# Gen 30:14-16



## Reformingstudent (Jul 28, 2008)

I am confused as to why Leah had to "pay" Rachel for Jacob to sleep with her. I think we all know what that sounds like.  So why would Leah have to pay Rachel for something that is legally hers any way seeing she was Jacobs first wife? 
Gen 30:14 In the days of wheat harvest Reuben went and found mandrakes in the field and brought them to his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah, "Please give me some of your son's mandrakes." 
Gen 30:15 But she said to her, "Is it a small matter that you have taken away my husband? Would you take away my son's mandrakes also?" Rachel said, "Then he may lie with you tonight in exchange for your son's mandrakes." 
Gen 30:16 When Jacob came from the field in the evening, Leah went out to meet him and said, "You must come in to me, for I have hired you with my son's mandrakes." So he lay with her that night.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 28, 2008)

What does the text tells us about Jacob's habitual sleeping company? Was it Leah? Or Rachel? It is exactly what it "sounds like". A neglected woman.


----------



## Reformingstudent (Jul 28, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> What does the text tells us about Jacob's habitual sleeping company? Was it Leah? Or Rachel? It is exactly what it "sounds like". A neglected woman.




Sad that she had to pay her sister to sleep with her own husband. Another good reason why polygamy doesn't work. How can a man truly love more than one woman at a time. Did Leah love Jacob I wonder? She gave him lots of children no doubt but it had to be hard knowing his heart belonged to Rachel.


----------



## TimV (Jul 28, 2008)

In this case we can blame tricky behavior on the in laws rather than polygamy. The poor guy never wanted anyone besides Rachel, and never even hinted at an interest in Leah. Pastor B, do you think it could possibly be that it wasn't Leah's "turn" is it would have been (under optimum legal behavior) under Moses?


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 28, 2008)

Reformingstudent said:


> I am confused as to why Leah had to "pay" Rachel for Jacob to sleep with her. I think we all know what that sounds like.  So why would Leah have to pay Rachel for something that is legally hers any way seeing she was Jacobs first wife?
> Gen 30:14 In the days of wheat harvest Reuben went and found mandrakes in the field and brought them to his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah, "Please give me some of your son's mandrakes."
> Gen 30:15 But she said to her, "Is it a small matter that you have taken away my husband? Would you take away my son's mandrakes also?" Rachel said, "Then he may lie with you tonight in exchange for your son's mandrakes."
> Gen 30:16 When Jacob came from the field in the evening, Leah went out to meet him and said, "You must come in to me, for I have hired you with my son's mandrakes." So he lay with her that night.





Polygamy: man dreams of heaven, and God gives him hell.

Adam


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 29, 2008)

TimV said:


> In this case we can blame tricky behavior on the in laws rather than polygamy. The poor guy never wanted anyone besides Rachel, and never even hinted at an interest in Leah. Pastor B, do you think it could possibly be that it wasn't Leah's "turn" is it would have been (under optimum legal behavior) under Moses?



The mandrakes (thought of as an aphrodisiac) were Leah's, they had been brought to her by her little boy (so proud of himself). Rachel, recognizing the little "love apples" seems to crave them. Leah, a little bitter, resents the request. Rachel "offers" to give Leah a night in exchange for them--whether Leah had a rare "obligatory" visit on occasion seems irrelevant to me.

Leah agrees. She gives Rachel the aphrodisiac, she gives up the love potion, and sleeps with her man. And she gets pregnant (by God's power, who is always responsible for such things, not human tricks). And Rachel gets ... nothing, in return for her desperate attempts to produce her own child.


I'll try to post a sermon of mine on this passage. I'll put it in the "Theological Journal" forum (when I find it).


----------

