Tanach · Acharonim on Tanach · Or HaChaim · Torah
Or HaChaim on Genesis 29:24/אור החיים על בראשית כ״ט:כ״ד
אלְלֵאָה בִתּוֹ שִׁפְחָה. קָשֶׁה לָמָּה הֻצְרַךְ לוֹמַר ״לְלֵאָה בִתּוֹ״ וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק בְּמַה שֶׁאָמַר בְּסָמוּךְ ״וַיִּתֵּן לָבָן לָהּ״, וּמוּבָן הַדָּבָר כִּי עַל לֵאָה הוּא אוֹמֵר. מַה תֹּאמַר, שֶׁאֵין מוּבָן – אִם כֵּן לָמָּה כָּתַב תֵּיבַת ״לָהּ״ מִקּוֹדֶם. עוֹד לָמָּה אָמַר ״שִׁפְחָה״ וְלֹא אָמַר ״לְשִׁפְחָה״.
1 ללאה בתו שפחה. for his daughter Leah as a maidservant. Why did the Torah have to mention that Leah was Laban's daughter? Surely we know this by now! If it was sufficient to write: "Laban gave her her his maidservant Zilpah," why did the Torah have to add "to Leah his daughter" at the end of the same verse? Besides, why did the Torah write שפחה, maidservant, instead of לשפחה, as a maidservant?
באָכֵן יִתְבָּאֵר עַל דֶּרֶךְ אָמְרָם זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה: זִלְפָּה וּבִלְהָה נָפְלוּ בִּירֻשָּׁה לְרָחֵל וּלְלֵאָה מִכְּתֻבַּת אִמָּם, וְהוּא שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב לְלֵאָה בִתּוֹ שִׁפְחָה, פֵּרוּשׁ, מוֹדִיעַ הַכָּתוּב כִּי שֶׁלָּהּ הִיא שִׁפְחָה וְיָרְשָׁה אוֹתָהּ מֵאִמָּהּ. וְלָזֶה דִּקְדֵּק הַכָּתוּב לוֹמַר בִתּוֹ, לִרְמֹז כִּי לְצַד שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּתּוֹ הִיא שֶׁקָּנְתָה שִׁפְחָה זוֹ מִכְּתֻבַּת אִמָּהּ, לֹא שֶׁהִיא קָנְתָה אוֹתָהּ מֵאֶמְצָעוּת דָּבָר אַחֵר. וּלְדֶרֶךְ זֶה יְדֻיַּק גַּם כֵּן אָמְרוֹ וַיִּתֵּן לָבָן, שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה צָרִיךְ לְהַזְכִּיר שְׁמוֹ וּמוּבָן מֵאָמְרוֹ ״לְלֵאָה בִּתּוֹ״ כִּי בְּלָבָן דִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב, אֶלָּא לוֹמַר שֶׁמַּתָּנָה זוֹ אֵינָהּ מַתָּנָה כְּפִי הָאֱמֶת כִּי שֶׁלָּהּ הָיְתָה מִקֹּדֶם, אֶלָּא לָבָן הוּא שֶׁמַּחְשִׁיבָהּ בְּגֶדֶר מַתָּנָה, וְזֶה רָמוּז בְּתֵבַת ״בִתּוֹ״.
2We must explain this by referring to the tradition that Zilpah and Bilhah respectively had been inherited by Rachel and Leah from their mother. This is what the Torah meant by the words "to Leah his daughter a maidservant." The Torah merely points out that the maidservant was Leah's personal property because she had inherited her from her mother. The Torah emphasises בתו, to hint that Leah had acquired this maidservant because she was Laban's daughter and the maidservant had been part of the marriage settlement, כתובה, of her mother; Leah had not purchased the maidservant in some other way. This is also why the Torah needed to write ויתן לבן, that Laban gave. Otherwise Laban's name did not need to be repeated here again as we know of whom the Torah was speaking. The Torah wanted us to know that Laban did not give his daughter a gift in the usual sense of the word.