|
Written on: 14. 09. 2011 [16:18]
|
|
d.pruiksma
Dick Pruiksma
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR
Topic creator
registered since: 17.08.2010
Posts: 10
|
Peta Jones Pellach; Jerusalem, Israel
To me, each of these women is very real and very tragic. Rabbinic literature turns them into ‘representative’ figures. I prefer to see them as unique individuals. One of the most interesting elements of the Genesis narrative is the deep affection that turns to terrible tension between the sisters. Rachel’s great, selfless act of love in allowing her sister to marry first and to marry the man whom she loved is followed by her bitter, self-destructive envy of that same sister. In naming their sons and the sons of their maidservants, each of the women either wallows in self-pity or gloats about a ‘victory’ over her sibling. Even with the tragic death of Rachel, the feuding continues. The text does not speak of Leah weeping over the death of her sister. We are told that Jacob wanted Rachel buried in the territory of the tribe of her son Benjamin, not in the nearby territory of Leah’s son Judah, where the other matriarchs and patriarchs lie. The bottom line is that the women define themselves and are defined in relationship to Jacob and to their sons. That is the cause of the bitterness between them and the root of their tragedy. Dalia’s call to see the qualities of both women in ourselves should come with a warning: embrace the Leah and embrace the Rachel and let them be the great women they were before Jacob came between them.
Peta Jones Pellach sent her contribution to the ICCJ office in Heppenheim. Therefore it was posted by Rev. Dick Pruiksma, ICCJ General Secretary
|
|
Written on: 09. 10. 2011 [08:23]
|
|
Maria.Brutti
Maria Brutti
registered since: 14.09.2011
Posts: 1
|
Shared Testament: Leah and Rachel
Maria Brutti (Italy)
At a first superficial reading, I have some difficulties in fully understanding and appreciating the narratives on Leah and Rachel in the biblical text. The story of Leah and Rachel is closely linked to the historical context in which it is set, however it proposes an ancient problem, particularly prevalent and discussed in our society today: the infertility of women and ways to overcome it (see Ursula Rudnick). But the biblical text ignores any moral problem, depicting a society in which men are dominant and women are only for procreation and sex. Indeed, Dalia Marx remarks that “the women of the Generation of the Flood were treated as objects by their husband “. I would like to add that these women in turn also treated their slaves as objects.
But all this does not seem to bother the author of the biblical text, who informs but does not add anything, does not evaluate or judge. The text is laconic (Dalia Marx) and neutral, there seems to be no preference between the two women, Leah and Rachel, whose destinies are intertwined, and whose roles are sometimes exchangeable.
Much more challenging and complex are the interpretations of the text, which arouse conflicting emotions in me.
I find the Jewish reading fascinating but the historical Christian interpretation is deeply worrying. On the one hand Dalia Marx proposes a multifaceted interpretation of Leah and Rachel, who express “the plurality and complexity of the People of Israel†in a broader perspective, reflecting the complexity of each of us, men and women, whatever religion we belong to.
On the other hand it is a sad fact that the teaching of contempt was born (Ursula Rudnick, Justin, Justin, Dial. 34, 3-5) from a Christian interpretation. However, this reading, unjust and wrong as it is, represents a challenge for me to search for new interpretations.
In the Christian and Catholic tradition from St Augustine to St Gregory and on to St Thomas Aquinas, Leah (not beloved but fruitful) is a symbol of active life, while Rachel (beautiful but barren) is a symbol of contemplative life. For a time this tradition gave rise to a supposed superiority of the latter as opposed to the former, but today the Roman Catholic Church holds that they represent two different, but complementary, ways to the salvation.
This particular Catholic reading of Leah and Rachel may be limited, but could also counteract the teaching of contempt by indicating that mutual understanding and respectful acceptance of diversity can lead to dialogue and cooperation for the common good of Jews, Christians and all humanity. In this perspective, Rachel’s infertility and Leah's fecundity make them a symbol of openness to all humanity: universal "mothersâ€.
|
