The Tragedy of Reuven, Firstborn of Israel
A mother's honor slighted, a father's love to be sought, and a life of pain
Reuven is a firstborn child. His life is tragic.
This parsha demonstrates why.
There’s a series of books on the parsha written by Mr. Chaim Kohanchi z”l, a Chicago resident and talmid chacham, called Ner Chaim. His depiction of the story of Reuven was when I first realized how tragic Reuven’s experiences were and are.
We see in this week’s parsha that Leah makes a bizarre accusation.
וַיֵּ֨לֶךְ רְאוּבֵ֜ן בִּימֵ֣י קְצִיר־חִטִּ֗ים וַיִּמְצָ֤א דֽוּדָאִים֙ בַּשָּׂדֶ֔ה וַיָּבֵ֣א אֹתָ֔ם אֶל־לֵאָ֖ה אִמּ֑וֹ וַתֹּ֤אמֶר רָחֵל֙ אֶל־לֵאָ֔ה תְּנִי־נָ֣א לִ֔י מִדּוּדָאֵ֖י בְּנֵֽךְ׃
Once, at the time of the wheat harvest, Reuben came upon some mandrakes in the field and brought them to his mother Leah. Rachel said to Leah, “Please give me some of your son’s mandrakes.”
וַתֹּ֣אמֶר לָ֗הּ הַמְעַט֙ קַחְתֵּ֣ךְ אֶת־אִישִׁ֔י וְלָקַ֕חַת גַּ֥ם אֶת־דּוּדָאֵ֖י בְּנִ֑י וַתֹּ֣אמֶר רָחֵ֗ל לָכֵן֙ יִשְׁכַּ֤ב עִמָּךְ֙ הַלַּ֔יְלָה תַּ֖חַת דּוּדָאֵ֥י בְנֵֽךְ׃
But she said to her, “Was it not enough for you to take away my husband, that you would also take my son’s mandrakes?” Rachel replied, “I promise, he shall lie with you tonight, in return for your son’s mandrakes.”
This is a very strange statement. How can Leah say “Was it not enough for you to take away my husband?” If anything, Leah is the one who took away Rachel’s betrothed! Let’s look back on that scene in Genesis 29:15-19.
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לָבָן֙ לְיַעֲקֹ֔ב הֲכִי־אָחִ֣י אַ֔תָּה וַעֲבַדְתַּ֖נִי חִנָּ֑ם הַגִּ֥ידָה לִּ֖י מַה־מַּשְׂכֻּרְתֶּֽךָ׃
Laban said to Jacob, “Just because you are a kinsman, should you serve me for nothing? Tell me, what shall your wages be?”
וּלְלָבָ֖ן שְׁתֵּ֣י בָנ֑וֹת שֵׁ֤ם הַגְּדֹלָה֙ לֵאָ֔ה וְשֵׁ֥ם הַקְּטַנָּ֖ה רָחֵֽל׃
Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the older one was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel.
וְעֵינֵ֥י לֵאָ֖ה רַכּ֑וֹת וְרָחֵל֙ הָֽיְתָ֔ה יְפַת־תֹּ֖אַר וִיפַ֥ת מַרְאֶֽה׃
Leah had weak eyes; Rachel was shapely and beautiful.
וַיֶּאֱהַ֥ב יַעֲקֹ֖ב אֶת־רָחֵ֑ל וַיֹּ֗אמֶר אֶֽעֱבׇדְךָ֙ שֶׁ֣בַע שָׁנִ֔ים בְּרָחֵ֥ל בִּתְּךָ֖ הַקְּטַנָּֽה׃
Jacob loved Rachel; so he answered, “I will serve you seven years for your younger daughter Rachel.”
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר לָבָ֗ן ט֚וֹב תִּתִּ֣י אֹתָ֣הּ לָ֔ךְ מִתִּתִּ֥י אֹתָ֖הּ לְאִ֣ישׁ אַחֵ֑ר שְׁבָ֖ה עִמָּדִֽי׃
Laban said, “Better that I give her to you than that I should give her to an outsider. Stay with me.”
Mr. Kohanchi makes a point that is brilliant in its simplicity.
The only people present for this conversation were Laban and Jacob.
Here’s how Mr. Kohanchi puts it.
In attempting to answer these questions, first of all we now realize that nobody knew about the original conversation between Lavan and Yaakov. It was a deal behind closed doors. Second, we know that Lavan was a pathological deceiver who never told anything to anybody unless he had to, and then he was likely to lie. Third, we know that Yaakov was a private person who hid his thoughts and feelings and spoke little to others. Putting it all together, in this particular household it was certainly possible that the daughters knew nothing about plans for their future. (347)
This reading is simple, plausible and also helps us understand why Jacob accuses Laban, not Leah, for deceiving him. When Jacob wakes up in the morning and realizes that it’s Leah, he says not one word to her. Instead, he talks to Lavan in verse 25.
וַיְהִ֣י בַבֹּ֔קֶר וְהִנֵּה־הִ֖וא לֵאָ֑ה וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֶל־לָבָ֗ן מַה־זֹּאת֙ עָשִׂ֣יתָ לִּ֔י הֲלֹ֤א בְרָחֵל֙ עָבַ֣דְתִּי עִמָּ֔ךְ וְלָ֖מָּה רִמִּיתָֽנִי׃
When morning came, there was Leah! So he said to Laban, “What is this you have done to me? I was in your service for Rachel! Why did you deceive me?”
Of course Jacob wouldn’t hold Leah responsible for the switcharoo if Leah had not even been aware of the deal!
(There’s a famous midrash that most children are taught that highlights Rachel’s selflessness and her willingness to give up Jacob to spare her sister’s feelings. This midrash asserts that Rachel taught Leah signs to tell Jacob to indicate that it was in fact Rachel who was there, not Leah. Mr. Kohanchi finds a way to make this midrash work with his understanding of the scene. He quotes Rav Shalom Shwadron, who explains that Rachel
did not have the heart to tell her sister that she was rejected by Yaakov and that she would be sneaked under the chuppah as yet another of their father’s swindles. So, in order to save Leah’s dignity, she came up with a plan. She told Leah that she wants her to know about certain things that Yaakov holds dear, things that he likes to hear about all the time; certain signs about mitzvot that are really important to him. Knowing them would promote shalom bayit between the new couple. She told Leah, “it’s important for ou to know the three crucial mitzvot of a Jewish woman: challah, niddah and hadlakat neirot.” So Leah went under the chuppah with a husband who, she thought, had worked seven years for her hand. That night when Yaakov asked her, '“What are the three most important things a wife needs to know?” Leah knew the answer and innocently gave it in order to show her new husband how she was adopting his values. She never knew that these were the signs Yaakov had set up to prevent a swindle. (349)
Here’s where this leaves us- Leah believed that Jacob had loved and married her. Then, for reasons she did not understand, her sister Rachel married him as well. Leah felt hurt and like her sister had stolen her husband- never knowing that actually Rachel had allowed her to wed him.
So how does Reuven come into this?
Reuven comes into this because he was there, witnessing this fight. And Mr. Kohanchi details the impact this had on him.
When Leah and Rachel had this conversation, Reuven was still nearby, and he overheard just enough of the sisters’ exchange to think his mother was being victimized. She was the first wife, after all, and now here she is being stepped on by Rachel- so it seems to him. His mother seems to be saying that right at the beginning Rachel did her a wrong, and his father did not protect her, and she became the second wife instead of the first. He hears Rachel appearing to admit that all this is true. He also concludes that his mother is exploited by all, and the proof is that Rachel thinks she can have some of the duda’im just for the asking. Everyone pushes his mother around, he concludes, and his father does not protect her. Reuven decided that when he was grown it would be his job to protect his mother. (350)
This matters because of an accusation leveled against Reuven later- where the text states that he slept with his father’s wife, Bilha. Many commentators actually understand this to mean that Reuven interfered with his father’s tent. As Mr. Kohanchi explains:
When, after Rachel’s death, Yaakov moved Bilhah’s bed into his tent, Reuven was outraged. “If my mother’s sister was her rival, shall my mother’s sister’s maidservant also be her rival?” And he moved his mother’s bed into his father’s tent.
We see that Reuven misunderstood things. He had come away with the impression that Leah was a victim, and the thought built up inside of him over the years. As long as Rachel was alive the competition was between the sisters, so Reuven felt that his mother was able to deal with it, but with Rachel’s death the dynamic changed. Eventually Reuven made up in his mind that he would not stand for it anymore: he would act to secure respect for his mother, no matter what. He would do whatever it took to protect his mother, even if it meant stepping outside of all bounds, including moving the beds in his father’s private tent. The Chida haKadosh says that he also walked up and down outside of Bilhah’s tent to make sure his father could not be intimate with her (owing to a stranger’s presence) so that his father would be forced to stay with Leah. (352)
Here is a story of a son’s love for his mother, twisted due to a terrible misunderstanding. But as tragic as this portrays Reuven’s life to be, Professor Nechama Price in her book ‘Tribal Blueprints: Twelve Brothers and the Destiny of Israel’ brings up an even more wrenching reading.
TOKEN OF LOVE
This story could be the pure and innocent depiction of a sensitive young boy who recognizes his mother's sadness and tries to cheer her up with a bouquet of flowers. These flowers are a token of his love to make up for the lack of love and gestures of affection that she should receive from her husband. Moreover, Reuven may be aware of his parents' strained relationship, either because Leah talks to her eldest son about her predicament or just because it is something that he observes in their home. He watches Yaakov's treatment of her during the day and sees her crying at night. As her oldest son, Reuven may be the shoulder that Leah cries on. So too, he may know the significance behind his own name, his mother's desperate plea for love, and he wants to help her fill that void.
According to this line of thinking, Rahel trades a night with Yaakov for these flowers because they embody a child's love for his mother. She is desperate to feel the tangible love of a child. Rahel's anguish is passionately expressed only a few verses earlier, when she lashes out at Yaakov saying, "Give me children or else I will die" (Gen 30:1). Clearly, to Rahel, these flowers embody what she covets most in the world- the love of a child for his mother; she believes that acquiring them is worth relinquishing a night with Yaakov. The significance of this story is to display the level of extreme desperation that both Rahel and Leah feel, and what they are willing to sacrifice.
-pages 14-15
[...]
However, if the mandrakes are a token of love, then the emergent picture is rather different. Even as a youngster, Reuven recognizes his mother's sadness. He gives her flowers as a token of *his* love. Perhaps, as she is occupied with trying to have more children and gaining her husband's love, she is not giving proper attention to her eldest son. Reuven feels left out and craves his mother's attention, hoping that she might find satisfaction in the love of her children. How tragically disappointing it must have been for him to come home and discover his flowers in his aunt's tent. His mother discarded this token of his love for her just to spend more time with his father.
-page 16
I think the correct reading is one that combines both of these. Here’s how I see it.
Once upon a time there was a boy named Reuven. His very name was a desperate plea for his father’s attention. “See,” his mother declared, “a son!” Perhaps now her husband Jacob would love her.
Reuven loved his mother. He attended to her moods, gave her hugs and kisses, and wanted to make her happy. But he couldn’t make her happy. No child could. She longed for her husband’s affection and Jacob simply could not give it to her. He wanted, had always wanted, Rachel. He had simply been saddled with Leah due to her father’s swindle.
But Leah had not known this. Because she had never known about the bargain that had been struck between Jacob and Laban, the bargain that had been made behind closed doors. Perhaps Rachel had known, because Jacob had told her that he loved her, that one day they would be together. But Leah never knew.
And so Leah was left betrayed and hurt when her husband wed her sister so shortly after wedding her. She was left wondering what she had done wrong, what had led him to find her defective. She questioned and doubted herself. Her self-esteem plummeted. And so, desperate, she tried to make him happy. She gave him a son, then more children.
And that firstborn son brings his mother dudaim, beautiful flowers that are also an aphrodisiac. Does he know they are a fertility aid? Perhaps he does, and brings them to her because he knows she equates the number of children she has with her status in the household. Perhaps he does not, and they are simply a token of his love.
He hears his mother, hurting, accusing Rachel of having stolen her husband. He is filled with righteous indignation, hurt on behalf of the mother he loves.
But then that mother hurts him- by giving away the flowers he had given her. Despite Reuven’s adoration, Leah still turns to his father, the father who cannot love her as she wants to be loved.
Given all this, it is extraordinary that it is Reuven who fights to defend Joseph, Rachel’s son, and who persuades his brothers not to kill him.
וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֣ם ׀ רְאוּבֵן֮ אַל־תִּשְׁפְּכוּ־דָם֒ הַשְׁלִ֣יכוּ אֹת֗וֹ אֶל־הַבּ֤וֹר הַזֶּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּמִּדְבָּ֔ר וְיָ֖ד אַל־תִּשְׁלְחוּ־ב֑וֹ לְמַ֗עַן הַצִּ֤יל אֹתוֹ֙ מִיָּדָ֔ם לַהֲשִׁיב֖וֹ אֶל־אָבִֽיו׃
And Reuben went on, “Shed no blood! Cast him into that pit out in the wilderness, but do not touch him yourselves”—intending to save him from them and restore him to his father.
In one fell stroke, Reuven could have taken Joseph away from Jacob. In his mind, he could have understood this as evening the score between his mother and Rachel- by taking away someone precious to her, and precious to his father. But he doesn’t do that. He chooses not to kill the son for the sins of the father- or, in this case, of the mother.
He chooses mercy.
But Reuven has still been warped by his upbringing. Most of all, he has been harmed by being taught that he exists as an object- there to inspire Jacob’s love, and to be traded away if there’s an option of receiving Jacob’s love.
And so he treats his sons, too, as if they are disposable- willing to trade them to secure Jacob’s affection.
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר רְאוּבֵן֙ אֶל־אָבִ֣יו לֵאמֹ֔ר אֶת־שְׁנֵ֤י בָנַי֙ תָּמִ֔ית אִם־לֹ֥א אֲבִיאֶ֖נּוּ אֵלֶ֑יךָ תְּנָ֤ה אֹתוֹ֙ עַל־יָדִ֔י וַאֲנִ֖י אֲשִׁיבֶ֥נּוּ אֵלֶֽיךָ׃
Then Reuben said to his father, “You may kill my two sons if I do not bring him back to you. Put him in my care, and I will return him to you.”
We would expect Reuven to hate Jacob, not help him. And yet he doesn’t. It seems that, as much as he is indignant on his mother’s behalf, and wants her to be honored, respected and cherished, a part of him has been taught- likely by her- to seek his father’s love. And so Reuven spares Joseph. And is willing to risk his own children to save Benjamin. Reuven loves too much. He loves his mother enough to sleep with Bilha (figuratively or literally) to protect her honor. He loves his father enough to risk his sons.
How tragic that in the end, despite his love, his passion, his willingness to risk all- it is this very passion, impetuousness and impulsivity that make his father disown Reuven as firstborn. He will not lead the tribes- that honor will be passed to Joseph instead.
Reuven is not the one at fault. He is exactly the creature his parents have molded him to be.
This is the story of a mother’s trauma and a father’s indifference being passed down to the next generation. The horrifying part is that they can’t see their role in this. And so it’s Reuven who is sacrificed - Reuven who loses out- Reuven whose life ends, as it began, in pain.
