Kommentar zu Bereschit 31:38

לא שכלו means HAVE NOT MISCARRIED — Similar are: (Hosea 9:14) ‘‘a miscarrying (משכיל) womb”; (Job 21:10) “his cow calveth and casteth (תשכל) not her calf”.

לא שכלו, neither because of any lack of adequate grazing nor due to careless supervision

רחליך ועזיך לא שכלו, you have found me as possessing the very reverse of the characteristics of a thief. Not only did I serve you faithfully, but I have treated you even better than fairness dictates. I have endeavoured with all my skill to prevent your sheep from giving birth to premature, and stillborn young.

זה עשרים שנה, וג׳ "These twenty years, etc." The reason Jacob mentioned "twenty years" was that a thief or swindler would be on guard for a relatively short time not to commit any crimes. It is not in the nature of thieves to control their natural inclination for a long period of time. Jacob therefore wanted to show that the fact he had not stolen anything for such a long period should have made it plain that he was not a thief by nature. He underlined this by the word עמך, with you; He meant you have had plenty of opportunity to observe me commit a misdemeanour. When did I ever do so?

זה עשרים שנה...לא שכלת, because of G’d’s blessing for me.

.רחליך ועזיך לא שכלו , “your ewes and she-goats never miscarried.” Yaakov attributed this to his merit. The Torah promises such a blessing to people observing its commandments (Exodus 23,26).

From here they derive that even a one-dayold ram is called איל... [You might ask:] Doesn’t Rashi comment on Bamidbar 15:11 that if it is under a year old it is called כבש, and only after 13 months it is called איל? [The answer is:] That is true only in regard to sacrifices. See Tosafos, Bava Kama 65b.

זה לי עשרים שנה בביתך — זה עשרים שנה אנכי עמך, so war ich zwanzig Jahre und das ward mir dafür. אילי צאנך. Es scheint Brauch gewesen zu sein, dass die ausgedienten Leithämmel der Herde dem Hirten zufielen.

לא שכלו, “did not miscarry;” it is customary for shepherds to occasionally beat one or another of the animals entrusted to him in order to force them to walk in line with the other beasts. This could result in a miscarriage of a pregnant animal. Yaakov prides himself never to have beaten any of these animals, and that is how he explains that in twenty years under his care none ever miscarried.

ואילי צאנך AND THE RAMS OF THY FLOCK — From this phrase they (the Rabbis) inferred (Bava Kamma 65b) that a male sheep even when one day old is called a ram; for if this be not so, how was this creditable to him? Did he mean that he had not eaten rams (i. e. the larger animals), but that he had eaten the smaller sheep? If so, he was a thief! (39).

ואילי צאנך, it is customary that the shepherds eat the meat of male sheep they tend.

ואילי צאנך לא אכלתי, even things which according to accepted practice I could have treated as mine, I did not eat, seeing that they were nominally yours.

ואילי צאנך לא אכלתי. I did not eat from a single one of the male sheep. The letter מ in front of the word אילי is missing, just as it is missing in Samuel II 23,24 in the line אלחנן בן דודו בית לחם where we would have expected מבית לחם. Another example of such a missing prefix מ is found In Joshua 10,13 עד יקום גוי אויביו, where we would have expected עד יקום גוי מאויביו, “until a nation arises from its enemies.” There are more such examples throughout Scripture. The reason Yaakov made a point of saying that he had not eaten of any of the male sheep was that it was widely accepted that the shepherds who were far from home would eat the meat of such animals. Yaakov made the point that far from following accepted practice, he had only eaten things that had belonged to him outright. Male sheep are worth less in the marketplace than their female counterparts. Their meat is also less tasty.

ואילי צאנך לא אכלתי, “and I did not eat rams of your flock.” Other shepherds do eat these rams and their owners know about it. Ezekiel 34,3 writes: את החלב תאכלו ואת הצמר תלבשו הבריאה תזבחו הצאן לא תראון, “should you eat the fat, should you don the wool, should you slaughter the choicest- but not tend the sheep!” Clearly that verse proves that provided the shepherd carries out his duties he is entitled to the fringe benefits mentioned by the prophet.

רחליך ועזיך, "your ewes and your she-goats did not miscarry." We have to explore what Jacob meant by citing this detail. If he merely wanted to call attention to his success in managing Laban's flock, this is not the appropriate place for such a comment. He also referred to אילי צאנך, וג׳, "the rams of your flocks, etc." Who would have suspected Jacob of eating those? Moreover, if no one had knowledge of Jacob doing any such thing previously, who would step forward after all these years to testify against him?

ואילי צאנך, “and the ewes among your flocks,” Rashi here (based on Baba Kamma, 65 explains that we learn from this line that even a ewe only one day old, is already called “ewe” and not “sheep” or “lamb”. If Rashi were not correct, what point would Yaakov be making by claiming never to have eaten any of the flock entrusted to him? He could have eaten them while they bore a different name, such as mentioned! If you were to counter that we know from experience that the name “ewe” is not applied to male sheep until they have reached the age of two years and someone obligated to bring a sacrificial animal called “ewe” must bring one not younger that two years old, [and are therefore capable of copulating? Ed.] the answer is that, of course, the name “ewe” is applied to even one day old male sheep, it is only for the purpose of serving as a sacrificial animal that such a ewe must be at least two years old. ואילי צאנך לא אכלתי, “neither have I eaten from the ewes of your flocks.” It is the custom of shepherds to look after the flock by day and to bring the flock home at night to the owner; if during the night one or more of the sheep have been stolen, the loss is that of the owner. You, however, have demanded compensation from me even for sheep that disappeared while in your possession and inside your pens.

Jacob contrasted his own behaviour with that common amongst other shepherds. They all steal and account for the missing numbers by attributing them to animals miscarrying, whereas in reality they appropriated such lambs for themselves. Jacob now cited the fact that he had never even claimed that any of Laban's ewes or she-goats had miscarried as proof that he could not have stolen any of these animals. He could therefore not be accused of having eaten any of these animals himself. All his success had been due to G'd who had not allowed a single miscarriage to occur in order that Jacob could not be suspected of dishonesty.

The reason that he mentioned "the rams of your flocks" is to teach us that the Torah considers a male baby lamb already as a ram when it has only just been born. Perhaps Jacob referred to a legal point mentioned by Maimonides Hilchot Gezeylah chapter 2, according to which if someone stole a lamb and it developed into a ram (grew up while in the thief's care) the thief has acquired it [legally speaking, this means primarily that he is responsible for its wellbeing. Ed.], the original owners not being able to reclaim the same animal as compensation. This rule applies even when the owners had not given up hope of retrieving the same animal. Jacob told Laban that even when the circumstances would have been such that he could have legally kept an animal for himself, he did not avail himself of the legality of the matter but acted strictly according to what his conscience dictated to him as being correct moral behaviour. He could have returned lambs to Laban instead of fully grown animals; however he returned fully grown ones if perchance an accident had happened to one of the young animals under his care. He did not even "consume" the difference in value between a lamb and a fully grown ram.