By Rabbi Avi Billet
Issue of Nov. 21, 2008 / 23 Cheshvan 5769
How old was Rivka when she was discovered by Avraham’s servant and brought to Canaan to marry Yitzchak?
You are a graduate of a yeshiva education and you still say “three years old.” And you justify this by saying that “three-year-olds were more sophisticated in those days.”
Or you never really came across this question and you say, “Hmmm. I never thought about that. How old was she?”
We do not know the answer because the Torah doesn’t tell us. The Torah also doesn’t tell us how old Yitzchak was when he was bound on the top of a mountain by his father. Yet we seem to have that one clear as well. Unequivocally, he was 37 years old.
Right? Wrong! At least about it being “unequivocally” a certain number.
Based on the midrash, Rashi ties together the Akeidah (binding of Yitzchak) with Rivka’s birth and Sara’s death –– all because they take place in the same few verses in the Torah. Since we know Sara was 127 when she died, simple mathematics produce Yitzchak being 37 at her death, and Rivka’s birth at that time. Since Yitzchak marries at age 40, Rivka becomes three at her nuptials.
Please do not misunderstand: there are no hard feelings against Rashi. I believe there are many ways to look at things and Rashi does not always have to be the bottom line. There is a reason why we have other commentaries and approaches which are considered valid, and we cannot continue to be satisfied with only one approach. Especially if that approach, at its core, really bothers us. And if it doesn’t bother us, it should either bother us, or we really do not understand it.
We ignore the fact that years can pass between verses. For example, in one pasuk Avraham is 86 as Yishmael is born (16:16), and in the very next pasuk (17:1), Avraham is 99 and about to circumcise himself. That’s a 13 year jump, and no one questions the validity of the change in years. So why do we accept that there wasn’t a gap between the Akeidah and Sara’s death? Ibn Ezra, for example, believes Yitzchak was 13 at the time of his binding. This would make Sara 103 at that time, a good 24 years before her death.
Where were we? Rivka’s age at her wedding.
The Talmud (Yevamot 61b) mentions Rivka’s marriageable status, and Tosafot quote a Sifrei (Devarim 397:7) that indicates Rivka was 14 at the time of her marriage. The Midrash puts Rivka in the category of pairs of people that lived to the same age, and she is partnered with Kehat, who lived to be 133. Working backwards, the conclusion is that Rivka was 14 on her wedding day and 34 when she gave birth to her twin sons.
While in our times we do not approve of girls marrying at age 14, we know it was once a reality. We are certainly aware that 14-year-olds in our society (hopefully not in our community) do things of a marital nature –– including having babies –– even if they are not emotionally mature enough to understand or foresee the outcome of their decisions.
On the other hand, some 14-year-olds may look and act like very mature adults.
I have yet to meet a three-year-old who fits into this category, and I never want to meet a three-year-old who fits into this category. To think that Rivka is three years old and understands the idea of offering water to camels, can physically shlep water back and forth tens of times to feed 10 camels, is given respect to make her own decision whether she’ll go with Avraham’s servant, is viewed as a marriageable prospect, and is appreciated by Yitzchak, as his wife, to fill the void in his life left by his mother’s passing is, unequivocally, untenable to my line of thinking.
Put her at age 14, however, and it makes a whole lot of sense.
So why are we so fascinated with age three? Why do we also accept blindly that Avraham was three when he discovered G-d? These midrashim are fascinating and very deep and I would not presume to say I understand them, nor would I suggest taking them solely at face value.
Perhaps they are meant to teach us at what age our children ought to be when we begin teaching and inculcating in them important knowledge and lessons about life and the religion to which we commit ourselves.
Or perhaps we want to be inspired by the sophistication of our Avot and Imahot even at such a young age. I, for one, am happy to be inspired by a 14-year-old, as I prefer for the three-year-olds to remain just as they are: cute kids.
Avi Billet appreciates your comments and thoughts at avbillet@gmail.com.
I once heard R’ Shalom Shvadron tell a story. He had an uncle that told him, “When Chazal says that when Moshiach will come ‘gluskaos’ (cakes, cookies) will grow from trees, it does not mean literally. Only that the great Shefa Tov that will be in the world at that time will make it seem like that.” R” Shalom responded, Apikorus! The uncle then said, “But it’s a Rambam!” and he quoted the Rambam where he says just that. R’ Shalom responded, “Du bist noch altz an apikorus”. But the uncle asked, “Ay, the Rambam?” R’ SHalom’s response, which fits here as well, was “The Rambam has no shailos in believing Chazal. If Chazal say that cookies will grow, then cookies will grow. As it happens to be, The Rambam learns a verse in the Torah that it means something slightly different. But you, who have never seen cookies growing on trees and can’t imagine it happening, and therefore you look for alternative commentaries that fit your small mind a little better, you are an Apikorus!”
According to R’ Shalom, to quote the author above, the concept of Rivka getting married at 3 is “unequivocally, untenable to my line of thinking.” he is not arguing on Rashi because of the Sifri, but because it conflicts with his weltanschauung (or however that is spelled). That is apikorusus. I am saying this all due respect to the Rabbi, while disagreeing with what he wrote. I would appreciate if he responds explaing his approach to Commentaries like Rasi and other Rishonim.
(The full vort can be found in Lev Shalom on pasrshas Vayechi, on the topic of Yaakov Avinu lo mes)
Joseph Randel
I wanted to add what a friend of mine has brought to my attention. The gemara in Sanhedrin 7th Perek 69b says that Bat Sheva had her first child at the age of 6 and Shlomo Hamelech a year later at the age of 7. The gemora goes on and says taht Yitzchaks mother Sarah was born to her father when he was only 8.
While there are those who say that Rivkah was 14, the basis of your argument is invalid as you clearly see that this was the norm once upon atime.
I strongly suggest that you retract some of the language you used to describe why you differ from Rashi. The source above not only proves that they did have children and marry at a very young age, it proves that you lack the qualification to make an argument against Rashi. Not only you, anyone who is not in his caliber cant make an argument as such. You can ask how it’s possible and look for possible answers, but with all due respect to the Rabbi you cannot disagree with someone like Rashi when it comes to logic. While we do find others who disagree with Rashi, they are usually of the same caliber or don’t disagree, they just go with another Rishon, because of a question that is bothering them and they just dont understand the pshat of Rashi, but never because thet disagree with his logic or facts that he writes.
I must respectfully disagree with Rabbi Schwadron. There are many instances where Rambam argues with Chazal because he simply could not accept their words based on his understanding of the world – which was itself largely based upon Aristotle. Rambam held that “one accepts the truth from wherever it comes,” and he felt that Aristotle had adequately shown that nature does not generally change. In the case that you mention, based upon the Aristotelian concept of nature’s permanence, Rambam could not bring himself to accept the notion that the Messianic Era would involve cakes growing on trees, and it is for this reason that he explained that Gemara differently. See my article at http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%206%20Slifkin.pdf
Dear Zoorabbi
Hard to believe that you wrote that article as it’s clearly stated in that article that the Ramabam felt that Chaza”l never meant these things litery, because of the verse “nothing is new under the sun”. There is a tana that clearly says that there will be nothing supernatrul when moshich comes and rather then making an argument between Tanaim, he explains them in a different light. According to his son, he also has reason to believ so, as to what benefit would eating the livayatan be to tzadikim be, is this what these great people seek, wine flesh of fish? The argument you make here is beyond my comprehension, doesn’t everyone agree that there are laws of nature or are you suggesting that the Rambam held that G-D is confined to nature because of Aristotel? Why does the laws of nature which G-D created bind him when the big day comes to change that?