1

In Sefer Bereshit, 30:3-13 the maidservants of both Rochel and Leah are given to Yaacov in their stead to build Yaacov's house through bearing additional children. Since the text states that any offspring will be counted not only to Yaacov but to Rochel or Leah, it implies that the maidservants, Bilhah and Zilpah, were acting as agents of Rochel and Leah.

Since bearing children is life threatening for women and in light of the possibility of legal agency, it raises the question of whether a maidservant is required to risk their life for their master? Or does this reaffirm the idea that their participation was voluntary, like a legal agent, meaning a shluchah?

One added insight in connection with this is that if shlichut is present, this could resolve the question revolving around whether Bilhah and Zilpah were like Rochel and Leah, meaning of equal status or not.

Kazi bácsi
  • 7,609
  • 4
  • 23
  • 51
Yaacov Deane
  • 14,809
  • 22
  • 64
  • 1
    related http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/44941/759 – Double AA Aug 31 '16 at 21:49
  • These answers appear to be related to a husband and wife. The maidservants were at least initially not in that status. Also surprised Rabbi Moshe Feinstein says childbirth in proper time is not life threatening for a woman. The Torah states this clearly in connection with the signs given to Puah and Shifra (when the thighs cool). – Yaacov Deane Aug 31 '16 at 22:05
  • It should be noted that the question is probably only relevant to the imahot if there was pre sinaic halakhic observance. – mevaqesh Aug 31 '16 at 22:07
  • 4
    "this could resolve the question revolving around whether Bilhah and Zilpah were Rochel and Leah" What such question is there? – Double AA Aug 31 '16 at 22:08
  • As far as I know the concept of legal agency preceded Sinai. It would probably be some derivative of the seven Noahide laws. So that is what would apply for Rochel, Leah, Bilhah and Zilpah. But the absence of a requirement to sacrifice ones life as a servant is critical in my eyes for it to work. – Yaacov Deane Aug 31 '16 at 22:13
  • Another interesting detail of this is that it appears the Avot and Imahot had what are referred to as 'binah' type marriages as contrasted to 'deegah' type marriages from ancient Arabic and Indo/Asian culture. This is characterized by the wife retaining her own home and property in marriage. – Yaacov Deane Aug 31 '16 at 22:33
  • Why do you think Bilah and Zilpah were unwilling participants? – user6591 Sep 01 '16 at 00:21
  • There are views from midrash that one was willing and one was not. There are also views that both were willing. I also found an interesting discussion of the maidservants from the Dead Sea scrolls in the Testament of Naftali that relates to this subject. – Yaacov Deane Sep 01 '16 at 00:31
  • @user6591 Shlichut (legal agency) is a kind of partnership/contract between two or more parties. That would seem to suggest that in order to be valid there can be no compulsion. If bearing and/or birthing children is life threatening, then requiring a woman to bear a child would be compulsion and would invalidate the agency relationship. If, as a 'shifcha', they cannot refuse, it would be compulsion. – Yaacov Deane Sep 02 '16 at 00:14

0 Answers0