Vayishlach: The Power of Jewish Femininity

On the verse,2 “Dinah, the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Yaakov, went out to observe the daughters of the land,” Rashi comments:

“The daughter of Leah” – And not the daughter of Yaakov. Because she went out, she is called, “the daughter of Leah,” since she (Leah), too, had the habit of going out,3 as it is said,4 “Leah went out to him.”

In certain texts,5Rashi’s commentary concludes, “Concerning her, they applied the adage, ‘Like mother, like daughter.’ ”6

Explanation is required. There is a general principle,7 “The Torah does not speak disparagingly even of a nonkosher animal.” Furthermore, Rashi already taught,8 “The mention of a righteous man is for a blessing,” meaning that, when the Torah mentions a righteous man, it relates his praise and surely not his deprecation. Rashi’s commentary reflects the straightforward meaning of the Torah’s words. Why, then, did Rashi choose this interpretation, which appears to speak disparagingly of Leah?

It cannot be said that Rashi intended that this explanation minimize the undesirable dimensions of Dinah’s conduct, justifying it, as it were, because her going out was not her fault, but resulted from a hereditary trait, stemming from her being Leah’s daughter. It is clearly inappropriate to speak disparagingly of Leah in order to justify Dinah’s conduct.

(Nor can it be said that this explanation is necessary to resolve a seeming redundancy in the wording of the verse, which states, “Dinah, the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Yaakov, went out,” instead of identifying her more concisely as “Yaakov’s daughter.” Were that the intent, Rashi could have clarified that description by referring to his commentary in Parshas Vayeitzei,9where he explains that Dinah’s birth came about through Leah’s prayer.10Dinah was described as Leah’s daughter because, “Leah pronounced judgment (danah din) upon herself. She reasoned: If this is a male, my sister Rachel will not be esteemed even as one of the handmaids. Therefore, she prayed over the fetus, and it was transformed to a female.”)11

There is an additional, and even greater difficulty with Rashi’s reference to Leah’s going out. Leah’s going out to greet Yaakov was not improper. On the contrary, it was praiseworthy, as indicated by Rashi’s commentary to the verse,12 “G‑d listened to Leah” – “That she desired and sought ways to increase the number of tribes.”13 It cannot be said that Leah’s going out was a fault that would cause her to be labeled as “one who had the habit of going out.”

Therefore, it appears that Rashi’s intent is that, by describing Dinah as Leah’s daughter, the verse is teaching that just as the simple understanding of the Torah is that Leah’s going out to greet Yaakov was praiseworthy, so too (as will be explained), Dinah’s going out was desirable in and of itself.14 (For that reason, Rashi did not quote the Midrash to this verse that speaks pejoratively of Leah’s and Dinah’s lack of modesty.)15Similarly, it is not necessary for Rashi to explain what was laudatory about Dinah’s going out, for that is understood from his earlier commentary, as will soon be explained.

The above difficulties can be resolved based on the following explanation:

On the verse,16 “And Yaakov took … his eleven sons,” Rashi comments:

Where was Dinah? He locked her in a chest so that Esav should not set eyes on her. Therefore, Yaakov was punished for withholding her from his brother. Had Esav married her, perhaps she would motivate him to improve his ways. As a result, she fell into the hands of Shechem.

An obvious question arises: How could Yaakov possibly subject Dinah to the danger of being married to Esav based on the mere possibility that “she would motivate him to improve his ways?” Moreover, why was Yaakov punished so severely that Dinah “fell into the hands of Shechem,” simply because he prevented Esav from seeing her?

Therefore, it is logical to conclude:

a) that Dinah’s spiritual power was so great that she could motivate even Esav the wicked to improve his ways, and

b) that motivating a wicked person17 to improve his ways is of such great importance that it would have been justified to subject Dinah to this danger because of the mere possibility that she could motivate Esav to do so.

(Moreover, from the fact that Yaakov was punished for withholding Dinah, it appears that there was no doubt; it was clear that Dinah would have motivated Esav to improve his ways. Rashi states, “perhaps she would motivate him to improve his ways,” and not, “she would have motivated him to improve his ways,” only because that was the way Yaakov viewed the matter. Yaakov could not definitely say that Dinah would motivate Esav to improve his ways because, ultimately, the matter would depend on Esav’s choice.)

Based on Rashi’s explanation there, it can be said that here, too, he is pointing out the positive dimensions of Dinah’s going out.18 Since Dinah had the potential to motivate even Esav the wicked to improve his ways, it is to be understood that when she “went out to observe the daughters of the land,” she was not going out of the bounds of modesty. On the contrary, she was “observing the daughters of the land” to motivate them to improve their ways and to act with appropriate modesty.19

This was Rashi’s intent in saying, “Because she went out, she was called the daughter of Leah, since she (Leah), too, had the habit of going out.” Dinah derived her virtue – the ability to go out to “observe the daughters of the land” and motivate them to improve their ways – from her mother, for Leah also followed the mode of going out for positive purposes.

Rashi emphasizes this point with the words, “the daughter of Leah – and not the daughter of Yaakov.” Dinah inherited this virtue from Leah. Yaakov, by contrast, hid her from Esav and prevented her from engaging in such activities to the extent that he was punished for this, as stated above.

Explanation is nevertheless still required because, seemingly, Dinah’s going out did not resemble Leah’s. Leah “desired and sought ways to increase the number of tribes,” i.e., that she would bear additional children to Yaakov. By contrast, Dinah went out to improve “the daughters of the land.” What connection does her ability to motivate Esav the wicked and the daughters of the land to improve their ways have to Leah’s going out, which was intended to give birth to Yaakov’s children?

In particular, the above question is relevant in light of Rashi’s explicit statement in interpretation of the verse,20 “Leah’s eyes were sensitive,” where Rashi explains that Leah

expected to fall into Esav’s lot, and she wept, because everyone was saying, “Rivkah has two sons, and Lavan has two daughters. The older daughter (Leah), for the older son (Esav), and the younger daughter (Rachel), for the younger son (Yaakov).”21

Leah did not want to fall into Esav’s lot even though this would have enabled her to inspire him to improve his ways.22

To offer a resolution based on the inner dimension of the concepts: True, all three Patriarchs – Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov – are called Patriarchs, literally, “fathers,” (as our Sages stated,23 “Only three are called Patriarchs”). They were given this distinction because the fundamental emotional attribute that characterized each of these three has been conveyed as an inheritance to all Jews for all time.24 Nevertheless, there is a difference between the relationship the Jewish people as a whole share with Yaakov and the relationship they share with Avraham and Yitzchak.

Only with regard to Yaakov is it said,25 “His bed was perfect,” i.e., all of his progeny were righteous, in contrast to Avraham, from whom Yishmael issued forth, and Yitzchak, from whom Esav issued forth. Thus, Yaakov is the primary father of the Jewish people. Often, our Sages speak of klal u’prat, a general category and the particulars it contains. Yaakov was the “klal,” including the totality of the Jewish people over the entire course of history. As the Alter Rebbe states,26 Yaakov’s soul “comprised all the souls of the Jewish people.” Therefore, this nation is called am Yisrael, “the nation of Israel,” called by Yaakov’s name.

Although all the different levels within the Jewish people are rooted in the souls of the Patriarchs, as the souls exist within the soul of Yaakov, they exist as particulars within a klal, “a comprehensive entity,” in which instance, the characteristics of their individual identities are yet undefined. The different levels among the Jewish people were revealed in all their actual details by Yaakov’s sons, the progenitors of the twelve tribes, who reflect twelve different paths of service that exist within the Jewish people.

It is possible to say that the varying characteristics of the paths of service that distinguished Yaakov’s sons from their source in Yaakov, their father, came about through the medium of the Matriarchs: Rachel and Leah (and Bilhah and Zilpah), “who built the House of Israel.”27

This reflects the different roles of a father and a mother in the conception and development of a child. The child’s existence depends on the seed of the father.28 However, the development of all the individual organs and limbs comes about through its gestation in the mother’s womb for nine months.29

For this reason, the names of Yaakov’s sons – each one of which has an inner meaning reflecting the quality of the bearer – were given by the Matriarchs, Rachel and Leah, and not by Yaakov, as explained in another source.30

Even though in a more particular sense, the twelve tribes represent twelve specific paths of Divine service, in a broader sense they can be characterized as conforming to one of two paths – that of tzaddikim, the righteous, and that of baalei teshuvah, “those who turn to G‑d in teshuvah.” (As is well-known, the Divine service of teshuvah is not only for a person who transgressed, but it is a unique approach to Divine service that is also relevant for righteous people.)31

The path of tzaddikim is focused within the realm of holiness and defined by the observance of the Torah and its mitzvos. The path of teshuvah reflects the efforts to transform evil to good and, in a larger sense, to elevate worldly entities to holiness.

This characterizes the difference between the Divine service of the descendants of Leah and those of Rachel, as can be understood from the Zohar’s explanation32 of why the primary portion of the Altar’s foundation was located in the tribal heritage of Binyamin, and not in the portion of Yehudah.33 True, Yehudah was “the foremost of the tribes,”34 but Binyamin was a tzaddik.

This is not true of Yehudah. He was one of Leah’s sons “who ‘hated’ Yosef”35 and participated in his sale. True, he repented, but the foundation of the altar could not be positioned in the tribal portion of a baal teshuvah, but rather in the tribal portion of Binyamin who was a tzaddik.36

From this, it can be understood that since the ten brothers37 participated in the sale of Yosef, even though they repented, they were not on the level of Yosef and Binyamin, the sons of Rachel, who remained on the level of tzaddikim from the beginning of their lives onward.38

It is possible to explain that the difference between the Divine service of Yaakov’s sons stemmed from the different services of their mothers. Like their mother, the sons of Leah39 were fundamentally characterized by the Divine service of baalei teshuvah,40 while Rachel’s sons, Yosef41 and Binyamin, were primarily characterized by the Divine service of tzaddikim.42

On this basis, it is possible to explain the verse, “Leah’s eyes were sensitive, while Rachel was of comely form and comely appearance.” Rachel relates to the Divine service of those who are righteous from the outset, being “of comely form and comely appearance,”43 without a blemish or flaw. (In particular, the term “form” refers to “the form of the image of the limbs,44 each limb according to the image that is appropriate and necessary.” The term “appearance” refers to “the facial countenance.” Combined, these two expressions indicate perfection in the observance of the 248 positive commandments that are called “the 248 limbs of the King,”45 and of the 365 prohibitions which correspond to the 365 nerves and sinews,46 which relate to the glow of one’s countenance.

Leah, by contrast, relates to the Divine service of teshuvah. Accordingly, Leah’s sensitive eyes are associated with crying, for crying is connected with the Divine service of teshuvah.47

It is written,48 “Yaakov loved Rachel,” for from Yaakov’s natural perspective, the primary thrust in Divine service is that of tzaddikim. As the Torah relates,49 “Yaakov was an artless man, a dweller of tents,” i.e., the tents of study.50He tended toinwardly oriented Divine service, working within the realm of holiness itself,51 rather than going beyond the realm of holiness and elevating those outer reaches to holiness.

This is the inner meaning behind our Sages’ statement, “Rivkah has two sons, and Lavan has two daughters. The older daughter, Leah for the older son, Esav, and the younger daughter, Rachel for the younger son, Yaakov.” The Divine service of Leah, that of teshuvah, is appropriate for motivating Esav to improve his ways.52 By contrast, Rachel’s emphasis is on the Divine service of the tzaddikim.53

On this basis, it is possible to understand Rashi’s comments regarding Dinah: “Because she went out, she was called the daughter of Leah, since she (Leah), too, had the habit of going out, as it is said, ‘Leah went out to him.’ ” Rashi is emphasizing that Dinah inherited her tendency to try to motivate change in settings outside the realm of holiness from Leah. She was “the daughter of Leah,” whose Divine service was directed outside the realm of holiness, to transform the evil there to good.

Nevertheless, this characteristic was not revealed to its full extent in its source, in Leah. Therefore, Leah did not desire to fall to Esav’s lot. When, however, this quality became distinguished in a particular manner through her sons and daughter, the ultimate nature of her Divine service of going out was revealed. Thus, Leah generated the potential for her children to go beyond the realm of holiness and make baalei teshuvah.

An added point can be made: True, in reality, Dinah’s actions led to an unfortunate occurrence. However, the reason for that is – as Rashi explained – that this was a punishment for Yaakov withholding her from his brother. This itself indicates that her going out was not undesirable, because her intent was for the sake of Heaven, to motivate the daughters of Shechem to improve their ways.

Moreover, perhaps it is possible to say that the concept – that Dinah’s going out to motivate the daughters of Shechem to improve their ways was a positive act – was expressed in that her intent ultimately bore fruit, albeit in an indirect manner. Yaakov’s sons caused all the males of Shechem to be circumcised,54 comparable in that era to conversion55and a means to enter Avraham’s household. Understandably, this would involve not only the men, but also “the daughters of the land,” the women and girls, as the verse explicitly states,56 “Because of this, we will consent to you … if you circumcise … and we will take from your daughters.”

In actual fact, the inhabitants of Shechem were liable for execution because of their sin57 – and therefore, they were killed by Dinah’s brothers, Shimon and Levi. Nevertheless, before they were killed, they were circumcised,58 thus, establishing a covenant with Avraham’s household and fulfilling, to a certain degree, the desire of Dinah.

Moreover, the girls of Shechem – to whom Dinah went out to motivate to improve their ways – were ultimately taken into captivity by Yaakov’s sons59 and became maidservants in their households. As a result, their conduct was certainly improved.

The above provides a directive for Jewish women: True, “The entire glory of the daughter of the king is focused inward,”60 and women are called “the mainstays of the home,”61 for a Jewish woman’s fundamental mission is to build a Jewish home. For that reason, by and large, they must remain within the home, inwardly focused. Nevertheless, those women who were graced with the unique gift of being able to influence others outside their homes should, in a modest manner, use this potential for the sake of Heaven, endeavoring to draw people’s hearts closer to G‑d and motivating Jewish women and girls who are found “outside” to improve their ways.

Obviously, these efforts must be carried out in a modest manner, as befits a Jewish woman. Indeed, their conduct outside their homes must reflect how “The entire glory of the daughter of the king is focused inward.” Nevertheless, together with the meticulous observance of the norms of modesty, they must endeavor to motivate Jewish women and girls who have not yet found their way to return to their Jewish heritage.

Indeed, the womanly traits of closeness and sensitivity enable them to succeed in drawing Jews’ hearts closer to the service of G‑d to a greater degree than men. As is plainly evident, when one tries to draw another person closer to G‑d’s Torah and service in a pleasant and welcoming manner, he or she will be far more successful – and have a more internalized and lasting effect – than when he or she attempts to do so through arguments and disputations. (Men tend toward the latter approach, as our Sages state,62 “A man’s tendency is to conquer.”)

Since G‑d created women with the capacity to influence others in a warm and pleasant manner, it is incumbent on them to use this potential to its fullest, employing it not only in conducting their own homes, but beyond those confines as well, so that they draw the hearts of Jewish women and girls closer to their Father in Heaven.63

Likkutei Sichos, Volume 35, p. 150ff. (Adapted from sichos delivered on Shabbos Parshas Vayishlach and Shabbos Parshas Vayeishev 5746 [1986])