Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Seven Sevens – Torah
The number “seven” represents the physical creation of the world. The number is very common in the Torah – it is the number required to make something all anew, or to change something.
Just as it took G-d seven days to create the world, it takes mankind a period of seven to transform ourselves or others. Seven is the number representing the cycle of days to achieve Shabbos, the cycle of seven years to the land’s fallow year, and at other places in the Torah, the period of mourning, or shaming, or healing. Each of these things is compared, by the use of the same number, to the creation of the world.
So just as G-d changes the universe in seven days, when a person changes himself, he has changed his entire reality — it is as if he has built the world anew.
It works in the negative sense as well: G-d threatens to take “sevenfold” revenge on anyone who kills Cain; G-d is telling mankind that to take another life is like destroying the world.
In another prominent example: a Jewish servant works for seven years, and then he is free to go – but if he prefers, he can decide to stay in his new world, with his master, his house, and his wife. After seven years he is allowed to lock in the rest of his life – he is now fit to commit himself.
Similarly, when Jacob bows seven times to his brother Esau when they reconcile, those seven bows (coupled with the presents, the repeated statement that Jacob is Esau’s servant and that Esau is “my lord”) can be understood as Jacob giving back the blessings that he had stolen. Jacob is making full restitution for wronging Esau in the first place.
So while the number “seven” is quite common in the Torah (and consistently carries the same symbolism), the combination of “seven” with another “seven” (or seven squared) is much less common and reveals another dimension.
For example, the kosher animals were saved “seven and seven”, in part to tell us, as I wrote here:
I think the “seven seven” refers to the notion that there are seven earthly levels, mirrored by seven levels of heaven (I described this in the past comparing the menorah to the corn in Pharaoh’s dream). The animals that are capable of spiritual growth have a spiritual mirror as well, hence the “seven, seven.”
So if this reading is correct, a pair of sevens represents a spiritual analogue to the physical.
We can see this in the story of Jacob and his wives. Jacob meets Rachel, falls in love, and ends up working seven years for her sister, Leah, and then seven more years for Rachel herself.
Leah seems to be an ideal wife. She dotes on her husband; the Torah makes it clear that she cares about his happiness, about earning his love, and providing him children.
Rachel, on the other hand, is a much more ambiguous character. She seems to subscribe to superstition (the episode with the flowers), and has separation issues from her father’s religion (when she steals his idols). But most peculiar of all is that the text calls Rachel, when we first meet her, a “yefas toar” – a phrase that occurs in Deut. 10, describing a beautiful (non-Jewish) woman who is captured in battle.
In the Torah, such a woman is clearly a longshot for marital harmony, but the Torah clearly allows a man to take that captive to wife (under specific conditions). (Fascinatingly, the only other time the same phrase is used is to explain Potiphar’s wife’s attraction to Joseph, which also did not work out particularly well). If being “attractive of form” is such a problem, then why is Rachel described that way?
I’d say that Rachel represents the counterweight to Leah’s loving desire to please her husband. Rachel’s first recorded words in the Torah are to demand, “Give me children – otherwise I am dead.” Rachel represents the challenge of unrequited love for the man who loves her (the text never says that Rachel loves Jacob). Rachel is, in her way, a proper yefas toar, a beautiful captive who provides intangible frustrations to her husband.
When Jacob earns his wives, he does not merely get a pair of women. Instead, he earns the entire possible range of temperaments that can be found in any relationship. The sisters represent the full spectrum – not merely one world, but all possible worlds. If Leah represents a happy and safe relationship, the combination of both Leah and Rachel gives Jacob a fully dynamic (and sometimes chaotic) family life.
Pharoah’s dreams are also combinations of sevens and sevens – ears of corn, cows, and famine. They, too, represent a full transformation of Egypt (and Israel) in all of its forms: the introduction of Jacob’s family (and all the culture and baggage that came with it) into Egypt, the transformation of Egypt wherein Joseph would end up purchasing all the land and people to be slaves for Pharoah, the wheels that were set in motion for the enslavement of the Jews and their subsequent violent Exodus. Egypt and Israel were transformed by that experience, both physically and spiritually: seven sevens.
“Seven and seven” (in this case, multiplied) is also the number of days between leaving Egypt and the events at Mount Sinai. After centuries of what could best be described as divine neglect, the Jews found themselves thrust into a crash course on how to be close to G-d, to receive the Torah. We relive this experience between Passover and the Feast of Weeks (Shavuot) every year, as we count seven sevens from the time of the Exodus until the time the Torah was given. (See Deut. 16:9)
Lastly: while every seven years the land must be left fallow, every seven seven years, all the land outside of a walled city reverts to its previous owner. It is called yovel, or Jubilee.
And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and there shall be unto thee the days of seven sabbaths of years, even forty and nine years. (Lev. 25:8)
As I have written before, the purpose of the Jubilee is to force each person, no matter how involved they become in matters of the tangible world to seek a relationship with G-d, to pray in the face of uncertainty.
Seven sevens perpetuates insecurity (and growth) in both a physical and a spiritual sense. Just as seven and seven made Jacob experience the full marital gauntlet, the Torah is telling us that from the animals in the ark, to descending to — and then rising out of — Egypt, when we encounter seven sevens, we undergo a complete reboot of ourselves and our relationship with our creator.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
As always, thank you.
The book of Daniel presents some interesting possibilities in the light of the repeated appearance of sevens and what you have written.
iWe,
I don’t mean to be argumentative, however, there is another way of looking at the relationships. First, Jacob has fallen in love with Rachel, not Leah. Leah is the eldest daughter of Laban, a conniving manipulator who will cheat Jacob again and again. The simple straight line interpretation would be that Leah the eldest daughter is very much Laban’s daughter and she too is a conniving manipulator. She is bullying her younger sister. It isn’t Leah who is taking a flock of sheep to the watering hole to be harassed by the crude shepherds. Leah’s younger sister gets this task. When her younger sister comes home with Jacob, Leah is simply jealous. She connives to steal her younger sister’s husband. It never occurs to this conniver that Jacob would hate her for this. Leah’s huge ego won’t allow for the fact that Jacob actually hates her and for good reason too. Leah decides to embark on a plan to humiliate her younger sister and out produce her with children. When Rachel begs for help from Jacob because she hasn’t conceived it is because her elder sister is relentlessly trying to destroy her sanity. Jacob can do nothing because he isn’t Gd and tells her so. Only prayer might help her.
Finally, Leah gives up her hope of either bribing Jacob into love or destroying Rachel. She accepts the situation. Jacob is finally strong enough to break free from Laban. When the confrontation happens, Leah is nowhere to be found. True to form for someone not of the highest character. However, Rachel is strong enough to stand up to the father that has been using and abusing she and her husband all along.
This is definitely not the interpretation of Rashi or any of the other Rabbis. This happens to be my interpretation. I have no standing so you are free to dismiss it. However, with or without standing, if you read and reread the parsha, I think you will finally agree with me.
Regards,
Jim
I don’t mind whether someone has standing. I care whether or not what they write squares with the text. So here goes:
Well, except that the switch is done by Laban. Neither girl spills the beans. And Laban has a real point to make – Jacob may have stolen his older brother’s blessing, but in Laban’s family, the older comes first.
REALLY? Read what Leah names her sons. She is the epitome of a woman who wants her man’s love. There is no trace of an ego there.
Rachel is the one who names her son after her quarrel with her sister (Yosef: “Give me more.”). Not Leah. Rachel is the one who talks openly about wrestling with her sister. Not Leah.
Leah desperately loves her husband – and he clearly prefers the Other Woman. That hurts. And there is no sign that Rachel loves Jacob in return.
She demands that Jacob intercedes with G-d. Why does she not pray herself? Why does she trade intimacy for superstitious flowers. And then G-d laughs – Rachel gets the flowers, and Leah conceives.
Except that only the first part is in the text. The Torah does not tell us that Rachel prays.
There is no hint in the text of Leah trying to destroy her sister. Leah is the first person in the Torah to show gratitude to G-d! These are not the actions of a bad person in any way.
On the contrary. Both Rachel and Leah support Jacob’s decision to leave.
How? She did not destroy his idols. She took them with her. Does that not suggest she was unwilling to leave her father’s idolatry behind?
And then she lied about it – not standing up to anyone. She makes her husband a liar, and does not confront Laban at all.
Jacob ends up calling for all members of his household to give up their idols, but Rachel is the only one whom we know actually has them.
iWe,
>This a naive interpretation at best. Men like Laban make up the rules as they go along. He invents the rule to squeeze more out of Jacob. This the first instance of pure trickery. The naive young Rachel is being bullied by both her father and her older sister into going along with this.
___
REALLY? Read what Leah names her sons. She is the epitome of a woman who wants her man’s love. There is no trace of an ego there.
Rachel is the one who names her son after her quarrel with her sister (Yosef: “Give me more.”). Not Leah. Rachel is the one who talks openly about wrestling with her sister. Not Leah.
Leah desperately loves her husband – and he clearly prefers the Other Woman. That hurts. And there is no sign that Rachel loves Jacob in return.
>How ridiculous. She has broken up someone else’s marriage. He despises her and still loves Rachel. Imagining Jacob to be as corrupt as her father, she figures that bribing him with many children will win him over. Surely he will see that the pathetic little Rachel can’t measure up to her. Only after the fourth child, Judah, does she give up this rather unpleasant enterprise. She accepts the fact that her husband in name only will never love her. No kidding.
___
>The superstitious flowers are being gathered for Leah. She already has children but is determined to humiliate her younger sister and force Jacob to love her. Yes, Rachel is naive and a little desperate. How easy it is to take advantage of someone young and inexperienced. Leah is doing just that to her younger sister.
___
>Well gosh yes. After her amazingly repulsive plan won’t work because Jacob is actually in love with Rachel and he knows very well of Leah’s obnoxious character she finally gives up. Wow! It’s about time.
___
>When Laban arrives with his fifty armed men to take Jacob, his two wives, and all of his property by force, Leah has magically vanished. Support sure, Leah stood right behind Jacob about 25 miles behind him. Laban is a very dangerous fellow. Rachel plays him just right. If she confronts him too strongly he’ll murder them both in a fit of rage. She deceives him about the idols and he realizes that his daughter is not to be abused anymore. Gd intervenes and lays some guilt on Laban in a dream. He makes the pact with Jacob and leaves them.
Rashi’s interpretation is for seven-year-olds to learn Torah by. Seven-year-olds can’t handle an interpretation like I’ve just rendered. My problem is that I’m not seven anymore. Yet, I think the Torah has a great deal to offer an adult. That is if the adult is allowed to be an adult.
Regards,
Jim
Don’t stop, I’m enjoying this!
A comment to come, after reflection and rest…I will return. Meanwhile, thank you, dear @iwe and @jamesgawron, for a wonderful example of what study and dialogue can be like among the Ricochetti!
Another perspective on Leah and Rachael:
There is simply no data to support this. I could just as easily make the following case:
At least we know from the text that both of these “because” explanations have support. Your assertion that Rachel was naive or that Leah bullied her is entirely without textual support.
How on earth do you get that from the text? All we know is that Rachel was younger – not by how much. Not who is more intelligent or capable.
Huh? She is there. Laban “kisses his dauhters” (32:1). Laban goes into Leah’s tent (31:33) and then Rachel’s tent. So clearly both of them were there. But Rachel had stolen her father’s idols – again a very peculiar thing to do! Would YOU steal idols from an idol worshipper? It suggests that Rachel had not made her break with her father’s religion.
Who brought Rashi? I did not.
By Reuben, not Leah. And Leah does not value them! She wants time with her husband. It is Rachel who will trade the most important thing (intimacy between a man and a wife) for superstitious flowers.
Rachel is like Esau here – sell the future for a pot of red stuff or some dying flowers. Not impressive. No wonder she was blessed with fewer children than was Leah.
James – you spin a story between the lines of the Torah. I am suggesting that you start with the lines of the Torah itself.
The naming of Judah is a notable shift in this pattern.
Aug,
My interpretation is very idiosyncratic. However, it has merits that go beyond just this story. The next story is the story of Joseph. If you keep my interpretation in mind and then you realize that Joseph and Benjamin are Rachel’s children and all of the other sons are Leah’s children, the picture becomes very clear.
Why would brothers want to murder a brother who had a few dreams, talked about them, then their father gives him a special “coat”. Wow! That sure sounds like a motive for murder doesn’t it, not!! If, on the other hand, you are bearing a grudge supplied to you by your grudge obsessed ego maniacal mother, against the sons of Rachel then “let’s kill the little SOB” starts to look like a good idea. How simple it would have been to just humiliate their brother by throwing both him and his special coat in the mud. That would take the dreamer down a peg or two and provided a good laugh. No, “let’s kill him”, is just what the Doctor ordered. At that point, Judah is just the smartest of this unsavory gang. He recommends selling Joseph to the Ishmaelites as a slave. A step up from murder but just barely.
Judah will demonstrate a capacity that the other sons of Leah don’t seem to have. He actually learns from his mistakes, making some rather bad ones. Finally, Joseph as the Viceroy of Pharoh provides Judah the opportunity to redeem himself. Judah rises to the occasion (finally) and is redeemed.
Regards,
Jim
Jim Gawron,
I like that. Judah does have these major improvements in his character.
I also like a lot of interpretations from iWe.
I’m also moving to Hong Kong on Dec. 20, and moving from one house in Texas to another tomorrow. I had a fight with myself awhile back about whether I would say anything else on this thread. I need to watch it; I don’t have the time or strength for a big Rico-debate.
All the same, I shall babble on.
If I read you and iWe rightly, your way is not idiosyncratic at all.
You are just looking for the most straightforward and simple interpretation of the text, with occasional support from human nature and experience. Something like this: Do older siblings sometimes lord it over younger ones in these traditionalist societies? Are special younger brothers arrogant and annoying little brats sometimes? Do these things explain the dramas of Rachel vs. Leah and Joseph vs. his brothers? Yes; therefore, probably that is what’s going on here.
I think iWe wants textual support for everything said about the text.
I can’t even try to sort through any debates about Rachel vs. Leah which are going on in here. All I can do is comment on the hermeneutics.
I do accept the rule that the most straightforward and simple interpretation of the text should be presumed right as the default setting. (I tend to think the original readers did not insist on textual support for everything; some things were obvious to them in their context. Similarly, when an entire culture is committed to the right to bear arms as a pre-existing right we just don’t need direct textual support for that reading of the Second Amendment.) But if a contrasting interpretation has direct textual support, it wins.
Gee, I hope that was clear and correct. Best I can do. I need some caffeine and much work calls.
According to Genesis 1, God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. Perhaps you have an alternative text in mind. Or perhaps you’ve made the classic fencepost error.
Aug,
I understand what you said and do please get some coffee. However, let me try to give you what I see as the great problem with Torah interpretation. We are used to the modern novel which came into existence in the last 400 years. The printing press made it possible to write something of almost unlimited length. You can spend pages describing exactly what someone thought at a particular moment and why. You can describe the technicalities of whaling for chapter after chapter.
The Torah doesn’t have this luxury at all. Every single word must deliver the story. The Torah is so short and terse that when the typical modern reader reads a parsha they can go right by the most significant events and miss them entirely. It takes a while to slow down and read each line. Then you must be familiar with the larger storyline and be able to connect one event to the next.
For me, and again I am idiosyncratic, my major complaint is that often the motivations of the interpreter overwhelm the patience required to really respect the text and storyline. Making Leah a virtuous older sister serves the psychological needs of those who wish to excuse manipulative women. Hillary comes to mind. For every Margeret Thatcher, there is an Indira Gandhi. Just as for every Churchill, there is a Stalin. However, the thread of the entire story of Bereshit (Genesis) is lost and we then have weaker and weaker explanations for the following actions. The short-term gain of whatever the interpreter is after is chosen over that which would serve a larger point of view that could make full sense out of the storyline. This may be satisfactory for very young readers but most adults get very bored with this kind of thing.
Regards,
Jim
Always tea, sometimes Dr. Pepper, never coffee.
Nice remarks!
Jim, Joseph and his brothers can be explained without going to your interpretation….Either:
I suggest that either one works to explain why the brothers hated Joseph (in addition to his tale bearing and general snottiness).
But note: the text SAYS that the brothers hated Joseph. It does NOT say that Leah hated Rachel! Indeed, all the resentment seems to be on Rachel’s side (“I have wrestled with my sister and triumphed”). So I think the text supports A.
In either case, Jacob’s biggest weakness was unequally loving others – when he favors Rachel over Leah, Joseph over his brothers, and even Ephraim and Menasseh. It was not a superb quality.
We share this. I have no willingness to accept Platonic whitewashes of our forefathers.
And I go the opposite direction: Rachel is widely revered in classical Judaism. I think that reading the Torah this way is not faithful to the text at all.
Actually, the blessing of the work is considered part of the creation:
Gen 2:2
Ex. 20:11
Etc. This fencepost is an integral part of the fence. He finished his work ON the seventh day, even though all He did that day was rest and bless the day.
The question is asked why Joseph, when a slave in Egypt, never phones home. The answer, it seems to me, is that he thought he had been sent away (his father sent him out), and found undeserving (like Avraham’s other sons, like Esau). His disqualification may have been because of his mother (the sons of Hagar and Keturah were carved out from the covenant), and it might have been plausible to him if Rachel never really embraced the whole Jewish thing. In this case, the sons of the other mothers might have been retained in the family.
It is only when his brothers turn up and then prove that Benjamin (who shared Joseph’s mother) is still in the fold, that Joseph dares to hope that Joseph is actually still “in the family.” And then he acts accordingly.
iWe,
I must tell you iWe that I am truly sick of hearing how Jacob loved his sons unequally. This is the most ridiculous observation of all. Each child is different. It is impossible to treat them exactly the same. Jacob gave his son a special coat!! That’s it?? Now it’s open season and you can murder your brother!! Cain had a more convincing case against Abel. There is jealousy going on for sure but it’s got to be something a little larger than a coat.
Nothing could be more obvious from the situation than Laban & Leah interfered in Jacob and Rachel’s life. Laban extorted 14 years of indentured servitude out of Jacob and cheated him constantly to boot. Leah decided she could highjack someone else’s Bershert. She figured she’d wear Jacob down and force him to love her while she psychologically damaged her younger sister. Such a beautiful thing. Of course, she then used her boys by poisoning them against Joseph. Remember when Judah is put to the test by the Viceroy of Egypt (Joseph) he must swear to sacrifice himself to save Benjamin. Benjamin is Rachel’s other son. This time Judah passes the test and finally, everybody gets to go to the Land of Goshen and retire.
Killing your brother or just letting him die just because Mom is still full of herself is not a great idea. Judah finally got it.
Regards,
Jim
James! PLEASE read the actual text:
If you cannot accept the text as written, then we do not share enough presuppositions to have a conversation.
iWe,
This is literalism uber alleles. The Torah is just making a long story short as it is forced to do. If you go solely with this idea, the only reason the boys have to conclude this is the “coat”. This makes Jacob appear daft and the boys appear completely psychotic for little or no reason. If a parent dotes upon one child, which is often the case even though the parent is probably unconscious of the fact, it doesn’t naturally lead to fratricide. By what right does Leah expect Jacob to love her? By what right does Leah expect Jacob not to love Rachel? By what right does Leah expect to use her numerous and by and large contemptible sons to rule over the family?
Your patriarchs and matriarchs do crazy things for trivial reasons. This gives me a rash. Sorry, but I am idiosyncratic in my interpretation. To me, Leah is just Laban’s daughter. Other than screwing everybody up she makes little or no contribution to the story. Joseph the Zaddik, by his incredible resilience and ability to withhold judgment of his contemptible brothers, makes everything right.
Regards,
Jim
I’m digging this debate and unable to contribute much. I do like most of your analysis, Gawron. But I don’t agree with this one: I think the bearing of the kingly line of Judah and the naming of Judah is an enormous contribution. (Maybe it’s not so clear until the later in the story, Gen. 49 in the Torah and the Psalms and Chronicles and so on. And Matthew!)
But your interpretation requires you to believe that Rachel is not!
Nah. Joseph, the obnoxious kid who lorded over his brothers early in his life, grows over time. He learns how to market his ideas. And he discovers that he was not sent away, but is instead an integral part of the family going forward.
No. I am just taking the text seriously, instead of rewriting it in my mind.
Read it again. Joseph is favored (the coat is only a symptom). He lords it over his brothers, and he cannot keep his mouth shut – he tells his brothers of dreams that reasonably suggest Joseph is a risk to the family going forward.
Here is what I wrote last year on the development of the family in Genesis:
@iWe, the seven are fascinating! But I’m not understanding all the references; it isn’t clear to me what you are alluding to, in come cases. For example, are you saying here that a person is replicating G-d’s seven days of creation when he changes himself?
So just as G-d changes the universe in seven days, when a person changes himself, he has changed his entire reality — it is as if he has built the world anew.
And I don’t see how the seven, seven applies to their spiritual growth:
The animals that are capable of spiritual growth have a spiritual mirror as well, hence the “seven, seven.”
And what is the seven, seven, in the bolded below–are you referring to the journey to Sinai? How do seven, sevens play out in our lives today, or does it?
Seven sevens perpetuates insecurity (and growth) in both a physical and a spiritual sense. Just as seven and seven made Jacob experience the full marital gauntlet, the Torah is telling us that from the animals in the ark, to descending to — and then rising out of — Egypt, when we encounter seven sevens, we undergo a complete reboot of ourselves and our relationship with our creator.
Sorry if I’m a bit thick.
I am indeed saying that.
Judaism believes that saving a single life is like saving the whole world. One corollary is that each decision we make can be the reason the entire world was created. We matter to G-d.
There are seven levels of heaven and corresponding levels of earth. 7 people were buried at the cave of Machpela that each made a step in the ladder/bridge to heaven. Their lives enabled the temple. I wrote a long piece on this – will email it to you (and anyone else who PMs me their email).
The 49 days between Pesach and Shavuos – the Exodus to the giving of the Torah. We count the Omer in that period.
In the re-enactment we do in the inter-festival period.
It DOES get a bit symbolic!
Comment will appear elsewhere so as not to disrupt the flow here; enjoying immensely…
iWe,
Lorded what over his brothers. He had a couple dreams and was foolish enough to tell the “gang” about them. They almost murdered him. Instead, they sold him into slavery expecting the Ishmaelites to murder him. Yes, he made a mystical jump into pure theology. If Gd controls everything then this all was for a purpose. I’ve got news for you. If Gd lets you kill somebody because he has a divine purpose you don’t understand, you are still a murderer and on the hook for it.
This is truly the supremely envious nonsense argument that takes the cake. Like I said, if they wanted to take their brother down a notch they could have done it anytime with ease. No, this wasn’t down a notch. This was kill him and be done with him. That comes from a place of very very deep hatred and envy. Dreams and coats don’t add up to anything.
The family going forward. Wow! The larger half of the family goes criminal, tries to murder the other half, then by a miracle and the almost super-human efforts of a single person it all comes out all right. The criminal half is forgiven and the family moves forward. Give me a break!!!
Regards,
Jim