A tale of two names
A tale of two names
Reading through the Torah portion of Vayetze, it is quite clear that the names given to the sons of Yaakov (Jacob) have tremendous significance. Each name reflects a specific idea, and each is the result of the wisdom of the matriarchs. In this week’s Torah portion, a dying Rachel gives the final son of Yaakov the name Ben-Oni, a vivid finality to her life.

Yet Yaakov seemed to not like this name, as he decides to call his new son Binyamin. A simple reading of this story would paint Yaakov, who appears to ignore his wife’s dying wish,  as an insensitive husband. To assume this of Yaakov would obviously be problematic. What, then, motivated Yaakov to change his son’s name?

The Torah begins detailing Rachel’s death with the onset of her labor.

“And they journeyed from Beth El, and there was still some distance to come to Ephrath, and Rachel gave birth, and her labor was difficult. It came to pass when she had such difficulty giving birth, that the midwife said to her, ’Do not be afraid, for this one, too, is a son for you." And it came to pass, when her soul departed for she died that she named him Ben oni, but his father called him Benjamin.’” (Bereishit 35:16-18)

There are a few oddities that stand out when reviewing these verses. Why is it important for the Torah to mention the midwife comforting Rachel? Isn’t that part of the midwife’s job description? Additionally, previous births relayed in the Torah do not mention the offering of comfort—why here?

The other questions surround the circumstances of Binyamin’s name. Rachel appears to choose a specific name for her son, and in a most dramatic fashion, seems to consecrate this name in her dying last breath. And in that very same verse, Yaakov “changes” the name to Binyamin. Why would he do this? What was wrong with the name Rachel chose?

The commentaries attempt to elucidate the importance of the midwife’s message. Rashi first explains that she was telling Rachel that this birth was going to be “another” son. The Radak adds to this that the birth of this child was a fulfillment of Rachel’s prayer. This puts the words of the midwife in a completely different context. It is safe to assume that Rachel knew there was something very troublesome and scary happening to her during the childbirth. After all, she dies immediately after. 

Naturally, her fear would extend to the possibility her child would die as well. But if this were the case, then the input from the midwife would be something directed toward this fear. Yet the midwife specifically notes that it is “another” son. Rachel was someone whose maternal desire was not to simply have children. She recognized she was building the Jewish nation, and each child born was another step in fulfilling this mission from God. Her desires eclipsed the normative maternal instincts, and were tied to her role as a founder of the nation. Her midwife, then, was able to comfort Rachel simply by letting her know she was fulfilling this mission.

The mindset of Rachel is critical to understanding the naming of Binyamin. The commentaries weigh in when it comes to what was happening here. Almost all commentaries learn “Ben Oni” to mean the son of suffering.

A debate ensues as to Yaakov’s intent regarding this name. If we look at the verse carefully, one could deduce that Yaakov did not actually replace the name given by Rachel; rather, he added an additional name. Why? Additionally, what idea did the extra name offer? According to Rashi, Yaakov’s last child was the only one born in Israel. This is reflected in the name “Binyamin”, with “yamin” referring to the south of Israel (see Tehillim 89:13). The Ramban, however, takes a much different approach.

Rather than suggest that Yaakov offered an additional name, the Ramban posits that he actually modified what Rachel had done. Rachel named the child Ben-Oni, focusing on her sorrow. Yaakov realized “oni” also referred to strength (see, for example, Devarim 49:3). However, rather than leave the name as Ben-Oni, he changes it to Binyamin. The reference to “yamin” here is the turn to the right, signifying strength and might. He concludes that Yaakov wanted to preserve the name that Rachel bestowed and the tradition of naming that the matriarchs all participated in and thatthis was retained in the use of Binyamin.

What do we make of this dispute, and how do we understand Yaakov’s thinking here? In line with what was said above, it would appear Rachel’s sorrow was not “merely” attached to her upcoming death. She realized that on one level, she would be fulfilling God’s mission and completing the nation. Yet that was only one part of the equation. She also wanted to be part of the raising of this child, teaching him the correct ideas and establishing him on the right path. Rachel verbalizes this missing aspect of her role, giving her son the name Ben-Oni. It is a reflection of her tremendous level of perfection.

Rachel’s name for her son was unique to that son, but not unique in so far as the theme all the matriarchs used when naming their children. If we study each name, we see an element of greater understanding in the nature of God’s relationship with mankind. The names of the various tribes all reflected critical ideas in the mothers’ comprehension of God. The same must be said of Ben-Oni, as Rachel understood how her role would end prematurely. In this sense, then, the sons of Israel were “identical” in names.

Yaakov sought to distinguish Binyamin from all the other sons, represented in the additional name. Rashi explains that Binyamin was the only child born in Israel. Why does Yaakov isolate this feature? Binyamin represented the completion of the nation. Part of the identity of the nation of Jews was (and still is) their relationship to the Land of Israel. God promised Avraham and his descendants that they would inherit the Land of Israel. However, Yaakov saw in the birth of Binyamin another reality to this relationship.

The future nation could not be viewed as a group of foreigners coming to claim a piece of land. Instead, it required a natural relationship – consider Binyamin the first citizen of the country – would exist between the future nation and this land. Thus, with the completion of the national identity came the realization of the connection to the land.

At first glance, it would appear the Ramban is arguing with the Rashi on a most basic level. Whereas in Rashi’s version, Yaakov comes up with an additional name, the Ramban argues that Yaakov is, at best, modifying Rachel’s initial name. Yaakov sought to retain the name of Ben-Oni, a name still present in Binyamin. This certainly appears to be convoluted.

The Ramban could be elucidating another aspect of this final childbirth. As mentioned above, Binyamin wasn’t simply the last child of Rachel; he represented the creation of the Jewish nation, the final piece to the puzzle, so to speak. It could be that Rachel knew quite well (remarkable given her state of mind) that Ben-Oni had a dual meaning. Her focus was on her personal role in building the Jewish nation, and how it was coming to an end.

Yaakov, though, understood that with Binyamin’s birth, the nation was complete. Yaakov was emphasizing the strength achieved through Binyamin’s birth--not a physical strength (they were only twelve sons)--but rather the power to take the ideas brought forth by Avraham and create a society bound by those ideas. Ben-Oni conveys both of these concepts, which Rachel intuited. Yaakov chose to have the second idea take prominence, not as a rejection of Rachel’s thoughts, but as a furthering of the national objectives.

The common thread we see here is how the birth of Binyamin signified the end of Judaism as an ideology of individualism. Rachel understood this, and expressed her anguish in not being able to participate any longer in the building of the nation. Yaakov took Rachel’s initial formulation and built off of it, emphasizing how the birth of his 12th son signified the new identity of the Jewish people. Moving forward, the mission would be to inculcate this society with the correct ideas. Binyamin wasn’t simply a name; it was the pivotal transition to nationhood.