How, exactly, did Yaakov kiss Rachel? This article explores the full spectrum of interpretations—from Ibn Kaspi to the Hasidic masters—through the lenses of methodology and sociology.
First of all, I want to say I really enjoy your Chumash articles. I am very much drawn by pshat, especially reading Chumash in the context of the rest of Tanach, and I have discovered (or was מחדש) many fascinating things through this method. Unfortunately most of my limud of Chumash is on Shabbos, so I almost never write them down. But here is one example https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/yehudahs-blessing-of-wine-and-milk I find that your articles are very much up my alley.
However, I want to make a statement from a yeshivish perspective about the more "maskilish" commentators such as Ibn Caspi and Shadal. I will especially focus on Ibn Caspi since he seems to be a much worse offender. In our minds (I am speaking of the "yeshivishe velt") the reason why we accept commentators such as Rashi, the Ramban, and even the Ibn Ezra is because they are part of our Mesorah. And when I say "accept", I mean treat as authoritative. Like, the fact that they said something has more weight than the mere fact that they are scholars. After all, there are many Christian scholars who have written on Tanach, yet their words have no authority with us. So therefore, when we come to somebody like Ibn Caspi, who as far as I know, is not recognized as authoritative by any other Rishonim (and looking at his peirush which seems full of ליצנות, it's easy to see why), he is not part of our Mesorah, and we don't recognize him as authoritative either. That doesn't mean he's not a scholar, or that there's nothing to learn from him. Perhaps there is, just like there might be what to learn from Christian scholars on an occasional basis. But just like the Christian scholars, his lack of authority severely limits his utility. If we would quote the Ibn Kaspi to explain something, it would no better than being מחדש that explanation on our own. His words are not מעלה or מוריד.
I just wanted to articulate the yeshivishe perspective in writing, you may have known this already. It is not intended in any way as a criticism of your quoting these scholars. חזק ואמץ in your הרבצת התורה!
Thank you for reading my articles and sharing your feedback! It really means a lot to me to know that there are people out there who find them valuable AND enjoyable! 😊
And thank you for taking the time to share the yeshivish perspective on Ibn Kaspi, Shadal, and their ilk. While I had a vague awareness that the phenomenon you describe might be the case, your comment spelled it out with great clarity.
What you wrote makes me so grateful to have been born and raised (in terms of my Torah education) in the Rambam's world of "accept the truth from whoever says it." While I certainly understand where the yeshivish perspective comes from, I find it so limiting. Just over Shabbos I was reading about the history of one of my other recent favorite Chumash commentaries: that of R' Avraham ben ha'Rambam. The publisher noted how tragic it is that his commentary wasn't as widely disseminated, and didn't reach the mainstream awareness. How tragic it continues to be that his reach is limited by his accident of history! (This is the opposite of the fate of Ibn Ezra and Ralbag who had the hashgachic fortune to be included early on in Mikraos Gedolos, despite their radical views.)
The irony is that the way you describe how Ibn Kaspi, Shadal, and Christian scholars are regarded in some circles is exactly how I regard Chassidish, Kabbalistic, and other later works by authors I don't recognize. I acknowledge that they can have good ideas, but their names carry little to no weight if their ideas don't appeal to my mind.
Thanks again for taking the time to write this comment!
Absolutely, there is an advantage to being raised in "the Rambam's world" as you put it, although I would argue that there are overriding advantages to the yeshivishes approach.
However, I am not sure how the idea of "accept the truth from whoever says it" comes into this discussion. "Accept the truth from whoever says it" means that if you hear something that has good evidence or just obviously rings true, you shouldn't care about who said it. It doesn't matter if the Rambam said it or the homeless druggie on the street corner said it. But when people quote Ibn Kaspi or Shadal, they are generally not doing that.
This article is a case in point. It does not appear you are taking sides. You are not saying that Ibn Kaspi's pshat makes more sense than the other meforshim. You are not saying it's THE truth, and therefore "accept the truth from whoever says it". Rather, it seems to me that you are citing Ibn Kaspi the same way that you or anybody else would cite Rashi or the Rashbam, as a valid, authoritative commentator. You are contrasting the Authoritative Commentator Ibn Kaspi's pshat to that of the other commentaries and the Ralbag. There is a reason why you are discussing Ibn Kaspi and not Christian commentators, and it's because you view Ibn Kaspi as authoritative in a way that you wouldn't consider Christian authors. (And ironically, despite your comparison of Hassidic authors to Christians, you still cite them.)
And it is with this particular point that the yeshivishe perspective differs. To them, Ibn Kaspi is simply not an authoritative commentary. We are not dealing with the concept of "accept THE truth from whoever says it", because Ibn Kaspi's pshat here is not any more compelling than the other meforshim, it definitely doesn't approach the level of "THE truth". It's just his opinion, the opinion of a random medieval scholar who happens to be Jewish and writes many disturbing things. So if he happens to write something really compelling (which does not describe what he says here!), great. But his name adds nothing to it.
But I guess I am trying to understand your perspective. It seems to me either one of two things. Either 1. You DO see Ibn Kaspi as authoritative the same way that you see the Ibn Ezra and the other meforshim. He is not just another scholar, but he is special and deserves a seat at the table with the other Rishonim. Or 2. You don't recognize the concept of "authority" in pshat in the first place, and you will cite from any authors no matter who they are, their religion, etc.
(One last point about R' Avraham ben HaRambam. I don't think our community would see him as any less authoritative the Ibn Ezra. To the contrary, he is probably more authoritative since he was a halachist that is cited several times in Hilchos Shabbos. As you say, it's an accident of history that he wasn't printed in the Mikraos Gedolos, but I believe in some newer Chumashim with a collection of Rishonim, he is brought.)
I think I agree with #2. While I agree that there's such a thing as a "track record," and that the more I learn from fringe meforshim like Shadal and Ibn Kaspi, the more I respect their views and apply to them my standards of Emunas Chachamim, I'd also accept interpretations and ideas from others, Jewish or non-Jewish, based solely on whether I deem their words to be true.
I hear that. Personally, the more I see of Ibn Kaspi the less I like him, but I don't feel that way about Shadal. I like a lot of what he has to say. Personally, my derech of pshat is that I am less interested in what any individual commentator says than in figuring out a pshat that makes sense to me. If the meforshim help, great. If not, I have to figure it out on my own.
An example from Parshas Mishpatim: I wasn't satisfied with how *any* of the meforshim learned the parsha הנה אנכי שולח מלאכך לפניך. The closest to making me happy was the Rambam (quoted by Abarbanel) who understands it's referring to Nevuah. But why is it mentioned here specifically? And what is אל המקום אשר הכינותי? It can't be referring to Eretz Yisrael, because Moshe Rabbeinu spoke to Hashem פנים על פנים, not through an angel, and he was the one who brought them to the edge of Eretz Yisrael?
So this is how I learned: The previous pasuk said רֵאשִׁ֗ית בִּכּוּרֵי֙ אַדְמָ֣תְךָ֔ תָּבִ֕יא בֵּ֖ית יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֑יךָ... But this is strange, because the Torah didn't tell us about a בית ה yet? How can it mention בית ה without telling us about it? (Actually, it did mention it once, in the beginning of פרשת ויצא, but it didn't give us any details.) And so the Torah continues by telling us that once we get enter Eretz Yisrael, we will have an angel that will guide us to the מקום המקדש (and there is a Medrash Tanchuma that says אל המקום אשר הכינותי refers to the Bais Hamikdash). And it is this angel that will also wage war against the nations of Canaan, because we are not able to set up a permanent בית ה until they are subdued (as Hashem tells David that only Shlomo who reigned over a peaceful kingdom could build it). And sure enough this is exactly what happens, in I Divrei Hayamim 21:17
>>His commentary often includes what we might describe as “hot takes,” delivered in a tone that could be called “snarky.” :D
>> “As God lives, [I swear that] I am not troubled by this verse.”
great lines
Though honestly I am surprised by the take "Dovid did worse things sexually and was moshiach Hashem anyway." 1) Dovid did teshuva very publicly or he undoubtedly would *not* have been moshiach Hashem. 2) It would seem like our current idea of "kedusha" is...too strict according to Ibn Kaspi? Like sure, all things being equal a person would control themselves sexually. But "don't get all bent out of shape" if our patriarchs had a kiss or a cuddle before marriage. Is that the standard to which we are holding the Patriarchs? I would say for the klal, ok. But I kind of had higher standards for Yaakov Avinu. Then again, before Matan Torah, Yehuda went to a prostitute after his wife died. That is not criticized but the midrash does say a malach pushed him (ie all things being equal, a role model like that is held to a higher standard, at least according to that midrash).
I really like your point that there is a range of approaches. And your comments about the interplay between culture, values, and interpretation here.
This makes me wish I did put a chapter on this in my book! But I think you did a better job than I would have. Great reading!
I appreciate this forthright approach. However, Melech David was reproached by Natan HaNavi for his sin. There is no indication in the text regarding Yaakov kissing Rachel that this was wrong, hidden or unconventional. Perhaps, this suggests it was not a sexual kiss, but rather one of greeting a relative. Just as we see Lavan and Eisav kiss Yaakov upon greeting eachother.
I'm with you up until "Perhaps, this SUGGESTS it was not a sexual kiss, but rather one of greeting a relative." I see how it leaves open the possibility that this may or may not be a sexual kiss, but I don't see how the absence of any words of disapproval suggests that it was a chaste kiss. Ibn Kaspi would say, "Maybe the Torah doesn't express disapproval because there was nothing to disapprove of in a romantic kiss!"
Right, I hear. At the same time, no one would think Yaakov kiss with Lavan or Eisav was sexual in nature. I feel like we must compare these kisses. It also makes me ponder about the concept of kissing in Tanach. It would be interesting to explore.
I agree with you. The immediate and general context is of one relative greeting another. Rachel's good looks are only introduced later, to explain why he preferred her over Leah.
Glad to see you address this issue forthrightly. A truly snarky explanation might be that this incident happened before Mattan Torah. If Yaakov could marry two sisters, which is usually excused on these grounds, then surely he could get away with kissing Rachel in whatever manner he did.
Yes, that indeed would be snarky. I think there's a difference between imputing impulsive and lustful behavior to Yaakov versus his marrying his intended bride (that he was defrauded out of) notwithstanding that Leah would potentially feel less loved (and the post sinaitic proscription). It is actually a testament to Yaakov's middos that Leah was never the wiser to the original plan (al pi peshat).
I noticed that as well when using control-F to find the place on the page. I THINK I read every commentary on וישק יעקב לרחל available on AlHaTorah and Sefaria, and I didn't see a single person mention that as a possibility. Apparently, "va'yishak" and "va'yashk" mean different things. Nice play on words, though! Perhaps there's something there.
First of all, I want to say I really enjoy your Chumash articles. I am very much drawn by pshat, especially reading Chumash in the context of the rest of Tanach, and I have discovered (or was מחדש) many fascinating things through this method. Unfortunately most of my limud of Chumash is on Shabbos, so I almost never write them down. But here is one example https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/yehudahs-blessing-of-wine-and-milk I find that your articles are very much up my alley.
However, I want to make a statement from a yeshivish perspective about the more "maskilish" commentators such as Ibn Caspi and Shadal. I will especially focus on Ibn Caspi since he seems to be a much worse offender. In our minds (I am speaking of the "yeshivishe velt") the reason why we accept commentators such as Rashi, the Ramban, and even the Ibn Ezra is because they are part of our Mesorah. And when I say "accept", I mean treat as authoritative. Like, the fact that they said something has more weight than the mere fact that they are scholars. After all, there are many Christian scholars who have written on Tanach, yet their words have no authority with us. So therefore, when we come to somebody like Ibn Caspi, who as far as I know, is not recognized as authoritative by any other Rishonim (and looking at his peirush which seems full of ליצנות, it's easy to see why), he is not part of our Mesorah, and we don't recognize him as authoritative either. That doesn't mean he's not a scholar, or that there's nothing to learn from him. Perhaps there is, just like there might be what to learn from Christian scholars on an occasional basis. But just like the Christian scholars, his lack of authority severely limits his utility. If we would quote the Ibn Kaspi to explain something, it would no better than being מחדש that explanation on our own. His words are not מעלה or מוריד.
I just wanted to articulate the yeshivishe perspective in writing, you may have known this already. It is not intended in any way as a criticism of your quoting these scholars. חזק ואמץ in your הרבצת התורה!
Thank you for reading my articles and sharing your feedback! It really means a lot to me to know that there are people out there who find them valuable AND enjoyable! 😊
And thank you for taking the time to share the yeshivish perspective on Ibn Kaspi, Shadal, and their ilk. While I had a vague awareness that the phenomenon you describe might be the case, your comment spelled it out with great clarity.
What you wrote makes me so grateful to have been born and raised (in terms of my Torah education) in the Rambam's world of "accept the truth from whoever says it." While I certainly understand where the yeshivish perspective comes from, I find it so limiting. Just over Shabbos I was reading about the history of one of my other recent favorite Chumash commentaries: that of R' Avraham ben ha'Rambam. The publisher noted how tragic it is that his commentary wasn't as widely disseminated, and didn't reach the mainstream awareness. How tragic it continues to be that his reach is limited by his accident of history! (This is the opposite of the fate of Ibn Ezra and Ralbag who had the hashgachic fortune to be included early on in Mikraos Gedolos, despite their radical views.)
The irony is that the way you describe how Ibn Kaspi, Shadal, and Christian scholars are regarded in some circles is exactly how I regard Chassidish, Kabbalistic, and other later works by authors I don't recognize. I acknowledge that they can have good ideas, but their names carry little to no weight if their ideas don't appeal to my mind.
Thanks again for taking the time to write this comment!
Absolutely, there is an advantage to being raised in "the Rambam's world" as you put it, although I would argue that there are overriding advantages to the yeshivishes approach.
However, I am not sure how the idea of "accept the truth from whoever says it" comes into this discussion. "Accept the truth from whoever says it" means that if you hear something that has good evidence or just obviously rings true, you shouldn't care about who said it. It doesn't matter if the Rambam said it or the homeless druggie on the street corner said it. But when people quote Ibn Kaspi or Shadal, they are generally not doing that.
This article is a case in point. It does not appear you are taking sides. You are not saying that Ibn Kaspi's pshat makes more sense than the other meforshim. You are not saying it's THE truth, and therefore "accept the truth from whoever says it". Rather, it seems to me that you are citing Ibn Kaspi the same way that you or anybody else would cite Rashi or the Rashbam, as a valid, authoritative commentator. You are contrasting the Authoritative Commentator Ibn Kaspi's pshat to that of the other commentaries and the Ralbag. There is a reason why you are discussing Ibn Kaspi and not Christian commentators, and it's because you view Ibn Kaspi as authoritative in a way that you wouldn't consider Christian authors. (And ironically, despite your comparison of Hassidic authors to Christians, you still cite them.)
And it is with this particular point that the yeshivishe perspective differs. To them, Ibn Kaspi is simply not an authoritative commentary. We are not dealing with the concept of "accept THE truth from whoever says it", because Ibn Kaspi's pshat here is not any more compelling than the other meforshim, it definitely doesn't approach the level of "THE truth". It's just his opinion, the opinion of a random medieval scholar who happens to be Jewish and writes many disturbing things. So if he happens to write something really compelling (which does not describe what he says here!), great. But his name adds nothing to it.
But I guess I am trying to understand your perspective. It seems to me either one of two things. Either 1. You DO see Ibn Kaspi as authoritative the same way that you see the Ibn Ezra and the other meforshim. He is not just another scholar, but he is special and deserves a seat at the table with the other Rishonim. Or 2. You don't recognize the concept of "authority" in pshat in the first place, and you will cite from any authors no matter who they are, their religion, etc.
(One last point about R' Avraham ben HaRambam. I don't think our community would see him as any less authoritative the Ibn Ezra. To the contrary, he is probably more authoritative since he was a halachist that is cited several times in Hilchos Shabbos. As you say, it's an accident of history that he wasn't printed in the Mikraos Gedolos, but I believe in some newer Chumashim with a collection of Rishonim, he is brought.)
I think I agree with #2. While I agree that there's such a thing as a "track record," and that the more I learn from fringe meforshim like Shadal and Ibn Kaspi, the more I respect their views and apply to them my standards of Emunas Chachamim, I'd also accept interpretations and ideas from others, Jewish or non-Jewish, based solely on whether I deem their words to be true.
https://rabbischneeweiss.substack.com/p/what-is-emunas-chachamim
I hear that. Personally, the more I see of Ibn Kaspi the less I like him, but I don't feel that way about Shadal. I like a lot of what he has to say. Personally, my derech of pshat is that I am less interested in what any individual commentator says than in figuring out a pshat that makes sense to me. If the meforshim help, great. If not, I have to figure it out on my own.
An example from Parshas Mishpatim: I wasn't satisfied with how *any* of the meforshim learned the parsha הנה אנכי שולח מלאכך לפניך. The closest to making me happy was the Rambam (quoted by Abarbanel) who understands it's referring to Nevuah. But why is it mentioned here specifically? And what is אל המקום אשר הכינותי? It can't be referring to Eretz Yisrael, because Moshe Rabbeinu spoke to Hashem פנים על פנים, not through an angel, and he was the one who brought them to the edge of Eretz Yisrael?
So this is how I learned: The previous pasuk said רֵאשִׁ֗ית בִּכּוּרֵי֙ אַדְמָ֣תְךָ֔ תָּבִ֕יא בֵּ֖ית יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֑יךָ... But this is strange, because the Torah didn't tell us about a בית ה yet? How can it mention בית ה without telling us about it? (Actually, it did mention it once, in the beginning of פרשת ויצא, but it didn't give us any details.) And so the Torah continues by telling us that once we get enter Eretz Yisrael, we will have an angel that will guide us to the מקום המקדש (and there is a Medrash Tanchuma that says אל המקום אשר הכינותי refers to the Bais Hamikdash). And it is this angel that will also wage war against the nations of Canaan, because we are not able to set up a permanent בית ה until they are subdued (as Hashem tells David that only Shlomo who reigned over a peaceful kingdom could build it). And sure enough this is exactly what happens, in I Divrei Hayamim 21:17
וַיִּשָּׂ֨א דָוִ֜יד אֶת־עֵינָ֗יו וַיַּ֞רְא אֶת־מַלְאַ֤ךְ יְהֹוָה֙ עֹמֵ֗ד בֵּ֤ין הָאָ֙רֶץ֙ וּבֵ֣ין הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וְחַרְבּ֤וֹ שְׁלוּפָה֙ בְּיָד֔וֹ נְטוּיָ֖ה עַל־יְרוּשָׁלָ֑͏ִם וַיִּפֹּ֨ל דָּוִ֧יד וְהַזְּקֵנִ֛ים מְכֻסִּ֥ים בַּשַּׂקִּ֖ים עַל־פְּנֵיהֶֽם׃
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר דָּוִ֣יד אֶֽל־הָאֱלֹהִ֡ים הֲלֹא֩ אֲנִ֨י אָמַ֜רְתִּי לִמְנ֣וֹת בָּעָ֗ם וַאֲנִי־ה֤וּא אֲשֶׁר־חָטָ֙אתִי֙ וְהָרֵ֣עַ הֲרֵע֔וֹתִי וְאֵ֥לֶּה הַצֹּ֖אן מֶ֣ה עָשׂ֑וּ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהַ֗י תְּהִ֨י נָ֤א יָֽדְךָ֙ בִּ֚י וּבְבֵ֣ית אָבִ֔י וּֽבְעַמְּךָ֖ לֹ֥א לְמַגֵּפָֽה׃ {ס}
וּמַלְאַ֧ךְ יְהֹוָ֛ה אָמַ֥ר אֶל־גָּ֖ד לֵאמֹ֣ר לְדָוִ֑יד כִּ֣י ׀ יַעֲלֶ֣ה דָוִ֗יד לְהָקִ֤ים מִזְבֵּ֙חַ֙ לַֽיהֹוָ֔ה בְּגֹ֖רֶן אׇרְנָ֥ן הַיְבֻסִֽי׃
>>His commentary often includes what we might describe as “hot takes,” delivered in a tone that could be called “snarky.” :D
>> “As God lives, [I swear that] I am not troubled by this verse.”
great lines
Though honestly I am surprised by the take "Dovid did worse things sexually and was moshiach Hashem anyway." 1) Dovid did teshuva very publicly or he undoubtedly would *not* have been moshiach Hashem. 2) It would seem like our current idea of "kedusha" is...too strict according to Ibn Kaspi? Like sure, all things being equal a person would control themselves sexually. But "don't get all bent out of shape" if our patriarchs had a kiss or a cuddle before marriage. Is that the standard to which we are holding the Patriarchs? I would say for the klal, ok. But I kind of had higher standards for Yaakov Avinu. Then again, before Matan Torah, Yehuda went to a prostitute after his wife died. That is not criticized but the midrash does say a malach pushed him (ie all things being equal, a role model like that is held to a higher standard, at least according to that midrash).
I really like your point that there is a range of approaches. And your comments about the interplay between culture, values, and interpretation here.
This makes me wish I did put a chapter on this in my book! But I think you did a better job than I would have. Great reading!
I appreciate this forthright approach. However, Melech David was reproached by Natan HaNavi for his sin. There is no indication in the text regarding Yaakov kissing Rachel that this was wrong, hidden or unconventional. Perhaps, this suggests it was not a sexual kiss, but rather one of greeting a relative. Just as we see Lavan and Eisav kiss Yaakov upon greeting eachother.
I'm with you up until "Perhaps, this SUGGESTS it was not a sexual kiss, but rather one of greeting a relative." I see how it leaves open the possibility that this may or may not be a sexual kiss, but I don't see how the absence of any words of disapproval suggests that it was a chaste kiss. Ibn Kaspi would say, "Maybe the Torah doesn't express disapproval because there was nothing to disapprove of in a romantic kiss!"
Right, I hear. At the same time, no one would think Yaakov kiss with Lavan or Eisav was sexual in nature. I feel like we must compare these kisses. It also makes me ponder about the concept of kissing in Tanach. It would be interesting to explore.
I bet if someone wrote a book on this, it would be quite a hit!
As is evident by the abundance of comments 😀
I agree with you. The immediate and general context is of one relative greeting another. Rachel's good looks are only introduced later, to explain why he preferred her over Leah.
Glad to see you address this issue forthrightly. A truly snarky explanation might be that this incident happened before Mattan Torah. If Yaakov could marry two sisters, which is usually excused on these grounds, then surely he could get away with kissing Rachel in whatever manner he did.
Yes, that indeed would be snarky. I think there's a difference between imputing impulsive and lustful behavior to Yaakov versus his marrying his intended bride (that he was defrauded out of) notwithstanding that Leah would potentially feel less loved (and the post sinaitic proscription). It is actually a testament to Yaakov's middos that Leah was never the wiser to the original plan (al pi peshat).
Cf. with his other comment, a mere few verses later: ר' יוסף אבן כספי בראשית כ"ט:י"ז
"ואולם מה שהוא תמה גדול בחקינו ובחוק כל חסיד איך יעקב אבינו היה בוחר בחורות יפות."
Generally speaking, the older I get, the crankier I get with less than literal/anachronistic explanations.
Thanks and Shabbat Shalom
I wrote about that particular comment a few years ago. Should've referenced in here too: https://rabbischneeweiss.substack.com/p/vayeitzei-the-eyes-of-leah-in-the
Shabbat shalom, and thanks for reading!
Alternatively, the surrounding text uses the same shoresh to mean watered. Could it mean that Yaakov provided water to Rachel.
I noticed that as well when using control-F to find the place on the page. I THINK I read every commentary on וישק יעקב לרחל available on AlHaTorah and Sefaria, and I didn't see a single person mention that as a possibility. Apparently, "va'yishak" and "va'yashk" mean different things. Nice play on words, though! Perhaps there's something there.
Robert Alter cites Nahum Sarna as picking up on the word play; says that the same thing appears in Shir HaShirim.