Комментарий к Берешит 30:15

Is it a small matter that thou hast taken my husband and that thou wouldst do this in addition — TO TAKE MY SON’S MANDRAKES ALSO? It should therefore be translated in the Targum by ולמיטב, the infinitive like the Hebrew infinitive ולקחת “and to take.”

IS IT A SMALL MATTER THAT THOU HAST TAKEN AWAY MY HUSBAND? The intent thereof is as follows: “Is it a small matter that you take my husband unto yourself as if you are his wife and I am the handmaid? Will you now also make yourself the mistress to take the mandrakes in whose odor I delight?”
It is possible that Rachel wanted the mandrakes in honor of Jacob to perfume his couch. Leah had done in the customary way of women, just as it is written, I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes and cinnamon.¹¹⁶Proverbs 7:17. Therefore, Leah said, Is it a small matter that thou hast taken away my husband from me that you now also take my son’s mandrakes to win him over with them?
And some scholars say¹¹⁷I have not been able to identify them. However, see R’dak. that duda’im are herbs, which act as a male aphrodisiac, the word being derived from the expression, the time of ‘dodim’ (love).¹¹⁸Ezekiel 16:8. Therefore Leah said, Is it a small matter that thou hast taken away my husband? as I have mentioned.

Isn’t it enough that you took. You should not have agreed to become my co-wife in the first place, since the Torah disapproves of marrying sisters.

המעט קחתך את אישי, "Is it not enough that you have taken my husband, etc.?" Leah's words must be understood according to those rabbis who hold that Jacob's bed was permanently in Rachel's tent. She therefore argued that whatever time Jacob spent with Rachel in excess of a fair division was at her expense. When she used the expression ולקחת, "you have taken," she meant that the chances of bearing children were directly related to the frequency with which husband and wife engage in marital relations, as our sages state on several occasions (compare Chulin 11 et al in an indirect proof). The incident with the jasmin is related here as it is considered an aphrodisiac and its fragrance facilitates conception (Zohar 1,157). Leah complained that Rachel wanted the jasmin of her son in addition to almost monopolising Jacob's nights.

המעט קחתך את אישי, seeing that Rachel still did not have any children Yaakov slept with her far more often than he did with Leah in order to soothe her mind.

With me.... Otherwise, what does “in exchange for” mean? “Your son’s jasmines” clearly implies a complete trade, i.e., each gives something that is his.

המעט קחתך את אישי, “not only have you usurped my position as the senior wife, seeing that I was married to him first, but...”

לכן ישכב עמך הלילה THEREFORE SHALL HE BE WITH THEE TONIGHT —He should have stayed this night with me but I cede it to you in return for your son’s mandrakes. Because she thought lightly of companionship with so righteous a man she was not privileged to be buried together with him (Genesis Rabbah 72:3).

Would you also take. Do you now wish to increase Yaakov’s love for you and his hatred for me?

את אישי, she meant that Yaakov was her husband no less than he was Rachel’s husband.

Because she made light... she did not merit being buried with him. [You might ask:] Does it not it say in Bereishis Rabboh 82:11 [that she was buried on the road] so she would assist her children when Nevuzaradan will exile them, as Rashi explains in Parshas Vayechi (48:7)? The answer is: Had she not made light of Yaakov, Leah would be buried there instead, and she would assist her children. Because Rochel made light, she did not merit being buried with him.

The reason that Jacob did not divide his time equally between his two wives was simply that he had no obligation to sleep with Leah except when the latter had ritually purified herself after her menstruation (based on Exodus 21,10). After all he had not married her on his own initiative, as distinct from Rachel whom he had wanted to wed in the first place.

לכן ישכב עמך הלילה. In order that the effect of your sleeping with him will become effective before I can use the effect of the mandrakes. You will therefore not suffer any damage if you give me some of the mandrakes now. This is all the more so if, as our sages contend, these mandrakes were ownerless and had never belonged to anyone specifically. (Bereshit Rabbah,72,2)

ולקחת גם את דודאי בני, the word ולקחת is in an infinitive mode, as if she had said ותרצי לקחת, “you want to take.” If the meaning of the word would be as the translater (Onkelos) renders it as ותסבין, the letter ת in ולקחת should have had a dagesh as is customary, for instance in Kings I 14,3 ולקחת בידך.

לכן ישכב עמך הלילה, "therefore he shall sleep with you tonight." It appears as if this depended exclusively on Rachel's wishes. Therefore she added: "in exchange for the jasmin of your son."

לכן, in exchange for this.

Alternatively, this can be understood as an oath. There are matters which are acquired only by means of an oath, such as items that are intangible. (the fragrance of the jasmin). Compare my commentary on Genesis 25,33 when Esau sold his birthright.