Kommentar zu Bereschit 29:15

הכי אחי אתה This is a question: — IS IT BECAUSE THOU ART MY BROTHER THAT THOU SHOULDST SERVE ME FOR NOUGHT?

IS IT BECAUSE THOU ART MY BROTHER, THAT THOU SHOULDEST SERVE ME FOR NOUGHT? Scripture did not relate that Jacob served Laban. It is possible that from the time Scripture stated, And he watered the flock of Laban his mother’s brother,⁷⁶Verse 10 here. the flock never left his care, for when he saw that Rachel was a shepherdess, Jacob had compassion for her and desired that she no longer tend the sheep. So, out of his love for her, he tended them.
It is also possible to say that Laban spoke with cunning. First he said to him that he is his bone and his flesh,⁷⁷Verse 14 here. and that he will have compassion for him as a man has compassion for his own bone and flesh, but when he saw that Jacob tarried there, supporting himself from Laban’s belongings, he said to him, “Is it because thou art my brother, that thou shouldest serve me for nought? For I know that you will henceforth serve me for you are an ethical man, and you will not support yourself from the property of others. Nor do I desire that the labor you perform for me be free without full compensation. Therefore tell me what you want for your hire, and I will give it.” Jacob then discerned Laban’s mind, and he told him that he would serve him for seven years for Rachel. Undefined, “serving” here means tending the sheep, for this is what was needed and this was the subject of their conversation.

ויאמר לבן..הכי אחי אתה, Laban said: "Because you are my brother, etc." Who had told Laban that Jacob would serve him for free? Assuming that Jacob indeed did not ask for wages, so what? Why should it bother Laban? If Laban did not want to become the beneficiary of gifts, i.e. שונא מתנות יחיה, this is most unlikely as we see Laban enjoy even stolen goods. He must certainly have been willing to accept legitimately acquired gifts willingly!

ויאמר...הכי אחי אתה, the meaning is: “seeing that you are my brother it is not good that you should work for me as if for nothing, in exchange only for food clothing and lodging. I want you to feel comfortable with me and to have a chance to grow economically also.

הכי אחי אתה ועבדתני חנם?, ”do you have to serve me without recompense just because you are my family?” Nachmanides points out that the Torah had not even mentioned that Yaakov “served” Lavan, It is possible, that as soon as Yaakov had met Rachel, he had taken over her former duties of tending Lavan’s flocks. He did so because he had fallen in love with her. It is also possible that Lavan had immediately spoken to him with deceitful intent, saying that seeing he was family, he would provide for him as a family member. After a month had passed, he suggested to Yaakov that surely as a moral individual he would not expect Lavan to continue doing this without Yaakov compensating him. Since he did not want him to have to be in the service of people unrelated to him by blood, and he also could not afford to feed him for an indefinite period without Yaakov compensating him, he suggested that Yaakov work for him and that he tell him what he expected in the way of wages. Yaakov realized what was on his mind, and suggested that he would work for Lavan for 7 years in order to receive Rachel’s hand in marriage. The עבודה that the Torah refers to here, is simply the tending of Lavan’s sheep. Lest we think that this was an easy vocation, Yaakov in Genesis 31,38-42 describes in detail what extreme discomfort was involved when one took one’s responsibilities in this regard seriously, as he did. Some commentators believe that what Lavan had in mind was to appoint Yaakov as what is known in halachah as שומר שכר, a paid guard, someone who is responsible for the items entrusted to him, being liable for theft, loss from a variety of causes, as opposed to an unpaid guard who is liable to make restitution for any loss only when negligence or worse can be proved against him.

הכי אחי אתה, “because you are my brother, etc.” the word הכי which Lavan used here was not really a question in this instance. Rather, it was an affirmation. We have a similar use of that word when Esau exclaimed (27,36) הכי קרא שמו יעקב, “indeed his name is ‘the crooked one.’” Onkelos translates the word there as יאות, “it is fitting.”

Because you are my brother, should you work for me for nothing? Rashi is saying that the incredulity is not on the phrase, “You are my relative (אחי),” as they indeed were אחים, as in (13:8): “We are kinsmen (אחים).” Furthermore, if this is the meaning, then it should say הֲאָחִי אתה. Rather, the incredulity is on the phrase: “Should you work for me for nothing?”

Wieder ein charakteristischer Zug von Jakob. Er hatte ihm schon den ganzen Monat freiwillig gedient. Jakob aß nicht gerne geschenktes Brot. Und zwar müssen diese Dienste schon sehr bedeutend gewesen sein, dass selbst einem Laban, der doch gewiss genau berechnet hatte, "was ein so kräftiger Mann an Kost und Logis" während eines Monats verbraucht hatte, diese genossenen Werte dem geleisteten Dienste gegenüber so völlig verschwinden mussten, dass er nicht umhin konnte, es umsonst gearbeitet zu nennen, und ihn lieber durch Lohn zu fesseln suchte, weil er sonst einen so tüchtigen Arbeiter zu verlieren fürchtete.

ועבדתני is the same in sense as ותעבדני THAT THOU SHOULDST SERVE ME. So, too, in the case of every verb in the past tense, if one adds as prefix a ו it may change the verb to the future.

Surely we must understand his question as one that was designed to pay Jacob less than his labour was worth. Maimonides writes in Hilchot Shluchin VeShutafim chapters six and eight that when a shepherd has not made an agreement with the owner of the flock before he accepted the position he receives one third of the profit of stationary goods (items that do not need his special daily care) and two thirds of mobile goods such as calves and young asses which need to be fed, etc., by the shepherd. Laban was afraid that Jacob's silence on the subject of wages indicated that he expected to be recompensed according to this rate. He thought Jacob expected to receive one third of the increase of the adult animals and two thirds of any increase in the ones not yet fully developed. Laban would have been quite right to continue to let Jacob work for free if the latter had been the average fool not bothering to make a contract. However, since Jacob had already spelled out to Laban that he was no fool, i.e. that he was just as capable of tricking Laban as the latter was in the habit of tricking others, he told him we have to make an agreement precisely because "you are my brother (in the art of trickery)." He challenged Jacob by saying "surely you do not want me to believe that you will work for me for free?" Laban therefore wanted to clarify at once what conditions Jacob expected him to meet.