At Genesis 29:31, we are told that God saw that Leah was שנואה. The issue for this column is, “whether our forefather Yaakov really hated Leah,” i.e., are we supposed to take that “hate” word literally?
There is an approach taken by many of our traditional commentators and by many scholars that explains that we do not have to take that “hate” word literally. I am going to present this approach first, but I am not completely satisfied with it.
The key to this approach is what is found at Deuteronomy 21:15-17. There, we are told what happens when a man has two wives, an “ahuvah” and a “senuah,” and the firstborn son comes from the “senuah.” The law is that he must give the double portion to that firstborn, and not prefer the firstborn from the “ahuvah.” Many of the commentaries on those verses suggest that “senuah” and “ahuvah” are relative terms there, denoting only that one wife is preferred to the other.
(This section of Deuteronomy was part of my bar mitzvah parsha, Ki Tezei. I always wondered about the extreme language used. I am glad to finally understand it, over 50 years later!)
Based on this case in Deuteronomy, we can now understand שנואה at Genesis 29:31 as a relative term and merely meaning “less loved.” This is as opposed to “hated” or “unloved.” (The 1917 JPS translation at the top in the Hertz Chumash, has “hated.” ArtScroll and Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan have “unloved.”)
Some who adopt this interpretation in our chapter in Genesis are: Rashbam (see on 29:30), Radak (commentary to Genesis 29:31 and Sefer HaShorashim, שנא), Bechor Shor, Rabbeinu Bachya, Shmuel David Luzzatto, Rav Shimshon Rafael Hirsch, Rabbi Joseph Herman Hertz and Daat Mikra. Supporting this interpretation is 29:30, where we are told: “vayeehav gam et Rachel miLeah—he also loved Rachel more than Leah,” i.e., he did love Leah, but he loved Rachel more.
As a further explanation, we live in a monogamous society. We do not understand the idioms that may have been used in a polygamous society. “Senuah” may just have been an idiom for the less preferred wife, “wife no. 2.” (P.S. I wonder if Banjy is reading this column! No need to mention her last name. She is the only Jewish person in the world named, “Banjy,” as she once explained in a column!)
Now, let us read about Leah naming her children. When naming Reuven, she says: “God saw עניי; now my husband will love me.” That last word in the first phrase means “affliction.” On first reading this I thought that this word must be implying that she was “hated.” (See Abarbanel below who takes this view.) Then, I looked into it further and saw that some interpret the “affliction” here as her not being able to be pregnant. The continuation of this verse supports this interpretation. Others interpret the “affliction” here as the lack of physical or emotional attention by Yaakov, compared to the attention he was giving to Rachel. Even if Leah was not ultra-sensitive, I can understand how the word “affliction” could be used in this situation.
When naming Shimon (verse 33), Leah says: “God heard that I was ‘senuah.’” We have to interpret this “senuah” as a relative term, just like we did with the one in verse 31.
A weakness with our “relative term” approach is that verses 31 and 33 could have referred to Leah as “hasenuah.” That would be more of an indication that “senuah” was being used in a relative manner. This is especially true in verse 31. It could have said: “God saw that Leah was hasenuah.” But the verse did not phrase it that way.
(Another example of שנא meaning “less loved” may be Proverbs 13:24. Here, the reference is to the treatment of a son. See the Soncino commentary.)
———
Now, I will mention some of the approaches that take “hate” literally.
There is a view that interprets Leah as being hated—not by Yaakov—but by Rachel. But 29:32 refutes that interpretation. Leah here states: “now my husband will love me,” i.e., the “hate” problem she had before was with her husband.
There are a few different views in Genesis Rabbah which are not plain sense ones. But one view there states that Yaakov was willing to divorce Leah, after he saw that “rimah Leah baachotah.” The standard English edition by Freedman and Simon translated this as “deceived him by pretending to be her sister.” (But I have also seen the translations: “deceived her sister” and “cheated her sister.”) The individual who held this view in Genesis Rabbah explains further that Yaakov changed his mind about divorcing her after she bore him children.
Similarly, Nachmanides writes that not only did Leah deceive her sister, she deceived Yaakov as well. She had all night to identify herself to Yaakov but did not do so. He had to discover the trickery himself in the morning (29:25). This caused Yaakov to hate her. (I am basing myself on the text of Nachmanides, in the ArtScroll edition of his commentary.)
I have also seen the comment that Leah’s deception probably reminded Yaakov of his own deception of his father. This source continues: “We often hate people for confronting us with what we like least about ourselves.”
Abarbanel writes that Yaakov expressed his anger to Leah in both his actions and his words. In the case of his words, he was continually angry with her and rebuking her. Abarbanel interprets Leah’s above statement about her “affliction” as referring to Yaakov’s “hate” of her. Abarbanel adds that with the birth of Reuven, Yaakov’s hateful actions ceased but it was not until the birth of Shimon that his hateful words ceased.
Seforno bases Yaakov’s hatred on the fact that he began to suspect that Leah was barren and started to believe that was why she tricked him into marriage. Yaakov was not upset with Rachel because he understood from the beginning that she was naturally barren.
———
Finally, I will mention the creative approach of Rabbi Shimon Schwab in his “Maayan Bet Ha-Shoevah.” If one has two wives and loves one more than the other, that is considered שנאה towards the other in the eyes of God, i.e., שנאה is defined differently in the context of marriage. (I thank Rabbi Larry Rothwachs for this source.)
———
P.S. In the context of our topic, I would like to mention an interesting phenomena in some haggadot. At the stage of the seder, where we recite “maror zeh” (this bitter thing), there are some haggadot which have an illustration of a man pointing to his wife! (An allusion to Kohelet 7:26.) In some illustrations, the wife points back at him! For more on this subject, see the post at seforimblog.com of 4/12/12 by Dan Rabinowitz: “Halacha and Haggadah—Manuscript Illustrations and their Halachic and Customary Significance.” (As pointed out there, that a practice is depicted in some Haggadah illustrations does not at all mean it was a widespread or proper practice!)
Mitchell First can be reached at [email protected]. His mother was born with the name “Leah.” When she began practicing law in the 1950s, there were almost no other women lawyers. She changed her name legally to “Lee,” so that when other lawyers would receive letters from her, they would think it was from a man and respect it.
