לקוטי שיחות חלק י׳ - חיי שרה ב

Parshas Chayei Sarah

1. Our parshah relates the negotiations between Eliezer and Rivkah's family concerning her marriage to Yitzchak, and in Rashi's commentary on this passage we find several matters that require explanation, both in their content and in how they compare with one another.

On the verse^[1] "and we will ask her mouth," Rashi explains: "From here^[2] [we learn] that a woman may not be married off except with her consent." This needs to be understood:

a) In the preceding verses^[3] it says: "And Lavan and Besuel answered… Here is Rivkah before you; take her and go, and let her be a wife to your master's son…" — so they had already agreed to the match^[4] beforehand. Accordingly, it would seemingly have to be said that when they afterwards said "and we will ask her mouth," the intent was not about the matter itself (the match)^[5], but whether she would want to go immediately or would want to stay with them for some time, as they had said^[6] — and not as Rashi explains, that their question was about the marriage itself^[7].

b) On the verse^[8] "And her brother and her mother said," Rashi explains: "And where was Besuel^[9]? He wanted to hold it back, so an angel came and killed him"^[10]. From this it is implied that her brother and mother did not want to hold it back. But according to his explanation here, it is implied that in their minds too it was not yet agreed (and even more: they opposed it), as Rashi explains in Rivkah's reply: "I will go^[11] on my own, even if you do not want"^[12] — she sensed that they did not want it^[13] — and therefore they asked Rivkah about the match itself.

c) On the other hand, this requires explanation: From the plain sense of the verses it is clear (as above) that they agreed immediately (and in practice) to the match, as they said, "Here is Rivkah… take her and go." And seemingly, after we have learned that "a woman may not be married off except with her consent," it is difficult from the outset: a) How did they decide on this without first clarifying Rivkah's wishes? b) Their saying "take her and go," which in the plain sense of Scripture means immediately — but (as below) "a maiden is given twelve months"?

2. Earlier, on the verse "Let the maiden stay with us days, or ten," after Rashi explains the word "days" in the verse, that it means a year, he adds a reason for their request: "For so a maiden is given a period of twelve months to provide herself with jewelry."

This too requires explanation:

a) It is simple that a maiden needs time to prepare for her marriage; even a five-year-old beginning Scripture knows this, and the request of her brother and mother that Rivkah stay with them for some time is simply understood. What, then, is difficult in the plain sense of Scripture, that Rashi resolves by explaining the reason for their request, "for so a maiden is given…"? And if Rashi's intent is to explain the precision of specifically twelve months — he should then also have explained why specifically "ten."

b) Seemingly one could say in the plain sense of Scripture that they asked for twelve months because that is what they estimated in this particular case, that is, according to the state of Rivkah's "provision" — she needed twelve months (and according to this, Eliezer's view that she should go immediately is also simply resolved, for seemingly — about what did they disagree?). From where in the verses do we know that "so a maiden is given" (any maiden), that is, that it is a regular and accepted custom^[14], and that they relied on this custom?

c) On the contrary: according to his explanation, it is not understood why they immediately said "or ten." Since their request is because "so a maiden is given twelve months," what is the reason to give up two months? And if there is a reason for ten — why did they think at first to ask for "days" (a year)? From this too it is evident that there was no fixed order in this, and that they limited the time according to the estimated need (generously or sparingly — as we find in Avraham's plea: "fifty, forty-five…").

3. The explanation: In the verse "and we will ask her mouth," Rashi is compelled to explain that they meant the match as a whole (and not whether she would want to go immediately — as seemingly implied by the continuation of the verses), since in the following verse their question is spelled out: "Will you go with this man?" — and not "Will you go now with this man?" or the like. That is, their question was about the going as a whole — the match.

And as for what is evident from the preceding verses, that the match as a whole had already been agreed — we must say that in the meantime something happened that caused them to change their decision of agreement, to the point that they wanted to cancel the whole matter. And what caused this change? This is understood from Rashi's commentary on the above verses, as follows.

4. In Lavan and Besuel's answer to Eliezer they said: "The matter has come from the L‑rd; we cannot speak to you bad or good. (Therefore) here is Rivkah before you; take her and go… as the L‑rd has spoken." And Rashi explains: "'We cannot speak to you' — to refuse in this matter… because it is evident that the matter has come from the L‑rd, according to your words, that He designated her for you."

That is, from Eliezer's words they became convinced that "the matter has come from the L‑rd," and if so, it is understood that "we cannot…," for their refusal, or Rivkah's refusal, would not prevent the matter from coming about in actuality^[15]. Therefore they agreed immediately, even without asking Rivkah — although ordinarily one must ask the woman's consent^[16].

5. Now, the following verses relate that in reply to Eliezer's words, "Send me to my master," her brother and her mother said, "Let the maiden stay with us days, or ten; afterwards she will go" (that is, the matter as a whole is agreed, only they ask that she stay with them for some time). But when Eliezer repeated his words, in the wording "Do not delay me… send me and I will go to my master," they said: "Let us call the maiden and ask her mouth" (and as above, section 3, they were asking about the matter as a whole). Thus the change in their decision was brought about by Eliezer's last words.

And Rashi explains and interprets that in saying "Let the maiden stay with us… afterwards she will go," their argument was: although the match has been concluded, as above, for one cannot refuse it, since "the matter has come from the L‑rd," nevertheless "let her stay…," for "so a maiden is given a period of twelve months" — this is the custom of the world^[17].

And even more: since Eliezer, when he proposed the match, did not stipulate that in this case there would be a departure from the usual and she would go immediately, then certainly (in the view of Lavan and the others) he too intended (from the outset) a match in the accepted and usual order.

But when Eliezer refused to agree to the customary order and added something new (and even according to Eliezer's words, there is no proof from the miracles that happened to him^[17*] that this new matter, too, had come from the L‑rd), it is understood that this cast doubt on all^[18] of his words — both on the deed of gift he had shown them^[19] and on the account of the wonders he had told (as is precise in Rashi's wording^[19*]: "because it is evident… according to your words," that is, they knew of them only from him). And since it was only because of the miracles that they had decided on the match without asking Rivkah's consent, and had said "Here is Rivkah… take her and go," they were now compelled to say "Let us call the maiden and ask her mouth" about the match itself^[20] — for a woman may not be married off except with her consent.

6. According to this, Rashi's intent in "Let the maiden stay with us days…" — "for so a maiden is given a period of twelve months" — is understood: this is the basis of their words. It was not a request but an argument: "Let the maiden stay… (for) so a maiden is given…," because Eliezer's adding something new caused them to retract their earlier decision, as explained above at length.

7. However, according to the above, that their argument "Let the maiden stay with us" was because "so a maiden is given twelve months" — why did they immediately say "or ten"?

The explanation:

The reason a maiden is given a period of twelve months, Rashi explains, is "to provide herself with jewelry." Now, in the preceding verses it is related that after they agreed to the match, "the servant brought out vessels of silver and vessels of gold^[21]… and gave them to Rivkah"^[21*]. And since Eliezer had already provided her with jewelry, they added to their argument: "or ten." That is, although in general twelve months are given, in this case one may say "or ten," for he had given her some jewelry (and from their argument it is understood that they estimated that the jewelry Eliezer gave (if^[22] his intent was to provide her with jewelry and not simply a gift — like the delicacies) was the measure of two months' provision^[23]); but there must be "ten" — that she stay with them ten months in order to provide herself with all the jewelry, as is customary^[24].

Nevertheless Eliezer said "send me" (also according to their own view): since "the L‑rd has prospered my way," he is truthful, and he had shown them the deed of gift of all his master's goods (including Sarah's jewelry as well).

8. There is a further precision in Rashi's commentary here:

In his explanation of "and we will ask her mouth," Rashi changes from the wording of the Midrash^[25], "An orphan girl may not be married off except by her own word," and writes: "that a woman may not be married off except with her consent." The reason requires explanation — especially since Rivkah was seemingly then a minor^[26].

Rashi's intent in this is that although Rivkah was only three years old, she was nevertheless already an adult^[27] (in her understanding):

In Parshas Toldos, on the verse^[28] "And the boys grew up…," Rashi explains: "As long as they were small, they were not recognizable by their deeds, and no one examined them closely to see what their nature was. Once they became thirteen years old, this one departed to the houses of study and that one departed…"

Now, the deeds of an adult demonstrate the traits of his soul: one who is mature and responsible, his deeds are a result of the traits of his soul (for good or the opposite). But one cannot prove the traits of a person's soul from his deeds in his childhood, when he is not mature and not responsible for his deeds.

Accordingly one can understand the lengthy wording in Rashi, "As long as they were small, they were not recognizable by their deeds, and no one examined them closely"^[29]. For seemingly, what difference does examining them make? He should simply have said: since they became thirteen years old (and reached adulthood), it was recognizable in their deeds that this one departed to the house of study and that one….

And it is understood from Rashi's wording that had they examined them and recognized their deeds before they became thirteen, it is possible that they would have discerned their traits earlier too. That is, in the plain sense of Scripture, the matter of minority and adulthood does not depend on age (thirteen years) but on the nature of each individual in particular — for one person matures at an early age, and another matures later. The age of thirteen is not the cause of adulthood; rather, this is nature in most cases — at thirteen a person becomes an adult in intellect and understanding, and from then on one examines him closely and recognizes his deeds, whereas before this age one does not examine him closely, since in most cases he has not yet matured in intellect and understanding.

And in our case:

The parshah relates^[30] that Eliezer gave himself a sign: "And it shall be that the maiden to whom I say, 'Please tip your pitcher that I may drink,' and she says, 'Drink, and I will also… ' — her have You designated for Your servant, for Yitzchak." And when he saw Rivkah, "the servant ran toward her and said…"^[31] — thus he examined Rivkah's deeds closely and recognized her by them^[32]. It follows that she was already an adult, in that one examines closely and can recognize her by her deeds.

And according to this, Rashi's precise wording, "a woman may not be married off…," is understood, for (in the plain sense of Scripture) Rivkah was already an adult (in her understanding) at that time^[33].

9. It is known that in Rashi's commentary there are "wondrous matters"^[34], in halachah as well. And in Rashi's commentary here:

Regarding the source of the law "at thirteen, for mitzvos"^[35], there are two views in halachah: a) We learn^[36] it from what is written^[37], "And two of Yaakov's sons, Shimon and Levi, took each man his sword…" — they were thirteen years old at that time^[38], and Scripture calls them "man," which denotes adulthood^[39]. According to this, it is a natural matter that at the age of thirteen^[40] one becomes an adult in intellect and understanding. b) It is one of the measures that are a law given to Moshe at Sinai^[41] — and does not depend on nature.

The halachic difference is: from when are the children of Noach obligated to fulfill the mitzvos they are commanded^[42]?

According to the view that "thirteen for mitzvos" is learned from the verse, and from the reason that it is human nature to become an adult at this age — then every descendant of Noach is obligated in mitzvos from the age of thirteen on, for since the Torah has revealed that by nature one then becomes an adult, there is no difference between a Jew and a descendant of Noach. But according to the view that this is a law given to Moshe at Sinai — then since for the children of Noach "the measures were not given"^[43], it depends on each one according to his nature and state^[44].

Now, in the plain sense of Scripture^[45], the Avos had the status of children of Noach^[46]; and according to the second view mentioned above (which, one may say, Rashi too holds^[47]), according to which their adulthood depends on each one according to his own nature — one may say that Rashi's words "a woman may not be married off…" (that is, that Rivkah was an adult) are also according to the way of halachah^[48].

(From a talk of Shabbos Parshas Chayei Sarah, 5733)

Key Lesson

Rivkah's family agreed at once to the match because they saw that "the matter has come from the L‑rd"; only when Eliezer insisted on something new did they doubt and ask Rivkah herself. And Rashi teaches that Rivkah, though young in years, was already mature in understanding — maturity is measured by a person's conduct and understanding, which Eliezer saw in her kindness. A woman is married only with her own consent, and one's true stature is revealed through one's deeds.