 16:3) "as a wife" (and the distinction that Ramban and Be'er Mayim Chaim make between Hagar and Keturah needs study)] we find even more than this: even a Canaanite maidservant whom the master gives to his Hebrew servant in order to beget slaves from her (who plainly is not even a concubine), even after Matan Torah, is called a "wife" in Scripture (see Rashi, Mishpatim 21:4).
32) Accordingly one can also understand why Rashi writes the explanation "wives with a kesubah and concubines without a kesubah" (a) in the same comment as the explanation "written defectively, etc., she is Keturah" (even though his way everywhere, when he explains two different matters on the same words, is to copy the verse's words again to emphasize that this is a new comment (Bereishis 1:1; 1:2; and in many places)), and (b) after the explanation "written defectively, etc." (even though seemingly he should first have explained the word "the concubines" itself, and only afterward the reason that it is "written defectively," which is only a point of detail, especially since "written defectively" is not so much of a question in the plain sense (see above, p. 17 and note 15 there)).
For because of the way the word "the concubines" is read (in the plural), he would have had to explain that it refers (not to (Hagar and) Keturah, since "Keturah is Hagar" (Rashi just before this, 25:1) and they are only one, but) to other concubines [and he would have been forced to say that (a) Avraham had other concubines whose names are not mentioned in the verse (as in Zohar I, 133b, beginning), or (b) that "the concubines" means the concubines of his household (according to the explanation of the Radak)], and then one could have explained "the concubines" here as everywhere else.
Only after he explained "she is Keturah" must he explain "concubines without a kesubah," since when he took Keturah she was already freed.
One can also say that "wives with a kesubah, etc." is the continuation of the explanation of "the concubines" in the plural (see note 26 above). The explanation begins with "she is Hagar, she is Keturah" (as in the aforementioned note). But this is still not smooth, since after all she is only one concubine, and on this he continues "wives with a kesubah, etc.," that the concept of "concubine" with Keturah differs from "concubine" with Hagar.
33) 21a. See the commentators on Rashi here. Note also Responsa Tzemach Tzedek, Even HaEzer, sec. 138.
34) Vayishlach 35:22; 36:12; Shoftim 8:31; ch. 19; etc.
35) Even though "pilegesh" is a concept concerning the manner of marriage (as is understood also according to the plain sense, since it is found in Scripture only in connection with a man and with marriage (as at the end of Parshas Vayeira; Vayishlach 35:22; and elsewhere), and the Ibn Ezra in note 23 can also be explained this way), and seemingly, also according to the plain sense, even a free woman can be married as a concubine* (as in "And Timna was a concubine" (Vayishlach 36:12), even though she was of a chieftain's family (Rashi there), and we do not find in Rashi that she later became a maidservant),
nevertheless it is understood that a concubine without further specification was a maidservant (which is why Rashi writes at the end of Parshas Vayeira "the maidservant, etc.," as above in the main text), since only women without standing were married as concubines. (And that Timna too was a concubine, even though she was of a chieftain's family, is because she was a mamzeres, as Rashi explains in Vayishlach there**.)
In addition: regarding Lavan's concubine, it is understood that she was a maidservant. For since his daughters were Lavan's maidservants (Vayeitzei 29:24, 29), one must say that they were so from the time of their birth
[for we do not find (and on the contrary, it is against nature) that a father would make his young, free daughter his maidservant. Especially since even without this they would do Lavan's work, as with Rachel, who though a free woman shepherded his sheep],
and one must conclude that they were so because they were born of the maidservant. See note 54 below.
*) As in the plain wording of Rashi, that the difference (always) between wives and concubines is only with regard to the kesubah.
**) Accordingly it is better understood (a) how Rashi's continuation, "And in Divrei HaYamim, etc.," connects with what he wrote before, and (b) why after writing "and Timna came forth from between them" he adds (again) "and when she grew up she became his concubine," which seems superfluous.
For Rashi had the difficulty: since she was of a chieftain's family, why did he marry her only as a concubine? And through this he answers: "And in Divrei HaYamim, etc., and Timna came forth from between them," (and therefore) "and when she grew up she became his concubine."
36) Toldos 27:37.
37) Ibid., 36.
38) Vayeitzei 30:6.
39) One cannot say that her intent in "And He has given me a son" is that she would raise him as her son (as in Rashi just before this (30:3), that she said "and I will be built through her, I will raise him"), and like Rashi in Vayeishev (37:10), "that she raised him like his mother." For on the contrary, from Rashi in Vayeishev there it is proven that one who raises another's son is not called his father or mother (only that he has some likeness to a father and mother), for otherwise why did Yaakov not know that "the matters reach Bilhah"? (See Likkutei Sichos vol. 23 (p. 8 ff.) on Rashi, Bamidbar 3:1.)
40) What she said, "And He has given me a son," even though he was only her property and the purchase of her money, is because since his entire birth came about through her saying and giving (Vayeitzei 30:3-4), he is considered her son. (But it is understood that if he had been considered the son of Bilhah, it would not be possible for Rachel to say "And He has given me a son," even though his entire birth came about through her.)
41) See Rashi, Acharei 18:11, 15.
42) Ibid., 18:11.
43) Ibid., 9.
44) (It is obvious that one cannot say that once Scripture revealed regarding "your sister," the same holds for all the forbidden relations, for then "she is your son's wife" (ibid., 15; see Rashi there) would be superfluous.)
45) See note 26 above, that she was not freed beforehand.
46) They too were not freed before Yaakov married them, for even after their marriage (and even after each bore Yaakov a second son) they are called maidservants (Vayeitzei 30:12), and Scripture even emphasizes several times that they were not like his wives (Vayishlach 32:23; 33:1 ff.). Accordingly it is also understood in the plain sense what is written (35:22), "Bilhah, his father's concubine." Especially according to Rashi there: "the maidservant of my mother's sister."
47) Rashi, Seitzei 23:18.
48) Even though in Rashi there it says, "For they were compared to a donkey, as it is said, 'Stay here with the donkey,'" and this verse was said before Matan Torah (Vayeira 22:5), one must say that Rashi's proof from this verse is only that they were compared to a donkey, but not with regard to the matter "that kiddushin (in the sense of marriage) does not take effect, etc.," since Avraham married Hagar and Yaakov Bilhah and Zilpah, as above. One must conclude that the precise point is "kiddushin," in Rashi's wording, "since kiddushin does not take effect for him with her" (and before Matan Torah we do not find kiddushin), and Rashi explains the reason (the source) for this, "for they were compared to a donkey" (even before Matan Torah, and all the more so after Matan Torah).
49) And similarly with a maidservant.
50) Rashba, Kiddushin 23b.
51) Mishpatim 21:21. Note also Nazir 62b; the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Gittin 1:6; Tzafnas Pa'neach, second edition (p. 84); and Megillas Esther at its end.
52) But it is obvious that even in the Egyptian exile the laws of forbidden relations (those forbidden to Noahides) applied, even though they were slaves to Pharaoh (Rashi, Yisro 20:2). For [besides that the tribe of Levi was not enslaved (Rashi, Shemos 5:4) and all the women were not enslaved (Rashi, Vayakhel 35:8)] the matter of "slaves to Pharaoh" was only a levy (Vayigash 47:25; see Vayechi 49:15; Shoftim 20:11)*.
*) For otherwise what is written (Shemos 1:11), "And they set over them tax officers," is not understood at all, for the slave belongs wholly to the master! Note also (at least in the manner of Midrash) the saying of our Sages on "with rigor" — "with a soft mouth" (Tanchuma, Beha'aloscha; see Sotah 11b, beginning (in Rashi) and 11a there on the verse "in order to afflict him"), that is, that they did not take them as slaves.
53) Note Rashi, Behar (26:1), that even with a Jew sold to an idolater [even though (a) from the outset he is not acquired permanently, but only until the Yovel year; (b) even before that there is a mitzvah to redeem him; (c) "do not come upon him with subterfuge (only) because of the desecration of G‑d's Name" (Rashi, Behar 25:48)] the Torah has a safeguard, "since my master engages in forbidden relations, I too will be like him, etc." (see at length the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Behar 5725 (and Likkutei Sichos vol. 7, p. 177 ff.)). Note also Zohar III, 108a.
54) What is said in the sicha, "as children of a maidservant," even though seemingly all that matters is that they were maidservants at the time Yaakov married them, and that they were maidservants then is explicit in the verse (30:4, 9): "and she gave him Bilhah her maidservant as a wife"; "and she took Zilpah her maidservant and gave her to Yaakov as a wife" (see note 46 above, that it is explicit in Scripture that even after their marriage they were maidservants*)
— is because if they had previously been free women and were considered sisters, they would be forbidden as a wife's sister even after they became maidservants [even though with regard to other forbidden relations, the earlier kinship is nullified through slavery (as below in section 8 regarding Dinah)]. For since the prohibition of a wife's sister is for the reason of "to be a rival" — preventing the natural love between sisters (see above, p. 145) — then if there was a time when they were free women, behaved as sisters and were raised so, it is not reasonable to say that when they became maidservants this nature was nullified.
*) Therefore there is no necessity to say "as children of a maidservant" because if they had previously been free and considered sisters, one could say that when they were freed they reverted to being sisters (see below, section 9) and Yaakov would have had to separate from them.
Additionally: even had he freed them after their marriage, he would not have needed to (or would even have been forbidden to) separate from them (if they were not sisters at the time of the marriage and the taking): (a) The prohibition of "to be a rival" is as is explicit in the verse, "And you shall not take a woman in addition to her sister." (And even if one should say that in the plain sense one cannot infer from the wording of the verse that if the taking was permitted she is permitted also afterward, and Rashi did not cite this inference in his commentary on the Torah, there is another reason, and the main one:) (b) Separation (affliction: Rashi above, 31:50) and divorce (without the woman's fault and the like, and against her will) would pain the woman, something forbidden to Noahides and not set aside for the sake of the added stringency of keeping the whole Torah before it was given (see above, p. 145 ff.; p. 186, note 17).
55) "The sons of the concubines that Avraham had," and likewise Yishmael, are different, for they had the status of heirs (see above, section 3 and note 20). For although they were sons of maidservants, they were not (his money) slaves*.
And so too regarding the sons of Yaakov's maidservants: that "they would belittle the sons of the maidservants by calling them slaves" is included in "their evil report" (Vayeishev 37:2 and Rashi). Even though Scripture too calls them several times "the sons of the maidservants" [to the point that they were not as important as the sons of Leah and Rachel (Vayishlach 33:2; Rashi, Vayakhel 35:34)], they were not slaves.
*) One should not ask from what is written (Vayeira 22:5), "And Avraham said to his lads (Yishmael and Eliezer: Rashi there, 3), 'Stay here with the donkey,'" from which (since (a) he treats both alike (Yishmael and Eliezer), (b) he called them "his lads" (see Rashi, Lech 14:14), (c) they were compared to a donkey (see Rashi, Seitzei 23:18)) it is proven that Yishmael too was a slave. For even otherwise it is difficult: he was in the desert of Paran (Vayeira 21:21), which is very far from Hebron (Beha'aloscha 10:12)? One must say that afterward he returned from the desert of Paran to Avraham and became his lad (his servant).
(But afterward he was no longer a slave (see Rashi at the end of Chayei Sarah: "dwelled"). One can say that his being freed is explicit in the verse, "and he sent them away" (25:6), and as above in section 4 regarding "and he sent her away" concerning Hagar, to the point that his sons were princes (28:9) — and similarly that they returned to Mount Paran (Rashi, Berachah 33:2), which according to the plain sense is in the desert of Paran (from which it is obvious to Rashi, in Parshas Berachah, that it speaks of the sons of Yishmael (as in Tanchuma there; see Rashi, Avodah Zarah 2b, end), to the point that he did not need to explain his proof).)
56) Chukas 21:1. (Note Rashi, Bo 12:29.)
57) Vayishlach 35:2 [as printed; the verse is 34:2]. Note the expression "and they took Lot" (Lech 14:12), where the meaning is that he was captured (see ibid., 14).
58) Vayishlach 34:19.
59) According to this the puzzle is answered: is a woman who was violated by force by a Canaanite a Canaanite? Note the wording of the verse, three times, regarding Shlomis (Emor 24:11). Especially since she was a minor, under her father's authority (note Chayei Sarah 24:57-58 and Rashi) —
(although with difficulty one can say that they only call her so, on account of the event). But the case of "Dinah, who was violated by a Canaanite" is different.
60) HaYom Yom, p. 24.
61) Behar 25:42, 55.
62) See Tanya, ch. 41; and at length, the maamar beginning "Umikneh Rav" 5666 and the maamarim following it.
63) As is written (Shemos 4:22), "My firstborn son is Israel." (See Likkutei Sichos vol. 9, p. 41 and the notes there; vol. 1, p. 2 ff.)
64) As is written in Behar there (the reason for "They are My servants"), "whom I took out from the land of Egypt."
Accordingly it is all the more fitting that this directive is hinted at by the verse in "And the sons of Shimon, etc., and Shaul the son of the Canaanitess," all three of whom are counted among "those who came to Egypt," and Shimon is the one who said "Behold, the master of dreams, etc." (Rashi, Mikeitz 42:24), a statement that culminated in the descent to Egypt. For the descent to Egypt, through which specifically "whom I took out, etc." could come about (especially according to what Ibn Ezra writes there, 25:42: "The reason for 'They are My servants' is that I acquired them from the house of bondage," even though their slavery there was only with regard to levies, etc., as above), was the beginning of the preparation for "They are My servants."
65) Lech 15:18; Devarim 1:7.
66) The text of the Rosh Hashanah prayers.
Key Lesson
A servant of G‑d is acquired not only in what he owns but in his very existence. Serving out of kabbalas ol leaves no room for a sense of self, so that only the Master is felt. And by ceasing to be an entity of his own, a Jew becomes united with the King, and through him G‑d's kingship is revealed throughout the world.