One of the famous problems which all the commentaries discuss is how Yaakov Avinu could marry two sisters, which is one of the forbidden arayos relationships. But let us ask another question. There is a strange dialog in this week’s parsha which I’m sure has bothered you for many years: The Torah states: “And Reuven went in the time of the wheat harvest, and he found dudaim (mandrakes) in the field and he brought them to Leah his mother. And Rochel said to Leah, ‘Let me have some of your son’s mandrakes.'” (Bereishis 30:14). Leah’s response to Rochel must be one of the most incredible statements in all of the Torah: “...Is it not enough that you took my husband, that you (now) also want to take my son’s mandrakes?” (Bereishis 30:15) Finally, Rochel reacts by proposing a compromise that Yaakov would spend that night with Leah, and Rochel would take the flowers.
Leah’s chutzpah in making such a statement is incredible. “You took my husband...” If I were Rochel, I would have answered back to Leah, “I beg your pardon. Have you forgotten what happened? Have you forgotten that he was supposed to marry me and I was the righteous one who saved you from humiliation by giving you the secret code that Yaakov and I set up between us? Now you have the unmitigated audacity to say ‘You took my husband!'”
There are two questions here: (1) How could Leah say such a thing? (2) Why does Rochel just seemingly accept Leah’s statement and merely offer the switch of the flowers for her husband that night? Why didn’t she call out her sister on the audacity of her comment? How do we understand this dialog?
The Kesav Sofer says a very novel idea: Even though the Avos kept the entire Torah before it was given, they did not keep it in the same way as we keep it after Matan Torah. After the Torah was given, even if a person has all of the greatest excuses in the world to not keep a particular halachah, we cannot violate the Torah. If the Torah says that a king should not have too many wives or too many horses, then even Shlomah HaMelech may not say “Don’t worry, that does not apply to me, this is not going to affect me.” When Shlomah haMelech said that, it did affect him. A halachah is a halachah.
However, before Matan Torah, the Avos had the option to say “This halachah does not apply to me.” The Ramban, in fact, says this in his Chumash commentary in Parshas Achrei Mos. He notes that two sisters are not really an ervah (incestuous relation). His proof is that if one of the sisters dies, her husband is allowed to marry the other sister. This is a fact that we do not find by any other ervah. The Ramban says that the reason the Torah forbade a person from simultaneously being married to two sisters is because the Torah is trying to prevent an unmitigated disaster. Imagine the sibling rivalry that would result from two sisters marrying the same person!
