Rereading Torah Towards Liberation

The Torah portion Chayei Sarah includes an exchange in which Rebecca is asked if she consents to relocating and marrying Isaac. In Tzedek Chicago‘s Torah study [5785] — led by guest teacher R’ Koach Baruch Frazier — we talked about this confirmation of consent and what the story tells us, more generally, about the limitations and possibilities of choice.

In Genesis, Rebecca seems to be the first person offered a choice about joining in the family/covenant. Each individual might have refused to do as told, perhaps, but Abraham is just told Lekh Lekha, get going; he is then commanded to undertake various covenant-sealing actions, while neither Sarah nor Isaac is asked for opinion or consent.

This biblical story of Rebecca’s betrothal (Genesis 24) is the basis for Jewish law insisting that marriage cannot be forced on anyone. But is her choice, in the narrative itself, a free one? Did she have any option other than marrying, someone else if not Isaac? Once she accepted the jewelry and other gifts from Eliezer, was she free to refuse marriage to Isaac? What were the possibilities for women of the story’s cultural context? Ultimately, how much agency does any character in Genesis have?

Beyond Rebecca’s own story, this tale also prompts us to consider how choice and power work more generally and what it means to choose when others seem to control the options.

Rebecca’s Consent in Hebrew

The Hebrew when Rebecca is asked is worth a closer look. Genesis 24:57 is a short verse with some interesting bits to explore. Below is more detail about this verse and translations.

Asking the youth…

In Gen 24:57, Rebecca is identified by a word with root letters nun-ayin-reish: “na’ar” or “na’ara.” This raises a number of questions about who/what this term describes.

GENDER

Much discussion surrounds the fact that na’ar appears in the text here without a final heh, signaling the feminine form of the word. This has led to speculation, over centuries, about gender as it applies to Rebecca. Here is one source sheet that explores this with detailed care for grammar and history. Here’s an essay that focuses on writing vs. pronunciation. This piece — Was Rebecca a Young Man? — is part of a “gender-bending” series in the Forward.

In her essay, “Camels and Consummation,” Joy Ladin takes a less language-specific view of Rebecca’s story, concluding: “And it makes the Torah a book that, despite its archaism, sexism, and trans-, homo- and xeno- phobia, summons each of us to make God visible in the world by doing whatever it takes to become who we are.”

AGE

There is a lot of commentary, across centuries, about the meaning of “na’ar/na’ara” in terms of age. The word is used biblically to describe a child just weaned as well as a young person of marriageable age (see Brown-Driver-Briggs dictionary listings: na’ar and na’ara).

….Tzedek’s conversation did not focus on this, and I urge some caution in exploring this age here. The question of how old Rebecca was at betrothal does relate to consent and choice: Some commentary, from Jews and non-Jews, involves views of women and sexual contact and consent that can be seriously troubling, if not triggering, and that there are many antisemitic uses of Rebecca’s story in Talmud and other commentary….

The controversy around the age of a “na’ar/na’ara” points to many things we don’t know about a how youth was viewed in the ancient world, and what kinds of decision-making youth were allowed. Scholarship on this aspect of the word might be useful. Regardless of her age, however, Rebecca’s unusual degree of agency is worth considering.

…at her mouth

Another curious aspect of Gen 24:57 is the odd expression, nishalah et-piha: let us ask [at, for an answer from] her mouth.

HER MOUTH

Most uses of “piha, her mouth” in Tanakh relate to earth/soil/land swallowing something or someone. Both adamah, earth, and aretz, land, are feminine nouns; therefore, when ha-adamah swallows Abel’s blood (Gen 4:11), it’s her mouth [piha] that opens. When ha-aretz swallows Korach’s people (Numbers 26:11), it’s her mouth [piha] that opens.

I only found two uses that refer to human mouths: Hannah’s silent, praying mouth and the wisdom-filled mouth of the proverbial woman of worth:

וְהָיָה כִּי הִרְבְּתָה לְהִתְפַּלֵּל לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה וְעֵלִי שֹׁמֵר אֶת־פִּיהָ׃

Now it was, as she multiplied her praying in the presence [face] of YHVH,
that Eli was watching her mouth (1 Sam 1:12, Fox translation, adapted);

פִּיהָ, פָּתְחָה בְחָכְמָה; וְתוֹרַת חֶסֶד, עַל-לְשׁוֹנָהּ

She opens her mouth with wisdom, Torah of loving-kindness is on her tongue. (Proverbs 31:26, mash-up translation).

I’m sure there are dvrei torah linking these feminine mouths to Rebecca — I don’t know any off-hand, so please share citations, if you do.

CONSENT/CONSULTATION

In a commentary on Gen 24:57, Rabbi David Kimchi (Radak, 1160–1236, France) links to another instance of inquiring of a mouth, “et pi” (Joshua 9:14).

Radak says et-piha in Gen 24:57 is “a reference to her wishes, just as in Joshua 9:14, ‘they had not asked G’d about His wishes in the matter’ — v’et pi YHVH lo shaalu [ ואת פי ה’ לא שאלו].” (Eliahu Munk translation, via Sefaria.) The mouth in Joshua is not feminine, but I think Radak is pointing to the unusual nature of the phrase. Details on the verse and its translation are below.

The main point of Radak’s comparison appears lexicographical, helping to define the unusual expression “ask of their mouth.” In Joshua 9, the Israelites take action — enacting a treaty with strangers — without first checking in with YHVH: Lo shaalu. They didn’t ask.

Radak seems to be pointing out that this odd expression, “ask of their mouth,” is the same in Gen 24:57 and Joshua 9:14. (Not sure it appears anywhere else.) Exploring the comparison a little further, we can note:

• In Joshua, failing to ask commits the Israelites to policy in conflict with what YHVH has commanded; what might that suggest about divinity and the need for consent between individuals?
• In Genesis and later Jewish thought, consultation is recognized as central to the marriage contract; what might this suggest about consent and the developing covenant between YHVH and the growing family of Abraham and Sarah?

It’s also interesting to consider the element of trickery in Rebecca’s tale as it continues and in the story in Joshua 9. Not sure what to make of that, just noticing.

Hints as Building Blocks

With each passage of Torah — portion of the week, verse, word — we have choices about what aspects of our complex text we’ll lift up, discuss and study and re-tell. We can treat the odd Hebrew in Rebecca’s consent as a sidebar, maybe interesting, maybe not. Or look at is a matter for scholars to pursue but not relevant to living Torah lives. Or we can build on the openings we find in the text to fill out aspects of Torah that we have not yet fully told. We can search out openings, for example, that help us re-tell the Torah as a story of choices, rather than one of bloodlines or land claims. We can use the power of our relationship to the text to explore more fully and find new ways of teaching and growing and acting in the world.

Genesis 24:57

וַיֹּאמְרוּ נִקְרָא לַנַּעֲרָ וְנִשְׁאֲלָה אֶת־פִּיהָ׃

Grammatical Breakdown

Here is a grammatical breakdown, to the best of my ability (relying heavily on conjugation charts and Bible Hub and other references):

Va-yomru: And/but they said
nikra la-na’ar: let us call the youth
v’nishalah: and let us ask her
et-piha: her mouth

Va-yomru: yomru [masc. 3rd-person plural, imperfect, they will say] + va [and/but: “reversing vav” flips tense to perfect/past];
nikra la-na’ar: nikra [1st-person plural, imperfect, will or let us call] + la [to the] + na’ar [youth, fem. ending, ah, missing here, but might still have been vocalized na’ara; usually rendered “girl”];
v’nishalah: nishal, 1st-person plural, perfect, causative (“was asked”) + ah [fem. pronoun (“she was asked”)] + va [and/but: “reversing vav” flips tense to imperfect/future];
et-piha: pi [mouth] + et [direct object marker] + ha [feminine possessive ending]

nun-shin-alef-lamed, passive [nifal] at Pealim website

Published Translations

Here are three translations from Sefaria, in order chronologically and, as it happens from more to less literal:

Koren, 1962 (CC-BY-NC): And they said, We will call the girl, and inquire at her mouth.

Fox/Schocken translation, 1995: They said:
Let us call the girl and ask [for an answer from] her own mouth. —

Jewish Publication Society, 2006: And they said, “Let us call the girl and ask for her reply.” — JPS 2006

And here, for additional exploration, are the four oldest texts available through BibleHub:

Tyndale Bible of 1526
And they sayde: let vs call the damsell and witt what she sayth to the matter.

Coverdale Bible of 1535
Then sayde they: let vs call the damsell, and axe her, what she sayeth therto.

Bishops’ Bible of 1568
And they sayde: we wyll call the damsell, and enquire at her mouth.

Geneva Bible of 1587
Then they said, We will call the maide, and aske her consent.

Joshua 9:14

Here’s the verse and a few translations via Sefaria:

וַיִּקְחוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים מִצֵּידָם וְאֶת־פִּי יְהֹוָה לֹא שָׁאָלוּ׃

Revised JPS, 2023: Those involved took [their word for it] because of their provisions, and did not inquire of GOD.

Koren, 1962 (CC-BY-NC): And the men took of their provisions, and did not ask counsel at the mouth of the Lord.

Fox/Schocken, 1995: The men took from their supplies,** but did not inquire of YHWH’s mouth.
Fox notes say that men = “the Israelites,” and inquire = “Did not consult an oracle.” Also Supplies: There are several possibilities here. Boling (1982) suggests the context of a covenant meal; JPS reads “took [their word] because of their provisions.”

However this verse is translated, the gist is that the Israelites fall for a trick that results in a treaty they would not otherwise have made. The provisions had been made to appear old, so it would seem the visitors had traveled a long way to greet the Israelites, while they were, in reality, close neighbors.