Rachel's Stealing of the Terafim/2

Rachel's Stealing of the Terafim

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Survival

Rachel stole the terafim so that her father could not use them to divine the whereabouts of the family when they fled.

Sources:Tanchuma #1Vayetze 12About the Tanchuma, Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer #1, RashbamBereshit 31:19About R. Shemuel b. Meir, Ibn EzraBereshit 31:19About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, RadakBereshit 31:19Bereshit 31:30About R. David Kimchi, RambanBereshit 31:19About R. Moshe b. Nachman,¹ Ralbag #2, Abarbanel

What are terafim? According to these commentators the terafim were objects used for divination.²  As evidence, Rashbam points to Zekharyah 10:2 which mentions "terafim speaking" and links them with magicians ("הַקּוֹסְמִים"),‎³ and to Hoshea 3:4, which pairs them with the "אֵפוֹד", another item associated with prophecy and fortune-telling.⁴  Bereshit 30:27 might provide further support for this reading since, there, Lavan says of himself that he uses "ניחוש".‎⁵ On the other hand, if the terafim were impure magical items, it is not clear why they should have been present in the home of Michal and David.

Etymology of the word – Tanchuma asserts that they are called "תְּרָפִים" because they are a "מַעֲשֵׂה תֹרֶף", an object of impurity.  Ramban, in contrast, suggests that the term comes from the fact that their words are like a weak prophecy (נבואה רפה) and not very reliable.

"לָמָּה גָנַבְתָּ אֶת אֱלֹהָי" – If the terafim were magical objects, it is not clear why Lavan refers to them as gods. Ramban asserts that many people would turn their terafim into gods, much the way the Israelites strayed after the "אֵפוֹד" set up by Gideon.⁶  Thus, too, Lavan might have considered the terafim as gods,⁷ even if they were not originally intended as such.  Radak similarly suggests that Lavan referred to the objects as gods because he trusted in them as one would in the word of God.

"וַיִּרְדֹּף אַחֲרָיו" – Considering that Lavan seemed to have no difficulty finding the family even without the use of his terafim, it is questionable how Rachel could really have thought that stealing them would suffice to prevent discovery of the escape.⁸

Why hold onto them? It is not clear why Rachel did not destroy the objects immediately.  That would seem to be the best way to ensure that they could no longer reveal any secrets, and perhaps the proper way to deal with impure magical objects.

Belief in magic and divination – This position assumes that Rachel believed in the powers of impure objects (though she never used them herself).  Moreover, most of these sources themselves assert that the terafim really did have the ability to speak, reveal secrets, or tell the future, albeit often incorrectly.  Ralbag and Abarbanel, in contrast, assert that the magician using the terafim merely imagined it talking,⁹ while Ibn Ezra assumes that Lavan's divination was related to his astronomical abilities.¹⁰

Sitting on the terafim – According to one opinion in Baalei HaTosafot, Rachel sat upon the terafim with force to prevent their crying out and telling Lavan where they were.  Alternatively, she embarrassed them into silence for they would never reveal that they were so degraded to be sat upon.  Ralbag and Ibn Ezra would more simply suggest that this was just a good way of hiding them from her father.

Family dynamics – This position is consistent with the chapter's earlier description of the family dynamics, where Rachel and Leah agree with Yaakov's negative assessment of Lavan.

The "אֱלֹהֵי הַנֵּכָר" buried by Yaakov – According to this position, the foreign gods which Yaakov buries upon leaving Shekhem do not include the terafim and have no connection to Rachel's actions at all.  Those were objects taken when the brothers looted Shekhem and were never worshiped by Yaakov's family..

Evaluation of Rachel's actions – This approach might view Rachel's intentions as meritorious as she was attempting to protect her family.  Radak, though, suggests that she should nonetheless not have stolen from her father.

Religiosity of the forefathers – This position views the forefathers as righteous believers in Hashem, and assumes that Rachel would never have taken impure objects for her own use.

Religious Motivations

Rachels' taking of the terafim related to their ritual role.

Preventative

Rachel took the terafim so that her father would no longer worship them.

Sources:Bereshit Rabbah74:5About Bereshit Rabbah, Tanchuma #2Vayetze 12About the Tanchuma, Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer #236About Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, R. Chananel(cited by R. Bachya) Bereshit 31:19About R. Chananel b. Chushiel, RashiBereshit 31:19About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, Ralbag #1

What are terafim? These commentators assume that the terafim were idols, worshiped by Lavan.  This is supported by the fact that Lavan refers to them as such, asking "לָמָּה גָנַבְתָּ אֶת אֱלֹהָי".  In Shofetim 18 the word terafim is connected to the phrase "פֶסֶל וּמַסֵּכָה" further suggesting that terafim might be some form of idol.  According to this understanding, however, it is not clear why idolatrous terafim would be present in the house of David and Michal in Shemuel I 19.¹¹

Why are they called terafim? The narrative voice consistently refers to the idols as terafim while Lavan and Yaakov refer to them as "gods".  This suggests that the word terafim might be the Torah's derisive term for worthless figurines.

Why hold onto them? Ibn Ezra¹² questions why Rachel would not have buried or destroyed the terafim if  they were idols and she did not want her father to worship them. Toledot Yitzchak responds that she feared that she would be seen, and was waiting for an opportunity to do so in secret.¹³

Would this convince Lavan? Abarbanel questions why Rachel's taking of one set of idols would prevent Lavan from simply making replacements and continuing to worship.  R. Chananel asserts that Rachel was trying to convince her father of the worthlessness of idols; if they can be stolen they must have no power.¹⁴

Sitting on the terafim – N. Sarna suggests that Rachel's sitting on the idols when menstruating reflects her scorning of the objects and her intentional defilement of what her father viewed as sacred.¹⁵

Family dynamics – This approach is somewhat inconsistent with the chapter's description of the relationship between Rachel and her father.  Earlier in the chapter it sounds as if Rachel is happy to disconnect and sever ties with Lavan, while these sources, in contrast, suggested that she is still concerned about him.  It is possible that despite her personal frustrations, Rachel still worried over her father's religious well-being, and perhaps hoped that a religious change would prompt a change in his treatment of others as well.

The "אֱלֹהֵי הַנֵּכָר" buried by Yaakov – According to this approach, the terafim are not included among the foreign gods collected by Yaakov.  According to Ralbag, those belonged to the captive women of Shekhem. Presumably, by then Rachel had an opportunity to destroy the terafim on her own.

Evaluation of Rachel's actions – This approach views Rachel very positively.  She not only has no idolatrous inclinations herself, but even tries to convert her father to monotheism.¹⁶

"עִם אֲשֶׁר תִּמְצָא אֶת אֱלֹהֶיךָ לֹא יִחְיֶה" and Rachel's early death – Bereshit Rabbah connects Rachel's premature death with Yaakov's curse.  Theologically, though, this is difficult as Rachel's actions did not deserve a punishment.¹⁷

Religiosity of the forefathers – This position assumes that the forefathers/mothers were religious monotheists, and proactive in getting others to believe in Hashem exclusively.

Personal Use

Rachel wanted the terafim for her own personal use.

Sources:JosephusAntiquities of the Jews 1:19:9Antiquities of the Jews, 1:21:2Antiquities of the Jews, 18:9:5About Josephus, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorBereshit 31:19About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, ShadalBereshit 31:19About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, Hoil MosheBereshit 31About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi

What are terafim?

• Objects of divination – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor and Shadal they were magical objects used to foretell the future, while according to Hoil Moshe they were believed to have powers to bless barren women with children.¹⁸
• Idols – According to Josephus, in contrast, they were household gods.

Why did Rachel want them?

• Children – Hoil Moshe asserts that Rachel wanted more children,¹⁹ and hoped that the terafim would help.²⁰  He suggests that the barren Michal²¹ had terafim in her house for the same reason.
• Belief in divination – Shadal asserts that Rachel wanted the terafim because she believed in their divining abilities even though she did not worship idolatry.
• Worship – Josephus instead posits that Rachel thought that the idols might protect her, and via them she could obtain pardon from her father if they were pursued.  Later in his work, Josephus relates how even in his own time, it was a custom for people to take their household idols when emigrating.²²  According to this, it is possible that Rachel had learned idolatrous worship from her father and had not yet totally forsaken it.²³

"וַתִּגְנֹב רָחֵל" – The language of "stealing" supports the idea that Rachel had taken the idols for her own personal use and not to save others or convert her father.

"לָמָּה גָנַבְתָּ אֶת אֱלֹהָי" – These commentators differ in their understanding of why the terafim are called gods by Lavan:

• Perspective of character – R. Yosef Bekhor Shor posits that in Rachel's eyes the terafim were simply objects of divination but in Lavan's eyes they were actually gods.  Thus, when Lavan speaks he calls them "gods" but when the text speaks from Rachel's perspective, it writes "terafim".
• Two terms for the same item – According to Josephus, in contrast, even Rachel viewed them as gods and would agree with her father's formulation.   The narrative voice, though, perhaps chooses to use a more derogatory term when speaking of them.  Alternatively, terafim are not a negative term but simply a specific type of idol (household gods).  When Lavan talks, though, he chooses instead to highlight the main point of his accusation - how dare you steal my gods!

Why hold onto them? According to this approach it is clear why Rachel does not get rid of the idols as the whole purpose in taking them was for their use.

Sitting on the terafim – Rachel's sitting on the terafim is difficult for this position.  If Rachel really revered these items as gods or god-like, how could she denigrate them by sitting on them?

The "אֱלֹהֵי הַנֵּכָר" buried by Yaakov – According to Jubilees 31, Josephus, and Seikhel Tov, Rachel's terafim were among the foreign gods buried by Yaakov outside of Shekhem.  Though the commentators do not suggest this, it is possible that the other idols were also taken by Yaakov's family not just for their gold, but to worship.

Yaakov's oath in Beit El – When Yaakov first left for Canaan, he took an oath that if Hashem watched over him and brought him home safely, then, "וְהָיָה י"י לִי לֵאלֹהִים" (Hashem will be for me a God).  Josephus might suggest that it was only upon his safe return to Canaan, that Yaakov fully accepted Hashem to the exclusion of other gods.  Thus, it is only when he goes to fulfill his vow at Beit El that he cleanses his family of idolatry.  Until then, perhaps, Rachel and other members of the family had worshiped other gods as well.

"עִם אֲשֶׁר תִּמְצָא אֶת אֱלֹהֶיךָ לֹא יִחְיֶה" and Rachel's early death – If Rachel really took the idols for her own use, and especially if she worshiped them as idols, it is easy to posit a connection between Yaakov's curse and Rachel's demise. Soon after they are "found" in Shekhem, she dies in childbirth.

Repentance? Y. Rock²⁴  suggests that on her deathbed Rachel realized that she was being punished for taking and believing in the terafim²⁵ and confessed via the name she called her son: בֶּן אוֹנִי.  He posits that the word "אוֹנִי" is related to "אָוֶן", sin or falsehood.  Rachel finally realized that in reality "הַתְּרָפִים דִּבְּרוּ אָוֶן".

Evaluation of Rachel – According to this position Rachel is blameworthy, and perhaps is even punished for her actions, but might have repented at the end of her life.

Religiosity of the forefathers – This approach challenges the assumption that all of our ancestors were pure monotheistic believers and raises the possibility that some of them might have needed to journey to that point.

Economic Advantage

The terafim testified to Yaakov's rights to Lavan's inheritance.

Sources:Modern scholars²⁶

What are terafim? This position assumes that the terafim were household gods, and ownership of them testified to inheritance rights.

Ancient Near Eastern parallels – This reading is based on Ancient Near Eastern adoption documents found in Nuzi.  There it is stated that if one adopts a son, he shall be heir upon the father's death.  If, however, natural sons are later born to the father, they will split the inheritance with the adopted son and the natural son will receive the household gods.  Otherwise the gods are taken by the adoptee.  On this basis it has been suggested that Yaakov had been adopted by Lavan, who afterwards bore his own sons.  Thus, Rachel took the terafim to  ensure that, nonetheless, Yaakov retained the title to the chief inheritance portion and leadership of the family.

Difficulties – M. Greenberg²⁷ questions this theory on several grounds:

• The adoption text does not seem to condition receiving the inheritance on ownership of the idols but the opposite; he who inherits then gets possession of the household gods.
• The fact of ownership is not what is stressed as much as the act of transference of the gods.  It is the bequeathing of the idols which symbolically transfers title and inheritance, showin all whom the father has chosen.²⁸
• The context of the story, Yaakov's flight from Lavan and move to Canaan, suggests that the family had no intentions of returning to inherit Lavan's estate.²⁹

"וַתִּגְנֹב רָחֵל" – The use of the term "stealing" supports the possibility that Rachel was motivated by self-interest.

Why hold onto them? In order to prove possession, Rachel had no choice but to keep the idols. 

Sitting on the terafim – According to this approach, Rachel held no reverence for the gods, while Lavan did.  As such, sitting on them proved an excellent way to hide them.

The "אֱלֹהֵי הַנֵּכָר" buried by Yaakov – According to this position, it is unclear whether the terafim were included in the foreign gods buried by Yaakov.   It is possible that by this point Rachel realized hat they were never to go back to Charan and handed over the terafim.

Evaluation of Rachel – Some might negatively evaluate Rachel's actions, claiming that stealing for personal gain is always wrong, while others might suggest that Rachel felt cheated by her father and was only trying to retrieve what she felt was rightfully hers.

Religiosity of the forefathers – This approach views the forefathers as monotheistic in their beliefs, yet perhaps not all at the level where they thought that such belief necessitated destroying idols if they could serve a non-religious purpose.

¹ Ramban speaks of he terafim's role in divination but does not explicitly say that Rachel stole them so that they could not reveal the location of the escaped family.  However, this seems to be his import.

² The commentators differ regarding what they think the terafim constituted and how they worked. Tanchuma and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan describe an elaborate process including a dead person, spices, names of impure spirits and candles.  Ibn Ezra and Ralbag, looking to the story of Michal's saving of David, suggest instead that they took the form of men, but do not think that they were an actual person.

³ See also Shemuel I 15:23 and Yechezkel 21:26 which similarly associate the terafim with "קֶסֶם" and divining.

⁴ Ramban further points to the story of "פסל מיכה" in Shofetim 18 in which they are also mentioned together with the "אֵפוֹד", and the people of Dan explicitly talk of divining whether they will succeed on their way.  See also Melakhim II 23:24 where they are connected to "הָאֹבוֹת וְהַיִּדְּעֹנִים".

⁵ Compare the similar "theft" of Yosef's goblet which was used for divination - "וְהוּא נַחֵשׁ יְנַחֵשׁ בּוֹ".

⁶ See Shofetim 8:24-27.

⁷ In Yaakov's speech he also refers to them as gods, "עִם אֲשֶׁר תִּמְצָא אֶת אֱלֹהֶיךָ לֹא יִחְיֶה" probably because Lavan had done so.

⁸ These commentators might respond that even if the plan was not fool-proof, it bough the family time and was better than nothing.

⁹ He objects to the possibility that anything not given a mouth by God could actually talk.

¹⁰ He does not explain the exact connection between the use of the terafim and reading the stars.

¹¹ See Ramban who asks this, and responds that maybe not all terafim were worshiped.

¹² See also R. D"Z Hoffmann.

¹³ If her actions were for good purpose, though, it is not clear why she should have minded if she were found out.  Toledot Yitzchak might suggest that Rachel nonetheless feared that her stealing would be frowned upon.

¹⁴ He points to the similar speech of Yoash (Gidon's father) who responds to the destruction of the Baal's altar by telling the people: if he is a god let him avenge the destruction.

¹⁵ See N. Sarna, Understanding Genesis, (New York, 1970): 200-202.

¹⁶ In fact, she is reminiscent of Avraham as painted by the midrash, who destroys the idols of his father to convince him and others not to worship them.

¹⁷ One might nonetheless claim that the words of a prophet carry power and Yaakov's words thus, unintentionally and without justification, led to Rachel's demise.  Bereshit Rabbah similalrly writes, "וְהָיָה כִּשְׁגָּגָה הַיּוֹצֵא מִלִּפְנֵי הַשַּׁלִּיט".

¹⁸ All three distinguish between pure idolatry and divination, with Shadal asserting that the terafim were really just a form of lottery and as long as one did not think that the answer given stemmed from foreign gods, the action would not be considered idolatrous.  Hoil Moshe, in contrast, maintains that though less problematic, the act still falls into the general category of עבודה זרה.

¹⁹ See her prayer after the birth of Yosef, "יֹסֵף י"י לִי בֵּן אַחֵר".

²⁰ This might be similar to her desire for the mandrakes (דוּדָאִים) found by Reuven, also believed to have fertility powers.

²¹ Some have suggested that Michal was barren based on Shemuel II 6:23: "וּלְמִיכַל בַּת שָׁאוּל לֹא הָיָה לָהּ יָלֶד עַד יוֹם מוֹתָהּ".  It is possible, though, that the verse means from this point on Michal had no more children.

²² For other Biblical cases of people taking their gods with them into exile, see Yeshayahu 46:1 and Amos 5:26-27.

²³ See also M. Greenberg, "Another Look at Rachel's Theft of the Teraphim", JBL 81:3 (1962): 239-248, who elaborates on this idea mentioned by Josephus.

²⁴ See his article, לדמותה של רחל, דף קשר, שמות תשנ"ח, 635 and more recently, נדרו של יעקב ותרפיה של יעקב.

²⁵ He does not go so far as to say that Rachel worshiped them as idols but rather that she believed in their magical abilities and wanted to use them for that purpose.  See also A. Bazak, "גלה כבוד מישראל אל הלקח ארון האלהים - בין רחל לאשת פנחס" in Megadim 28 (1998): 9-18, who also develops the idea that Rachel sinned in taking the terafim for her own personal divination.

²⁶ See scholars such as H. H. Rowley, J. Bright, S. Smith,  E. A. Speiser, C. H. Gordon, and A. Draffkorn referenced in M. Greenberg, "Another Look at Rachel's Theft of the Teraphim", JBL 81:3 (1962): 239-248.

²⁷ See his article cited in the above note.

²⁸ As such, if the gods were already given to one of Lavan's own sons as a sign of inheritance, Yaakov's later possession of them would be meaningless, except to implicate him as a thief.

²⁹ On the other hand, Rachel and Leah's words, "הַעוֹד לָנוּ חֵלֶק וְנַחֲלָה בְּבֵית אָבִינוּ" might suggest not that the two had no more desire to share in their father's inheritance but a frustration with the fact that they were not receiving their due.  And even though the family was heading to Canaan, it is not clear if Rachel would have thought that the move needed to be permanent.