Chayei Sarah: The Virgin Rivka - Plain Pshat and Wild Drash

The Torah spotlights Rivkah's virginity in a strange way, but what's REALLY strange is the wild midrash about how Yitzchak assumed she LOST her virginity. This one isn't in "The Little Midrash Says."

Nov 10, 2023

Article voiceover

1×

0:00

-8:35

The Torah content for the remainder of Cheshvan has been sponsored anonymously in memory of those who were murdered by Hamas. May our Torah learning lead to living in line with G-d's will and all the goodness that entails.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article.

Artwork: Adobe Firefly 2.0’s depiction of Rivkah riding on a camel in the artistic style of *Gift of Estates* by Justin and Alexis Hernandez

Chayei Sarah: The Virgin Rivka - Plain Pshat and Wild Drash

Rivka’s first appearance in the Chumash is accompanied by a mention of her lineage, her beauty, and her chastity:

[Eliezer] had not yet finished speaking when, behold, Rivka came out – who was born to Besuel the son of Milkah, the wife of Nachor, Avraham's brother – with her pitcher on her shoulder. And the young lady was very beautiful, a virgin whom no man had known, and she went down to the spring, filled her pitcher, and came up. (Bereshis 24:15-16)

Many commentators are bothered by the seemingly redundant phrase, “a virgin whom no man had known.” If she were a virgin, then of course no man had known her, and if a man had known her, she wouldn’t be a virgin! What do each of these phrases teach us? Moreover, towards what end? Why is Rivka the only female protagonist in Chumash whose virginity is highlighted explicitly in the text?

R’ Yosef ibn Kaspi (ibid.) provides the simplest reading. He explains that Hebrew frequently pairs an affirmation with its negation, as in “that we may live and not die” (ibid. 47:19), “they are foolish sons and not men of understanding” (Yirmiyahu 4:22), and “the chamberlain of the cupbearers did not remember Yosef and forgot him” (Bereishis 40:23). He adds: “Anyone who expounds new insights [from the redundant terms] is alluding to intentions that were not intended by their Author.” Ibn Kaspi doesn’t comment on why the text reports this fact.

Perhaps the most well-known explanation is given by Rashi (ibid. 24:16), citing Chazal (Bereishis Rabbah ibid.):

[she was] a virgin – from the place of her hymen. whom no man had known – in an abnormal manner (i.e. anally); because the gentile daughters would guard the place of their hymens but conduct themselves promiscuously from another place, [the text] testifies about this one that she was clean from all [of this].

Similarly, Rashbam (ibid.) explains that the phrase “whom no man had known” excludes “even a non-penetrative sexual act, for she was tzanua (modest).” This elucidation underscores Rivkah’s personal modesty: in a society rife with promiscuity, Rivkah stood out for her countercultural moral fortitude.

R’ Avraham ben ha’Rambam (ibid.) echoes this resolution of the textual difficulty, albeit with a different emphasis, writing that “[the text] informs us of the chastity and purity of her family.” Rabbi Moshe Maimon, editor of the critical edition of this commentary, remarks on the difference between Rashi and R’ Avraham:

Rashi followed his approach in accordance with his position [stated] at the beginning of Parashas Toldos in which he cites [evidence] from the words of Chazal to degrade the family of Rivkah as evildoers. Such is the approach of Chazal in all places: to heap offenses onto the sinners and ascribe faults to the faulty. However, Rabbeinu [Avraham ben ha’Rambam] possesses a different spirit, for we find many instances in which he refuses to posit sins which aren’t alluded to in Scripture. (p. 212, note 55)

In other words, Rashi underscores the virtue of Rivkah alone because he follows Chazal’s view of Besuel as wicked. R’ Avraham sees no reason to villainize anyone unless the text mentions wicked deeds explicitly. To the contrary – if the Torah highlights Rivkah’s virtue, it stands to reason that she had a proper upbringing.

Saadia Gaon offers the most literal interpretation in the Tafsir (his Arabic translation of Chumash), rendering the phrase “a virgin whom no man had known” as “a virgin whom no man recognized” (ibid.). In other words, he takes the phrase “whom no man had known” literally, and not “in the Biblical sense.” R’ Moshe Chefetz (ibid.) likewise explains that “she had not yet gone out into the open fields, and [therefore] no man recognized her or had seen her face.” R’ Hirsch (ibid.) follows the same general approach, but without positing that she remained indoors:

Since “a virgin” has already been stated, “whom no man had known” cannot be referring only to virginity. Furthermore, Scripture does not say “she had not known a man,” as it does everywhere else, but “whom no man had known,” an expression that occurs nowhere else. The implication is this: not only was she a “virgin,” but “no man had known her” – she was also modest, to the point that no man had ever dared to approach her out of familiarity or frivolity. A truly modest woman has great dignity. Without her knowing it, she makes such an impression that even the wildest youth would not dare to speak vulgarly in her presence, much less venture to set his eyes upon her lustfully. This was an extraordinary quality, all the more so in Aram.

But by far the strangest take on Rivkah’s virginity can be found in an obscure midrash cited in Yalkut Shimoni (ibid.), Hadar Zekeinim (Bereishis 24:63), and the drashos of R’ Yehoshua Ibn Shuib (Chayei Sarah). What follows is a synthesis of all three versions. Ordinarily I wouldn’t dare to mix and match different versions of a midrash, but since this one doesn’t appear in any of the classical collections of midrashim – presumably because it was composed at a later date – and because the differences are minor, and we have no way to tell which of the three is the most “authentic,” I feel justified in weaving them together into a single narrative. Fasten your seatbelts!

“Yitzchak went out” (Bereishis 24:63) – from where did he go out? From Gan Eden. Rivkah lifted her eyes heavenward and saw through prophecy that Eisav would one day descend from her. She shuddered and fell to the ground – as it is written: “she fell from upon the camel” – and punctured her hymen on a branch; her virginal blood spilled to the earth, and the birds [alternatively: a deer] came and covered her blood. [alternatively: Ha’Kadosh Baruch Hu said to Gavriel, “Go down and guard the blood so that it doesn’t spoil and so that there should be no blemish in it.”]
When Yitzchak had relations with her and didn’t find evidence of her virginity, he got angry at her. She told him the whole incident, but he didn’t believe her. Instead, he said that Eliezer molested her. Eliezer swore that he didn’t even touch her little finger. Yitzchak said to him, “May you go to Gan Eden if you didn’t touch her!” Eliezer replied, “My lord, it shall be true! I swear by the God of Israel that I am innocent! Come with me and I’ll show you the place where she fell.” They went there together and found the branch surrounded by blood that was covered. Thus, birds [alternatively: wild animals] merited kisui ha’dam (the mitzvah to cover the blood of birds and wild animals after slaughtering them). Immediately, Yitzchak knew that she was pure and Eliezer was completely righteous.
Ha’Kadosh Baruch Hu told the ministering angels to bring Eliezer into Gan Eden. He, Eliezer son of Nimrod, became one of the tzadikim who entered Gan Eden alive. This is what R’ Yossi meant when he said, “May my portion be among those who are suspected [of wrongdoing] but without [any wrongdoing]” (Shabbos 118b).

As my rebbi, Rabbi Moskowitz zt”l, would say: “What the heck is going on here?!” It’s hard to know where to begin our analysis. What is the central focus? Is this about Rivkah’s virginity, which is the “conflict” of the “plotline”? Is this about Yitzchak, who is the subject of the pasuk the midrash expounds? Is this about Eliezer’s righteousness and reward? Is this about why the blood of birds and/or wild animals is subject to kisui ha’dam? Is this all a buildup to R’ Yossi’s statement? And what is the sense in his statement anyway? Shouldn’t our portion be among those who are NOT suspected of wrongdoing in the first place? Is there even a unified focus in this midrash, or are there several disparate ideas here? Moreover, the whole vibe of the midrash feels … off. It compels the reader to conjure up unsavory images of Rivkah and it paints Yitzchak in an unflattering light. Midrashim typically don’t do this. Is that a function of its late composition, or is there a reason for this anomalous style? What is this teaching us?

I’ll be honest here: I was unable to make headway in this midrash myself, so I asked a friend of mine who is an expert in “the World of Midrash.” He and his chavrusa worked out an approach which they graciously shared with me in the form of an 8-minute voice note (which is really more like a mini-shiur). The explanation they gave is so comprehensive and nuanced that it is beyond the scope of this two-page article and deserves its own shiur. My friend kindly gave me permission to share this recording with my readers, which I will do after Shabbos in a separate post accessible to paid subscribers only. Until then, you have plenty to think about over Shabbos!

Let me know what you think about this WILD midrash!

The Rabbi Schneeweiss Substack

Discussion about this post