"עם לבן גרתי"? Really? "עם לבן ברתי" maybe

Question

Rashi brings a gematria at the beginning of Parshas Vayishlach:

גרתי בגימטריא תרי"ג, כלומר, עם לבן הרשע גרתי, ותרי"ג מצות שמרתי, ולא למדתי ממעשיו הרעים

Now, if one takes this literally, it is attesting to the fact that Yaakov actually kept all the laws of the Torah. (See here.) Let us assume this opinion. [According to others, though, I understand that it may be simply an allusion to the fact that Yaakov remained righteous even though he lived in Lavan's estate.]

But, we know that Yaakov in fact did not keep all the mitvos of the Torah. He married two sisters. Now, although clearly many reasons are given to explain his ability to do so, he still cannot say "תרי"ג מצות שמרתי" if one of the 613 was explicitly violated. How can he say that?

Answer 1

Among the many explanations of what it means when we say that the Avos kept the Torah (as in the linked question) is that they did so on a spiritual level. R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi thus states in one of his Chassidic discourses (Va'eira 5572):

קיים אאע״ה כל התורה כולה עד שלא ניתנה וכן ביעקב עם לבן גרתי ותרי״ג מצות שמרתי והיינו רק ברוחנית שהרי לא יתכן שקימו מצות חליצה ויבום ופרה אדומה כו׳

"Our forefather Avraham kept the entire Torah before it was given, and so too with Yaakov, 'I sojourned with Lavan and kept the 613 mitzvos'. This is only on a spiritual level, since it is impossible for them to have carried out the mitzvos of chalitzah, yibbum, parah adumah, etc."

- and he goes on to explain that in this sense they reached only a "lower" level of closeness to Hashem, unlike us, their descendants, who are able to perform these mitzvos physically and thereby connect with Hashem's Essence.

So according to this approach, the fact that Yaakov in fact married two sisters is neither here nor there: he accomplished that mitzvah in a spiritual dimension, just like all of the others.

How so? The Tzemach Tzedek (in Derech Mitzvosecha, Issur Ervas Achos Ishto 30a-b) explains that Yaakov's marriage to Rachel and Leah - and indeed, all of the forbidden relations in the Torah in general - in fact are reflective of the "unification" of enormously great Divine energies in the world of Atzilus, energies which are too intense to descend into the lower worlds - including our own - without being perverted into evil. He continues:

אלא שיעקב לפי שהי' לפני מ"ת והי' טהור וקדוש עשה כן דוגמת היחוד באצי' כי לו יאתה לעשות כן להיותו מרכבה למדות דאצי' וגם לאה ורחל הם מרכבה כנ"ל ועדיין לא ניתנה תורה בבי"ע לאסור לעשות כן למטה

"But Yaakov - living as he did before the Giving of the Torah, and being pure and holy - did this following the model of the unification in Atzilus. It was appropriate for him to do so, since he was a 'chariot' for the attributes of Atzilus, and Leah and Rachel too were a similar 'chariot,' as explained earlier, and the Torah had not yet been given in the [lower worlds of] Beriah-Yetzirah-Asiyah to forbid this to be done below."

Meaning, then, that Yaakov lived and observed Torah as it is in Atzilus; what actually happened here on earth could not affect that higher spiritual world. That began only with the Giving of the Torah, when Hashem declared that "the lower ones can ascend above, and the higher ones can descend below" (Shemos Rabbah 12:3).

Answer 2

As @rony points out, there were many mitzvot that Yaakov had no way of keeping while he was in the house of Laban. Some examples include all the mitzvot that are dependent on the Land (e.g. Trumah) and Mitzvot that are dependent on the congregation (e.g. appointing a king). @Alex brings other examples in his answer. If so, how could Yaakov say "עם לבן גרתי ותרי״ג מצות שמרתי"

According to the Chumash Shai LaMorah, the Darchei David offers the following answer, based on a Gemara in Menachot (110A):

אמר רבי יצחק מאי דכתיב זאת תורת החטאת וזאת תורת האשם כל העוסק בתורת חטאת כאילו הקריב חטאת וכל העוסק בתורת אשם כאילו הקריב אשם

Rabbi Yitzchok said: What does it teach us when it says "This is the Torah of a sin-offering", "And this is the Torah of a guilt-offering"? All who toil in the laws of a sin-offering are considered as if offered a sin-offering, and all who toil in the laws of a guilt-offering are considered as if offered a guilt-offering.

The Darchei David extends this logic and says that Yaakov was telling Eisav that he toiled in the Torah of all 613 Mitzvot, and it was therefore as if he performed all the commandments.

Answer 3

Ya'akov couldn't be "mekayem" (to perform?) all the miztvot. For example Kivud av (honoring your parents) and Yishuv Eretz Yisrael (live in Israel). So here "shamarti" may mean something different. When Ya'akov heard Yosef's dream (Breshit 37:11) the Torah writes that he "shamar" the dream. Rashi writes: שמר את הדבר - היה ממתין ומצפה מתי יבא, he waited anxiously for it to happen. So maybe here too, Ya'akov is telling Esav that not only he kept all what he had to and could do but even waited until he could keep all the rest and didn't give up his hope.

BTW regarding the 2 sisters he married there is a long discussion in Chazal on the matter.

Answer 4

To the question of Rachel and Leah's mother mocdeg brought down this answer, which would make them only half sisters which may then be allowed.

The sefer Tiferes Shlomo al HaTorah in Parshas Vayetze brings a number of answers to the question of how Yaakov was allowed to marry two sisters. One of the answers is that Rachel and Leah were born to Lavan from two different wives and therefore not prohibited to Yaakov. In light of this, you may have to change your question to "What were the names of Rachel and Leah's mothers?

Answer 5

Rashi's comment can be found here: http://kodesh.mikranet.org.il/comment/t0132_5.htm

Firstly, this opinion appears as ד"א, davar achar, a secondary comment, which are often understood by Rashi's supercommentaries as being of secondary importance, often not compelling answers, but merely 'drashas' which are only brought to solve one particular problem and not as a sweeping explanation.

Secondly, the source of this comment is Breishit Rabbati which is a late Midrash primarily based on the teachings of Moshe HaDarshan, an 11th century scholar who Rashi quotes on many other occasions as well (he may hay have learned directly from him as well?). There's no reason to believe this Midrash is from Chazal. Source: http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%94_%D7%94%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%9F

Thirdly, this comment is not brought in all editions of Rashi. (Example, see Artscroll's Rashi series).

Finally, the simplest solution is that it is Aggada, 'legend', midrash, and many giants of Torah have already stated: אין מקשין על האגדה We do not ask questions regarding Aggada.

That is to say, Aggada was intended for moral edification, teaching lessons, etc. It is not intended to augment historical statement or fact about the events discussed. It does not guarantee consistency with other texts.

I wrote out a longer response regarding Midrash, but instead decided to attach it to this relevant discussion: does one have to take a Midrash/Aggadah literally?

Answer 6

The Rashba explains:

When Chazal teach that the Avos kept the Torah, they mean that every mitzvah hints to a certain aspect of Divine Wisdom, and this Divine Wisdom obligates us to do deeds and allusions which hint to this Wisdom.

The Avos with their superlative intelligence perceived the roots of this Wisdom and thus performed 'mitzvos' accordingly, but not necessariy the same ones or in the same way as we were commanded at the giving of the Torah.

As for the issue of Yaakov marrying two sisters, you should know that the Torah rests on three pillars - time, place and items. Time - not on all days is doing work forbidden like Shabbos and Yom Tov, or is eating chametz forbidden like Pesach, or are obligated in the having of a succah and a lulav like Succos. Place - not all places are obligated in the separation of Terumah and Ma'aser and the forbidding of tevel like Eretz Yisrael, or obligated in the bringing of offerings like the Beis Hamikdash. Items - not just any plant can be used in place of the lulav and esrog, and not just any animal can be offered as are cows, sheep and doves, and not everyone is fitting to perform the sacrifices as is a Kohen.

I cannot explain more than this, but an intelligent person will understand my words.

What the Rashba means is that Yaakov was able to ascertain with his great wisdom that according to the time and the place and the items (the two sisters), he was not forbidden to marry them.

Answer 7

My Rav had this same question and he says the Maharal in Gur Aryeh answers it. It has something to do with it was ruach hakodesh so it didn’t count. #ayensham !

תרי"ג מצות שמרתי. ואם תאמר והא נשא שתי אחיות (פסחים קיט ע"ב), ויש לומר דזה היה על פי רוח הקודש, ומכל מקום תרי"ג מצות קיים שהרי לא נשא אחרות, רק אלו שנשא על פי רוח הקודש, וזה נקרא שקיים תרי"ג מצות. ועיין לקמן בפרשת ויגש (מו, י, אות ה):