What did Leah mean when she accused Rachel of 'taking her husband?'
Ramban: Leah was accusing Rachel of behaving as if she was the main wife and she (Leah), a maidservant.
Seforno: She told Rachel, "you should never have agreed to marry Yaakov and to become my Tzarah (rival-wife)." 1
Tosfos ha'Shalem (2): Yaakov separated from Leah after she ceased having children, and was frequent with the maidservants and Rachel.
Ohr ha'Chayim: Yaakov's bed was fixed in Rachel's tent; he was most often with her. He justified this, for he did not willingly marry Leah, and he worked all 14 years for Rachel.
The Torah forbids a man to marry sisters (Vayikra 18:18). Bear in mind that, according to some commentaries, Leah was totally unaware that Rachel had been designated to marry Yaakov, and that her father had reneged on his agreement with Yaakov. (EC) (Also see 29:25:152:2, and the note there.) R. C. Fogel, citing R. Yechezkel Levenstein - Rachel did not want to Leah to feel indebted to her for giving to her Yaakov, so she told her, "you are entitled to marry him, for you are older." Even now, many years later and in emotional distress, Rachel did not divulge this!
What was the gist of Leah's full accusation?
Rashi, Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan: 'You took my husband, and now you want to take (some of) my flowers!'
Tosfos ha'Shalem (2), Seforno: You stole my husband, and now you want to increase your mutual love with this herb.
Ramban: Assuming that Rachel wanted the herb in order to create a beautiful aroma in the bedroom, she was accusing her of first stealing her husband and of then setting out to seduce him (in order to increase his love). 1
Malbim: Your 'natural' efforts to have children, through constant intimacy with Yaakov, take from me what I am entitled to! Now you seek additional 'natural' efforts, i.e. Duda'im. It is better to pray than to increase natural efforts.
Ha'amek Davar: It is improper that Yaakov is primarily with you. You seek the Duda'im to adorn yourself [for intimacy with him], which is unjust!
See Ramban, who connects "Duda'im" with the Pasuk in Yechezkel "Es Dodim" (16:8) (the time of intimacy).
Why should Leah agree to this?
Seforno: Since Leah will be the first to be with Yaakov with use of the Duda'im, 1 she does not lose through giving them to Rachel, for they are Hefker and Rachel can get others to find for her. 2
Ha'amek Davar (to 30:14): Rachel requested "mi'Duda'ei Benech" (30:14) - only some of them.
It is honorable for a woman to stay inside (Tehilim 45:14). Perhaps Rachel could ask Bilhah or her brothers (sons were born to Lavan after Yaakov arrived - Rashi to 30:27 - PF)
Did Rachel act properly?
Rachel asked Leah, "please give." Why did Leah say "v'Lakachas," you will take (i.e. without permission, steal) the Duda'im?
Moshav Zekenim (to 30:14) #1: She meant, even if I wanted to give to you, you should not take them.
Moshav Zekenim (ibid.) #2: Rachel asked for them, and seized them. 1
Riva: She meant, do you expect me to give them to you?!
What a minor finds, he acquires for his father, mid'Rabanan (Bava Metzia 12a). If so, they were Yaakov's! Rachel knew that Yaakov would want her to have them, for he longed for children from her. Perhaps Leah held that a minor acquires for his father only things that men desire (PF).
Why did Rachel say, "Lachen Yishkav"?
Ohr ha'Chayim #1: The matter depended on Rachel's desire. Since you pardon to me tonight, he will be with you.
Ohr ha'Chayim #2: This is an expression of a Shevu'ah (Shemos Rabah 6:4). Acquisition does not apply to it, for it is intangible. 1
Malbim: She understood Leah simply (and not that she counsels her to pray, rather than increasing 'natural' efforts).
Gur Aryeh (explaining Rashi): We derive from the extra word "Lachen," that Rachel was saying, 'Tonight's [time] would have been mine, and I am giving it to you in exchange for your son's Duda'im.'"
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "V'Lakachas - [She said] in astonishment, 'Would you do this as well, to take my son's Duda'im?" How else might we have understood it?
Gur Aryeh: We should not understand as second-person, future tense (v'Lakacht - 'you are going to take'). Rachel could not seize the Duda'im outright. 1 Rather, the word is in the infinitive (v'Lakachas), meaning, '... and [you wish] to take them?!'
Rashi writes: "Because she belittled being with the Tzadik, she did not merit to be buried with him." How do we know that this was the reason?
Gur Aryeh: Rachel should have responded to Leah in kind, "... you may take my husband." Her choice of words, "Al Ken Yishkav Imach" was improper, and so she did not merit to lay near him in burial either.
Rashi writes: "Because Rachel belittled... she did not merit to be buried with him." But Chazal teach us that she was buried on the way, so her descendants could pray there on the way to exile (see Rashi to 48:7)?
Gur Aryeh: To be buried in Me'aras ha'Machpelah would be an even greater merit, and her own benefit would have taken precedence over that of her descendants. (Rashi to 48:7 is explaining why she was buried by the road, and not even taken as far as the city of Beis Lechem.)
