מקץ

The Goblet and the Terafim

When Rachel steals the terafim from Lavan the Torah is silent in relation to the motive. Basing himself on Midrash Rabbah, Rashi characteristically defends Rachel's actions explaining that the purpose of the theft was to distance her father from idolatry.[1] R. Chananel (quoted by R. Bachya) also goes in this direction and equates the bold actions of Rachel to the actions of Gidon when he destroyed the Baal altar belonging to his father, Yoash. Yoash defends his son against the mob arguing that the Baal's inability to fight his own cause is evidence of his powerlessness (a story which no doubt inspired the Midrash of Avraham's destruction of Terach's idols). Rachel too was trying to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the terafim through the theft. The story ends tragically. Yaakov doesn't realise that that Rachel has taken the terafim and unwittingly curses her, thereby causing her premature death.

There are a number of glaring difficulties with this approach. First and foremost, there is no hint to such a motive in the text and the silence of the Torah on the matter suggests that the purpose was simple and self-evident. Second, if stealing the terafim was to distance them from her father she should have destroyed them and not retained them. Third, there would have been little reason for Rachel to hide her actions from Yaakov if this was indeed her noble intent. Fourth, the fact that an unintentional curse should have the power to kill someone does not square well with the Torah's generally rational approach to reward and punishment. Finally, when they arrive in Bet-El, Yaakov commands the family members to dispose of their 'foreign gods'. Though most of the commentators assume this relates exclusively to the idolatrous items from the booty of Shechem, the plain sense seems broader bringing the terafim within scope (and perhaps the veiled focus) of the instruction.[2] One might be inclined to push back on one or more of these points but together they seem quite compelling.

Most commentators (including Ramban, Rashbam, Radak, and Abarbanel) favour the approach of the Tanchuma that the purpose of the theft was to prevent Lavan from being able to utilise them to discover their escape or determine their whereabouts. This assumes the terafim were more an instrument of divination than idolatory (to the extent that such a distinction is valid) which would appear more consistent with other usages of terafim in Tanach, but we will leave this discussion for now.

The Ibn Ezra's 'secret' explanation

The Ibn Ezra also wonders why Rachel stole the terafim. He briefly references Rashi's view only to quickly discredit it based on the argument (mentioned above) that Rachel should have destroyed the terafim if that was her motive:

ויש אומרים שרחל גנבתם לבטל עבודת כוכבי' מאביה ואילו היה כן למה הוליכה אותם עמה ולא טמנם בדרך. והקרוב שהיה לבן אביה יודע מזלות ופחדה שאביה יסתכל במזלות לדעת אי זה דרך ברחו (אבן עזרא, בראשית לא:יט)

But then his preferred approach – namely that it was to prevent their use by Lavan – suffers the same problem. Why would Rachel have held on to the terafim rather than destroying them. As for the 'foreign gods' destroyed at Bet-El, Ibn Ezra makes the following remark:

חלילה חלילה שישכב הנביא עם עובדת אלהי נכר. ופירושו תמצאנו בפרשת וילך משה: (אבן עזרא, בראשית לה:ב)

Given this strong statement, I was surprised to find a radically different view attributed to the Ibn Ezra.  In a commentary known as Peirush Ha-shelishi written by his close student R. Yosef b. R. Yaakov of Moudeville and based on the Ibn Ezra's oral teachings, the 'foreign gods' destroyed at Bet-El are identified with the Mesopotamian gods carried over from the house of Lavan:  

כי עד עתה לא אמ' להם זה והנה רחל גנבה את התרפים אשר לאביה, כי על תורת אביהם היו כולם, הנשים והבנים, וככה כת' שם: "אלהי אברהם ואלהי נחור ישפטו בנינו אלהי אבהם"

Given the contradictory views, it has been suggested that Ibn Ezra masked his real view to prevent censorship of his work within the community.[3] Whilst it is certainly the case that Ibn Ezra obscured his more controversial comments, in this case there is no allusion or obscurity. In any event, whatever Ibn Ezra's intention when writing his initial commentary, his view as articulated by his student is clear, and he is not alone.[4]

As shocking as it seems, the plain sense is that Rachel did indeed seek to take the terafim for personal use or protection.[5] Such is generally the purpose of any act of 'theft' which is the description given to Rachel's actions. One of the advantages of this explanation, aside from its simplicity, is it creates an important follow up from Yaakov's earlier theft of the blessings (initiated by Rivka - Rachel's aunt). Yaakov's belief that a blessing procured through deceit still retains its value was based on an erroneous assumption that a blessing contains objective power. As we have discussed elsewhere, most of Yaakov's travails in the house of Lavan, his wrestle with the angel, and his reunion with Esav are geared towards correcting this act of deceit and the underlying philosophy which caused it.[6] Ultimately, Yaakov realises he has no use for a stolen blessing and returns it to Esav (see Bereishit 33:13).  

In the same way that the stolen blessings provide no benefits for Yaakov, the terafim achieve nothing for Rachel. Lavan was clearly capable of tracking them down and the Torah makes it clear that were it not for God's intervention Lavan could and would have harmed them.[7]

As Yaakov proceeds to lambast Lavan for his deceitful behaviour over the years (and rightly so), the reader is left in the uncomfortable position that on this occasion Lavan speaks the truth and has the moral high ground. The suspense as Lavan searches through the tents recalls the suspense of Yitzchak's near detection of Yaakov. The root משש is used to describe Yitzchak feeling Yaakov, and also for Lavan's rummaging through the tents. Both are acts of deception of a child to a father. There are plenty of other textual allusions as well but the above will suffice for our purposes. In the end there is a tragic irony in that Yaakov wished to procure an unintentional blessing, yet it turned out to be Yaakov's unwitting curse of Rachel which in the end appears to have been fulfilled:

למה מתה רחל תחילה?... על דעתה דרבי יוסי לא מתה אלא מקללתו של זקן, שנאמר "עִם אֲשֶׁר תִּמְצָא אֶת אֱלהֶיךָ לא יִחְיֶה" והיה 'כשגגה היוצאה מלפני השליט' (בראשית רבה ע"ד)[8]

One need not accept that this was the real cause of her death, but it seems the association of her death with the terafim incident is well founded and turns the tables on what Yaakov originally sought to gain from stealing the blessing.

Binyamin's 'theft' and Yehudah's courage

This leads us to our parashah where Yosef's accusations about the goblet recalls the episode of the terafim. In both cases an item is 'stolen' by one member of the departing family without the knowledge of the other members. The alleged victim and the stolen article in both cases, are linked with divination.

וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו לָבָן אִם־נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ נִחַשְׁתִּי וַיְבָרֲכֵנִי יְהוָה בִּגְלָלֶךָ׃ (בראשית ל:כז)
וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם יוֹסֵף מָה־הַמַּעֲשֶׂה הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר עֲשִׂיתֶם הֲלוֹא יְדַעְתֶּם כִּי־נַחֵשׁ יְנַחֵשׁ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר כָּמֹנִי׃ (מד:טו)

The chasing down of the thief is described in similar language:

קוּם רְדֹף אַחֲרֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים וְהִשַּׂגְתָּם... וַיַּשִּׂגֵם וַיְדַבֵּר אֲלֵהֶם אֶת־הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה׃ (מד:ד-ו)
וַיִּקַּח אֶת־אֶחָיו עִמּוֹ וַיִּרְדֹּף אַחֲרָיו... וַיַּשֵּׂג לָבָן אֶת־יַעֲקֹב וְיַעֲקֹב תָּקַע אֶת־אָהֳלוֹ בָּהָר וְלָבָן תָּקַע אֶת־אֶחָיו בְּהַר הַגִּלְעָד׃ (לא:כג-כה)

There is a denial and 'death' curse/punishment placed on the thief if the stolen item is found on them:

אֲשֶׁר יִמָּצֵא אִתּוֹ מֵעֲבָדֶיךָ וָמֵת וְגַם־אֲנַחְנוּ נִהְיֶה לַאדֹנִי לַעֲבָדִים (מד:ט)
עִם אֲשֶׁר תִּמְצָא אֶת־אֱלֹהֶיךָ לֹא יִחְיֶה (לא:לב)

There is a search from oldest to youngest for the stolen article:

וַיָּבֹא לָבָן בְּאֹהֶל יַעֲקֹב וּבְאֹהֶל לֵאָה וּבְאֹהֶל שְׁתֵּי הָאֲמָהֹת וְלֹא מָצָא וַיֵּצֵא מֵאֹהֶל לֵאָה וַיָּבֹא בְּאֹהֶל רָחֵל (לא:לג)
וַיְחַפֵּשׂ בַּגָּדוֹל הֵחֵל וּבַקָּטֹן כִּלָּה וַיִּמָּצֵא הַגָּבִיעַ בְּאַמְתַּחַת בִּנְיָמִן (מד:יב)

Finally, in response to the accusation there is an impassioned speech from the leader of the group (Yaakov/Yehudah) reviewing the history of the relationship to show the injustice they have suffered at the expense of the other party. In both cases, this represents a turning point where the weaker party for the first time stands up to their oppressor and causes them to back down.

The crucial difference is that Yosef's accusation was false as he had the goblet planted in Binyamin's bag, whereas Rachel did in fact steal the terafim. Furthermore, the goblet was found whilst Lavan did not succeed in finding the terafim. Yehuda takes responsibility for something he did not do, whilst Rachel remains silent about a crime she has committed.

If Rachel failed to break the pattern of deceit which had plagued the family until now, then it was specifically Yehuda the son of Leah who manages to turn the tide by assuming responsibility for what has transpired (covertly in terms of the sale of Yosef – see v.17 - and overtly in terms of his pledge to his father to look after Binyamin). Yehudah had every excuse in the world to walk away from the scene in view of the circumstances. The Midrash which sensed the connection with the earlier story of the terafim, describes the cynical reaction of the brothers:

וימצא הגביע באמתחת בנימן, כיון שנמצא הגביע אמרו לו מה גנבא בר גנבתא (בראשית רבה, פרשה צב)

Nevertheless, Yehuda sacrifices himself for his brother (a son of Rachel) over a sin not committed. As a result, Yehudah can take the moral high ground to challenge Yosef. Furthermore, it is this act which finally breaks the circle of hate and sibling rivalry so characteristic of sefer Bereishit until this point. Yehudah's role model in this regard was none other than Tamar who taught Yehudah to declare 'she is more righteous than me'. It is no coincidence that the backdrop to the Tamar story is one of Yibum, whose very essence is to do with brotherly responsibility. Through Tamar, Yehudah gives birth to a son who will be the forebearer of David HaMelech (after yet another Yibum related story). Like Yehudah, David will also initially conspire to cover his tracks following an affair but ultimately realises his error and acknowledge his sin. In the Torah's ideal the king is someone who recognises his fallibility and has the moral courage to admit when he's wrong and take personal responsibility.

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Prof. Avraham Grossman's argues that Rashi's unrivalled defence of the patriarchs and matriarchs and the avoidance of any criticism of their actions was part of Rashi's polemic against Christianity. The Christians typically sought to identify and highlight such flaws opening the door to Christian supersessionism (Rashi, p.105-106). 

[2] The Midrash Sechel Tov interprets it in this way and sees Rachel as having an affinity to the terafim:

הסרו - חסר י' לימד שלא היו שאר נשיו חשודות בכך, זולתי רחל על תרפי לבן... ויתנו ליעקב את כל אלהי הנכר אשר בידם. של עבדים שהסתירו מבית שכם, וגם התרפים שביד רחל

[3] See Dr. Avigail Rock z"l's discussion on the "secrets" in the Ibn Ezra's commentary here.

[4] See Midrash Sechel Tov (fn. 1). This is also the view of Shadal:

אמנם התרפים נ"ל שהם כלים שהיו קוסמים בהם לדעת העתידות והנסתרות, והיו נקראים אלהים, לא שהיו עובדים אותם ממש, אלא שהיו חושבים שהאל או האלילים משפיעים על הכלים ההם ומודיעים הנסתרות על ידם (קרוב לענין העגל שעשו ישראל, והעגלים שעשה ירבעם, ופסל מיכה), ורחל גנבתם כי האמינה בהם אעפ"י שלא היתה עובדת ע"ז, כי סוף סוף לא היו אלא כעין גורל, והיה אותו כלי מורכב מחלקים רבים, והיו השואלים מנענעים אותם בדרכים ידועים, ולפי מה שהיה יוצא במקרה ע"י הנענוע ההוא היו שופטים כי האל השיב כך וכך, ואין זו ע"ז כי אם לפי מחשבת השואל אם הוא מאמין שהתשובה באה לו מהאלילים ולא מאל יחיד.

[5] This view has also been advanced by scholars based on references in Josephus and data from the Ancient Near East. Others have suggested more convoluted theories. See article here by Moshe Greenberg

[6] See further discussion in earlier post.

[7] Prof. Jonathan Grossman, Yaakov – Sippuro Shel Massa, p.311-314. 

[8] R. Yehuda Rock (see here) and R. Amnon Bazak (Nekudat Peticha p.84-85) see in the naming of Binyamin (ben-oni) at the time of Rachel's death an expression of teshuvah for the terafim episode based on the verse: כִּי הַתְּרָפִים דִּבְּרוּ־אָוֶן (זכריה י:ב)