Comentario sobre Génesis 29:36

וישא יעקב רגליו THEN JACOB LIFTED UP HIS FEET —As soon as he received the good tidings that he was assured of God’s protection his heart lifted up his feet and he walked swiftly. Thus is it explained in (Genesis Rabbah 70:8).

וישא יעקב רגליו, seeing that he had received assurances from G’d during his nocturnal dream, he now proceeded encouraged, joyfully, something that the Torah describes with the words “he lifted up his feet.”

וישא יעקב רגליו, when a person proceeds on a journey voluntarily, at his own initiative, this is described in terms of his personality carrying, lifting his feet. When the initiative is not his, even when he does not march involuntarily, under orders against his will, his feet are described as carrying him, i.e. his personality, the rest of his body. At this point of Yaakov’s journey, he belonged to the category of traveler mentioned first. We find the other category mentioned in Isaiah 23,7 יובילוה רגליה, “would her feet carry her?”

וישא יעקב רגליו. Jacob raised his feet. The Torah chooses this form of expression to tell us that at this time Jacob was poor and all he could raise [elevate to the status of tithes as promised in his vow, Ed.] were his feet. In the future he would tithe all his produce twice, i.e. give a total of 20% in order to fulfil the words עשר אעשרנו. The second tithe would not merely be 10% of what remained after the first tithe had been given (compare Ketuvot 50).

וישא יעקב רגליו, seeing that G’d had given him promises and found him worthy of such a far-reaching prophetic insight, he rejoiced and continued on his way with ease. Up until that night Yaakov had proceeded hesitantly, beset by doubts and anxieties. Although fleeing from the wrath of his brother, seeing that his danger had not been imminent while his father was still alive, he had not been traveling with speed, something typical of people fleeing for their lives.

וילך ארצה בני קדם, “he proceeded in the direction of the land of the people of the East.” It is a mystery why Yaakov should go to the land of the people of the East, seeing the Torah already wrote that he was heading for Charan, (28,10). On the other hand, according to the tradition that Yaakov had reached Charan on the day he set out in that direction, but that he had turned back to pray at Moriah, not having been aware at the time that he had inadvertently gone past that site without doing so, the meaning of the verse becomes abundantly clear. From Moriah he went forth to the land of the people of the East, where he remained for 14 years before again going to Charan and joining the household of Lavan.

Da war er ein ganz anderer Mensch geworden als früher, wo es hieß: ויצא וגו׳. Jetzt heißt es: Jakob hub seine Füße. Nicht tragen die Füiße den Menschen, nicht der Leib den Geist, sondern der Mensch die Füße, der im Menschen lebendig gewordene Geist den Leib. Mit solcher von Gott geweckten Fernsicht wandert ein Jakob, auch bloß mit dem Stecken in der Hand, frisch und fröhlich der Zukunft zu. —

ארצה בני קדם, “to the land of Aram,” as we know from Isaiah 9,11.

בני קדם, inhabitants of Aram, as we know from Isaiah 9,11.

וילך ארצה בני קדם, that land lies to the east of the land of Israel, Charan being the first town after one crosses the border into that country. (compare what we have written on 25,6) The Torah does not mention the political name of the country but describes it as “the land of the people of Kedem,” in more general terms. Yaakov left the land of Canaan and crossed into this land, and while being close to Charan, he saw a well in the field.

An additional meaning of the Torah's description of Jacob "raising his feet" is that he did not actually have to walk the entire distance to Charan but that the land came toward him. This is the reason the Torah did not say אל ארץ בני קדם, "to the land of the easterners, but ארצה בני קדם."

בני קדם. Siehe oben Kap.25, 6. Die östlichen Länder waren an Kultur und Gesittung von den westwärts liegenden sehr verschieden. Das erfuhr Jakob sehr bald im folgenden.

The reason the Torah describes these people as בני קדם, easterners, instead of referring to their city, i.e. Charan, is to tell us that only the district came towards him. Jacob himself walked to Charan in order to find there his Rachel and in order for him to obtain from her all the information she furnished him as described in Megillah 13.

ישקו העדרים THEY GAVE THE DROVES DRINK —the shepherds used to water the flocks: this verse uses an elliptical phrase (omitting the subject “the shepherds”).

AND HE LOOKED, AND BEHOLD A WELL IN THE FIELD, AND LO THREE FLOCKS OF SHEEP LYING THERE BY IT. Scripture tells this story at length in order to let us know that they that wait for the Eternal shall renew their strength,⁵⁹Isaiah 40:31. and the fear of Him gives strength. For here our father Jacob is coming from the journey and he is tired, yet he alone rolls away the stone, a task which required all the shepherds. The many shepherds and all the watchmen of the three flocks of sheep could not shift the rock.
With respect to this chapter, our Rabbis in Bereshith Rabbah⁶⁰70:8. also have a secret which alludes to the future. For it happened to him that he came to Haran by way of the well, and only three of all the flocks were gathered. He arrived at the time when the stone was yet upon the mouth of the well, and the flocks waited for the water thereof. Likewise, the matter which is narrated here is all for the purpose of letting it be known that Jacob will succeed in this venture and will have children worthy of the fulfillment of this allusion. For the well alludes to the Sanctuary, and the three flocks of sheep are symbolic of the pilgrims ascending to the Sanctuary during the three festivals.⁶¹Pesach, Shevuoth, and Succoth. See Deuteronomy 16:16. The expression, For out of that well they watered the flocks, alludes to the fact that they drew holy inspiration from the pilgrimages to the Sanctuary. It may be that it alludes to the verse, For out of Zion shall go forth Torah⁶²Isaiah 2:3. Thus both prophecy and law emanated from the Sanctuary. — which has been likened to water,⁶³Ibid., 55:1, Baba Kamma 17a. and the word of the Eternal from Jerusalem.⁶²Isaiah 2:3. Thus both prophecy and law emanated from the Sanctuary. — And thither were all the flocks gathered⁶⁴Verse 3 here. — from the entrance of Hamath unto the Brook of Egypt.⁶⁵I Kings 8:65. The verse refers to the gathering of pilgrims for the festival of Succoth. — And they rolled the stone from the well’s mouth and watered,⁶⁴Verse 3 here. for they drew holy inspiration therefrom. And they put the stone back⁶⁴Verse 3 here. to lie dormant until the next festival.

רבצים עליה, waiting until all the shepherds would gather there with their flocks and they would roll the rock off the top of the well.

והאגן גדולה על פי הבאר, And the stone on top of the well was a massive one. If the Torah had not written the letter ה in front of the word אבן, the impression created would have been that there simply was a heavy stone on top of the well. As it is the Torah emphasises the exceptional heaviness of that stone. This teaches us that unless Jacob had had divine assistance he could not have moved that stone. Bereshit Rabbah 70,12 understands the word ויגל as describing the ease with which Jacob rolled the stone off the well.

וירא והנה באר.. רבצים עליה, the word עליה means “near it,” just as in Numbers 2,20 when the positions of the various army groups of the Israelites are described and the Torah writes ועליו מטה מנשה. The meaning clearly cannot be that the tribe of Menashe was positioned on top of the tribe of the tribe of Ephrayim, but that the tribe of Menashe was positioned close to the tribe of Ephrayim. The term על in the sense of “near, close by,” occurs numerous times in Scripture.

וירא והנה באר בשדה, “he looked and saw a well in the field.” The plain meaning of this verse is a practical illustration of Isaiah 40,31 וקווי ה' יחליפו כח, “the people placing their hope and trust in the Lord will experience physical rejuvenation, etc.” Yaakov’s ability to roll the rock from the well, something several shepherds had been unable to do even jointly, proves that the new hope he had been given through his dream about the ladder had left its mark also on his body. Our sages also derived from the description in the text that the well mentioned is an allusion to the Temple, and that the three flocks of sheep described as lying around the well represent the three annual holydays on which the Jewish people would make pilgrimages to the Temple, seeing that the Temple serves the Jewish people as their spiritual inspiration, just as water serves as the liquid which keeps the body alive and healthy. Not only that, but the Torah itself has been compared to spring-water, seeing that it makes life meaningful, and the people who study it and observe it become people who see a purpose in their existence. The “various flocks“ which are described as lying around that well symbolize the people congregating around the Temple, or around Torah scholars, waiting to become inspired. The replacing of the stone on the well symbolizes the period after the pilgrimages when the Temple is in a relatively dormant condition.

וירא והנה באר בשדה, “he looked, and behold here there was a well on a field.” Every single one of our patriarchs had an encounter with a well and in each case the well was an allusion to future happenings. In Yitzchak’s case the well he encountered was called באר מים חיים. (26,19) Bereshit Rabbah 70,8 explains that to the Jewish people Torah is equivalent to spring water.

The shepherds give the flocks to drink... Meaning: They would give them to drink [regularly]. Similarly with ונאספו and וגללו [in the next verse]; the future tense is used in place of the present tense, to convey that they would regularly gather and roll the stone.

Sonst ist die Bedeckung eines zum öffentlichen, allgemeinen Gebrauch bestimmten Brunnens möglichst leicht abzuheben, damit er jedem leicht zugänglich sei. Hier aber — und damit werden wir in die Charakteristik dieser Aramäer eingeführt — traut einer dem andern nicht und gönnt einer dem andern nichts. Es könnte ja einer einmal mehr oder öfter aus dem Brunnen schöpfen und trinken als der andere! Darum war hier der Deckel so schwer, dass keiner allein, und nur alle zusammen zum Brunnen gelangen konnten.

וירא והנה באר בשדה, “when he looked, see there was a well in the field.” This whole paragraph, up to and including the line: “he rolled aside the rock,” (in verse 10) has been recorded only in order to teach us about the physical strength of Yaakov.

והאבן גדולה על פי הבאר, this was a precautionary measure to ensure people would not fall into the well and drown, or that they would not draw water from the well if not entitled to this.

והאבן גדולה, seeing that there was no other source of water nearby to water the flocks of the people of Charan, the local people had placed an extremely large and heavy rock on top of it so that only in the presence of all the shepherds would the flocks be watered so as to ensure a fair distribution of the available water. This would also help to avoid wasting water remaining in the troughs when no other flock had already lined up at the troughs. Placing such a large stone on the well then was a device designed to help everyone entitled to this water to receive his fair share in the presence of all the shepherds.

רובצים עליה, “were lying upon it;” in expectation of being watered.

פי הבאר והאבן גדולה על, “and the rock covering the opening of the well was large;” this was in order to prevent anything falling into the well which would contaminate its water or interfere with its free flow. It was also meant to prevent individual strangers to make use of its water.

ונאספו [AND THITHER WERE ALL THE DROVES] GATHERED — they regularly gathered there because the stone was a heavy one

ונאספו שמה...וגללו, the subject of the verse are the various shepherds who have as yet not been mentioned.

Because the stone was largeashi is explaining [how the phrases fit together, as logically they should be ordered differently.] When it said, “There were three flocks of sheep lying beside it,” it should have immediately explained why they were lying there, and say it was because “all the flocks would gather.” [And why would they gather? Because “there was a large stone.”] Therefore Rashi says on our verse, “Because...” He is explaining how, “There was a large stone over the mouth of the well,” [fits in with the other phrases].

וגללו AND THEY ROLLED THE STONE — it means and they used to roll. In the Targum it is therefore translated by ומגנדרין (a participle). The idea of frequentative action is expressed indifferently by the imperfect (future) or the perfect (past) because every action that occurs continually, has already happened and will again happen,

Every expression in the present tense... in the future tense as well as in the past ... Why did Rashi not explain this before, on ישקו העדרים — “The shepherds give (משקים) the flocks to drink”? Furthermore, why did Rashi not bring the Targum there? [The answer is:] Here it is written וגללו (past tense) and the Targum is מגנדרין, present tense—while in v. 8, again it is written וגללו, and the Targum there is ויגנדרון, future tense! The [varying] Targum clearly shows that the verses are speaking in present tense. But the Targum of ישקו does not show this, as the word is not repeated. Before, it is written ישקו, and here it is written והשקינו. And so too all the other words are all different, except for וגללו.

והשיבו AND RESTORED [THE STONE] — In the Targum it is translated by ומתיבין(a participle) — and they were always putting back.

ויאמר להם, to the shepherds of the flocks which were laying around in the vicinity of the well.

אחי, an exclamation incorporating a kind of warning, such as אל נא אחי in Genesis 19,8 “please my brothers, do not, etc.!” It is not unusual for people to refer to people close to them or presumed to be close to them as “brothers,” although no biological family ties exist between them at all. Yaakov employed this preamble in order to at once establish a friendly bond between himself and the shepherds.

KNOW YE LABAN THE SON OF NAHOR? Laban was recognized and known by the name of his father’s father Nahor since Nahor was more important than Laban’s father [Bethuel], and he was the head of their family, as it is written, the G-d of Abraham and the G-d of Nahor.⁶⁶Further, 31:53. [Thus, Laban being the son of Bethuel,⁶⁷Above, 28:5. was nevertheless known by his father’s father’s name, Nahor.]⁶⁸Ibid., 22:22. It is possible that Bethuel was a dishonorable person, and Laban wanted people to ascribe his lineage only to his father’s father, for so we find, And Laban and Bethuel answered.⁶⁹Above, 24:50. [Laban is thus mentioned before his father, which indicates that Bethuel was not regarded as the head of the family.] Perhaps all this is in honor of Abraham for [by virtue of Laban’s being known by Nahor’s name], the whole family traced its lineage to Nahor the brother of Abraham,⁷⁰Ibid., 22:23. [and thus demonstrated its connection with its illustrious relative Abraham].

ויאמר להם...בן נחור. He mentioned Lavan’s grandfather rather than his father seeing Nachor had been a well known personality whereas Betuel had not. This is also why we find in Genesis 31,53 the expressionאלוקי אברהם ואלוקי נחור, seeing that Nachor had been well known.

הידעתם את לבן בן נחור?, “do you know Lavan, son of Nachor?” The reason why the Torah does not write: “Lavan, son of Bethuel,” is that Nachor was by far more prominent in that town, and Lavan himself did not like to be referred to as his father’s son, but as his grandfather’s grandson. Some commentators write that “Lavan son of Nachor,” means “Lavan citizen of Nachor,” seeing that the town had been named after its founder, Nachor. It was likely that the shepherds did know the mayor of the town Nachor, without knowing Bethuel, father of Lavan.

לבן בן נחור, “Lavan son of Nachor.” The Torah should have described him as “Lavan the son of Bethuel,” seeing Bethuel was his father. However, this is another instance where the Torah shows that grandchildren are equal to children (Yevamot 62). We have another such example in 20,12 where Avraham described Sarah as “my sister the daughter of my father,” although in effect Sarah was the daughter of Avraham’s brother Haran. He had meant “daughter of my father’s son (Haran).“ It is also possible that the Torah described Lavan as the son of Nachor, seeing that Avraham’s brother Nachor was a well known personality, whereas Bethuel was relatively unknown. When people spoke of Lavan they never referred to him as the son of Bethuel but as the son of Nachor. The Torah simply described things as they were.

לבן בן נחור, Lavan’s father Bethuel, was some kind of an outcast, as opposed to his grandfather. This is why the Torah here mentions only Nachor. When Lavan had moved to Charan, his father had already died, and no one there had known him. The local inhabitants welcomed Lavan on account of his well known grandfather Nachor.

באה עם הצאן IS COMING WITH THE FLOCK — The accent in the word באה is on the א, and the Targum is אתיא (a participle), “she is coming”; but in (v. 9) “And Rachel came (באה)”, the accent is on the first syllable, on the ב, and the Targum is אתת, “she came”. The former expresses the meaning “she is doing something” (a participle), the latter expresses the meaning “she has done something’ (a past tense).

?השלום לו, Yaakov wanted to find out something about Lavan’s circumstances and state of mind before he would come face to face with him. He did so as it is not appropriate for a guest to make such enquiries about his host after he has already been welcomed in his home.

?ויאמר להם השלום לו He said to them: "Is he well?" The reason that the shepherds did not say שלום לו, "he is well," which would have answered Jacob's question, is that Jacob's question contained two elements. 1) Is he well physically and economically? and 2) were the shepherds on good terms (at peace) with Laban. By saying merely שלום, the shepherds replied to both of Jacob's enquiries with a single word. When they added that Laban's daughter Rachel was approaching they answered a question Jacob had not asked. They may have done so in order that Jacob should not engage them in any more questions. He could ask Rachel about anything else he wanted to know.

באה, with the stress on the last syllable seeing the word is in the present tense.

ויאמר השלום לו, “He said: “is he o.k.?” Yaakov wanted to know if Nachor was powerful enough to protect him against Esau, should the latter try and attack him. The shepherds answered in the affirmative, adding that after all, Nachor was the ruling power in that city.

They may also have wanted to underline the good relations they had with Laban by pointing out that Laban was not afraid to send a young girl to the well with them. This is in contrast with Yitro, who was not at peace with the local shepherds; the Torah had reported that his seven grown up daughters watered the sheep and even their number did not protect them from being abused by the local shepherds.

The one word reply שלום may have had yet another connotation. They meant that regarding Laban's physical wellbeing and his relations with them, those were peaceful. In order for Jacob not to gain the impression that Laban was well to do, they added that he employed his young daughter Rachel as shepherdess, a sign that he could not afford hired help. Moreover, they indicated that Laban's flocks could be managed by a single girl; his possessions could not therefore have amounted to much. They were careful not to utter a lie which would have been revealed as such anyway. Alternatively, they were afraid that Laban might complain to them why they had described him as wealthy. Solomon refers to such considerations in Proverbs 27,14 when he suggests that if someone praises someone else's wealth it is in order that not he but the wealthy person should have the honour of hosting the questioner.

Yet another meaning that the shepherds could have had in mind by their brief reply was that Laban was a miser with his money and cheapened himself by letting his precious daughter tend his flock. Jacob was thereby invited to form an opinion of the man and his deeds.

הן עוד היום גדול LO, IT IS YET HIGH DAY — Because he saw them lying down he thought that they wished to take the cattle home, and that they should not graze any longer. He, therefore, said to them, “Lo, it is yet high day” — meaning, if you are hired men you have not yet finished your day’s task, and if these are your own cattle, nevertheless — 'לא עת האסף המקנה וגו IT IS NOT YET TIME FOR THE CATTLET TO BE GATHERED TOGETHER TO TAKE THEM HOME (Genesis Rabbah 70:11).

The day is yet long. He thought they were shirking their duties. The righteous are disturbed by injustice even when they are not the victims.

ויאמר הן עוד היום גדול, He said: "The day is still long, etc." The reason that Jacob presumed to judge their actions was that he was concerned with unnecessary suffering of the animals (compare Baba Metzia 32). He also wanted to find out if the reason they delayed watering the flocks was because this was not the proper time and that the town was far off and these animals were used to be kept in the town overnight. This interested him because it would help him determine the distance he had travelled. He learned from the shepherds' answer that what they did was not related to the distance from Charan.

ויאמר, ויאמרו, it is clear who the subjects are without their names or vocations having to be restated.

Nevertheless, it is not yet time for the sheep to be gathered. Rashi is answering the question: Is not this point expressed backwards? Once Yaakov said, “The day is yet long,” Scripture does not need to write, “It is not yet time for the sheep to be gathered,” as it is obvious! Thus Rashi explains that Yaakov is making two points.

האסף המקנה, nicht הצאן, er bezeichnete die Herden als מקנה und erinnert sie damit an ihre Pflicht gegen den Eigentümer des Viehs, das Vieh nicht müßig herumlagern, sondern auf die Weide gehen zu lassen.

לא עת האסף המקנה, “it is not yet time to bring the cattle home.” The use of the word: האסף in this context also occurs in Judges 19,18: ואין איש מאסף אותי הביתה, “and no one is willing to give me shelter in his house.”

השקו הצאן ולכו ורעו, “water the flock and proceed to let them graze.” Why would a stranger like Yaakov dare to order these shepherds around as if they were his employees? He was afraid that Rachel would join the shepherds, whereas he was interested in having a private conversation with her.

לא נוכל WE CANNOT — give them water because the stone is a heavy one.

To give them drink because the stone is large. Rashi is explaining that they cannot roll it due to its weight, as Rashi said on v. 3, and not because they had so agreed among themselves.

וגללו AND THEY ROLL AWAY — This word is rendered in the Targum by ויגנדרון “and they will roll away” (whilst in Genesis 5:3 it is rendered by an Aramaic participle) because the verb has here a future meaning.

FOR SHE WAS A SHEPHERDESS. The intent of this is to relate that Laban’s sheep had no shepherd other than Rachel, since her father turned over the flock to her alone. She alone tended them all the days, and Leah did not go with the flock at all. The matter was thus unlike that of the daughters of Jethro, where all seven daughters tended the flock simultaneously, as it is said, And they came and drew water.⁷¹Exodus 2:16. Perhaps due to Leah’s eyes being tender,⁷²Further, Verse 17. the rays of the sun would have hurt her, or because Leah was older and of marriageable age, her father was more concerned about her. Jethro however was honored in his community and he was the priest of the country, and he was confident that people would be afraid of approaching his daughters. It may be that Laban was more modest than Jethro for Abraham’s family was proper and modest, but Rachel was yet young and there was no concern for her. This is the sense of the verse, And Jacob kissed Rachel.⁷³Verse 11 here. It may be as Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that where the Hebrew word for “kissing” is followed by the letter lamed — [as here: Vayishak Yaakov l’Rachel, instead of the word eth] — it means not on the mouth, but that he kissed her on her head or on her shoulder.

כי רועה היא, she is familiar with the finer points of successfully locating pastures for her flocks.

עודנו מדבר עמם, While he was still talking to them, etc. According to the text this is incorrect. The Torah should have written that the shepherds were still talking to him. Perhaps the reason the Torah phrased it thus is that the whole story is meant to tell us what happened to Jacob, not what happened with the shepherds.

עטדנו...באה. the word באה this time is in the past tense so that this time its stress is on the first (last but one) syllable.

כי רועה היא, “for she was a shepherdess.” The Torah meant that Lavan had only one daughter who was the shepherdess, as opposed to Yitro who had seven daughters all of whom were tending flocks. The reason why Rachel was the only daughter of Lavan who was entrusted with his flocks was that her sister Leah’s eyes were weak so that she could not perform the tasks expected from a shepherd or shepherdess. It is also possible that Lavan did not want to send Leah to the well where she would meet with the male shepherds, seeing she was older than her sister and should not go about unchaperoned. Yitro, on the other hand, was a highly respected and prominent personality, and no one would have dared molest his daughters sexually. It is also possible that Lavan, who was of the same family as Avraham, observed stricter standards of modesty than did Yitro, and therefore he would not let a girl above a certain age go out alone to where she was apt to meet men.

ורחל באה עם הצאן אשר לאביה כי רועה היא, “and Rachel arrived with the flocks that belonged to her father;” the reason that her older sister did not tend the flocks was that due to her sensitive eyes the air on the field was harmful for her condition. Besides, it was one way of honouring her status as being the older one that she did not have to leave the house to go to work. (according to Pessikta zutrata she was already of marriageable age.)

On the other hand, the Torah may have meant to tell us that Rachel arrived while Jacob was engaged in speaking to the shepherds before the shepherds had replied to him at all. The Torah did not want to interrupt the sequence of the conversation and that is why the shepherds' reply was recorded first.

עם הצאן אשר לאביה, with her father's flocks. The Torah means to tell us that Rachel tended all her father's flocks. This proves the truth of Jacob's statement in 30,30 that prior to his arrival Laban possessed only meagre possessions.

On the other hand the Torah may imply that Rachel was so competent a shepherdess that Laban did not need anyone in addition to her to tend his sheep. This idea is suggested by the Torah's comment כי רעה היא, for she was a shepherdess.

Another reason why the Torah emphasised Rachel's being a רעה may have been that Laban, who was a pastmaster at employing charms, was convinced that Rachel possessed such charms and that employing her would ensure his future prosperity. Had he not been aware of that quality in his daughter he would not have demeaned himself by sending her out with the flocks.

The Torah may want to teach us yet another lesson in this verse. It describes Rachel as באה, arriving, carefully avoiding that she had left, יצאה, from somewhere before she could arrive. This was testimony to Rachel's chasteness. She did not leave her father's house for frivolous purposes. The words כי רעה היא may also be translated as "although she was a shepherdess." In that case the Torah would tell us that Laban did not prosper until Jacob arrived; all his flocks could be managed by his young daughter although she was very skilled at her trade.

ויגש יעקב ויגל JACOB STEPPED NEAR AND ROLLED [THE STONE]- as easily as one draws the stopper from the mouth of a bottle — thus showing you how strong he was. (Bereishit Rabbah 70:12)

ויגל את האבן, seeing he was a son of her father’s sister.

כאשר ראה יעקב את רחל, until he had met Rachel Yaakov had not been interested to get involved in the problem of rolling the rock off the top of the well. He had been afraid that if he helped the three shepherds would only be concerned with watering their own flocks without waiting around to assist any other shepherds.

ויהי כאשר ראה יעקב את רחל, It was when Jacob saw Rachel, etc. The reason that the Torah repeats three times that Laban was the brother of Jacob's mother is to emphasise that everything Jacob did was only because Laban was his mother's brother and he tried to honour his mother by carrying out her instructions. Another reason for the Torah to repeat this information was so that bystanders who observed Jacob- a recently arrived total stranger- doing Rachel such a great favour (removal of the stone on the well) would know that he was motivated only by family considerations. This is why Jacob spelled out his reasons and as soon as he laid eyes on Rachel he mentioned that she was the daughter of Laban who was his mother's brother. This is also why he displayed concern about the flocks of his uncle. When he kissed Rachel he did not repeat this statement since he had already made plain that Rachel was his cousin. Besides, the very fact that he started crying was explanation enough that he had come face to face with a relative.

ויהי...ויגל את האבן, either together with the other three shepherds on hand, or all by himself. In the event that he did it all by himself, G’d blessed him with extraordinary physical strength at that time.

את רחל בת לבן אחי אמו, “Rachel, daughter of Lavan, the brother of his mother.” The words “the brother of his mother,” appear three times in this verse. Apparently Rachel told Yaakov first that her father was a swindler, and that it would be a mistake on the part of Yaakov to live in his house. Yaakov replied to her that seeing that her father was a brother of his mother, he was aware, and would know how to protect himself against trickery on the part of her father.

... And it appears to me that they derived this from that which it is written,  vayigal, which is an expression of revealing (gilui), and not vayigalgel, which is an expression of rolling (gilgul). 

As one removes a פקק from a bottle opening... This means a cover from a bottle. Rashi is saying that Yaakov did not roll the stone [with difficullty] as the shepherds did, but [he removed it] with ease. Rashi deduced this because it is written ויגל, “he revealed,” and not ויגלל (“he rolled”).

ויגל, Hiphil, kommt nie wieder in dieser Wurzel vor und bezeichnet die Leichtigkeit, mit welcher er den schweren Stein vom Brunnen schaffte: "er ließ ihn hinabrollen".

When the Torah repeats that "Jacob watered the flocks of Laban," the message may be that he did this only because Laban was his mother's brother. Otherwise, -in line with what we learn in Avodah Zarah 67- there was no call to do favours to the Gentiles, seeing that we know from Proverbs 14,34: "(even) the kindness done for us by the Gentile nations are a form of sin."

In dieser Geschichte erfahren wir nun, was denn eigentlich Vater Jakob für den Bau seiner Zukunft mit hinaus genommen. Viel Geld hatte er nicht. Das Augenfälligste ist: er war stark, hatte Kraft. Wozu die anderen alle erst zusammenkommen mussten, das tat er allein, und zwar ohne Anstrengung, eine Kraft, die wir bei Jakob gar nicht erwartet hätten. Dieser starke gesunde Körper war für jetzt an materiellen Gütern sein einziger Reichtum. Ein gar nicht genug zu schätzender Schatz, der, wie er ein bedeutendes Angebinde für eine ganze Zukunft ist, so auch nur durch eine rein verlebte Vergangenheit erworben werden kann. Es ist der Grundstock zu dem עושר וכבוד, die die תורה mit ihrer Linken bietet. Zweitens ist es ein unerschütterlicher Rechtlich- keitssinn, der sich hier offenbarte. So wie Moses, der ja auch seine Zukunft am Brunnen fand, duldet ihn nicht die geringste Pflichtvergessenheit, die er wahrnimmt. Eine Pflichttreue, die er später ja selbst so glänzend in dem schwierigsten Dienstverhältnisse bewährt. Drittens eine arbeitsfreudige Geschicklichkeit und Tätigkeit, die rasch zugreift und nützt, wo es auch gar nicht seine Sache ist, die wir gar nicht von dem איש תם יושב אהלים erwartet hätten. Somit erscheint er als echtes Prototyp des Volkes, dessen Stammvater er werden sollte, und das bestimmt war, die verschiedensten, materiellsten und geistigsten Berufstätigkeiten in gleicher Würdigkeit und Ebenbürtigkeit zu repräsentieren. Der Stammvater hatte eine solche Vielseitigkeit, dass jeder seiner Söhne sagen konnte, er habe seine ihm eigentümliche Fähigkeit vom Vater geerbt, der sich im Lehr- Nähr- und Wehrstand gleich vollkommen bewegte. —

ויגש יעקב ויגל את האבן מעל פי הבאר, “Yaakov approached and rolled the rock from the top of the well.” Yaakov clearly displayed superior physical strength seeing that at least three shepherds had been unable to move that rock with their combined efforts. When you consider in addition that Yaakov must have been tired both from the long journey and from Torah study, which traditionally weakens a person physically, (compare Isaiah 28,29 where the word תושיה is applied to Torah seeing its study weakens the body of a person, Sanhedrin 26) his feat was even more remarkable. Yaakov had spent the last 14 years studying in the academy of Ever (even though this detail has not been recorded in the written Torah).
We find that when Yitzchak his father commanded Yaakov: “arise and go to Padan Aram and take for yourself from there a wife” (28,2), that he understood that the meaning of the word אשה also included another element, something Yitzchak had not spelled out to him. The hidden meaning of the word אשה was that it referred to Torah. King Solomon in Proverbs 31,10 already alluded to this meaning of the word אשה, when he headlined his last paragraph with the words אשת חיל מי ימצא, “who can find a woman of valour?” He described such a “woman” as עטרת בעלה “the crown of her husband” in Proverbs 12,4.
Our sages, when commenting on Deut. 33,4 where Moses described the Torah as מורשה קהלת יעקב, “as an inalienable possession handed down from generation to generation,” that the word ought not merely be read as מורשה, but as מאורשה, something a Jew is betrothed to. In other words, Torah is to us what a wife is to a husband. Keeping this thought in mind, Yaakov decided to fulfill the implied command of his father first and instead of proceeding directly to Lavan he stayed at the Yeshivah for 14 years. The number of years he must have stayed there can be arrived at by comparing the age at which he met Pharaoh (130), [he lived in Egypt for 17 years and died at 147 years of age.] When you deduct 22 years during which he had not seen Joseph who had been 17 years of age at the time of his abduction, this made Yaakov 91 years old at the time Joseph had been born. Joseph was born after Yaakov had stayed at Lavan’s for 14 years. This means he was 77 years of age when he came to Charan. Yitzchak dispensed the blessing when he was 123 years of age, i.e. when Yaakov was 63 years old (compare Rashi who said that when one approaches within 5 years of the age at which either parent died it is time to make arrangements concerning one’s own death. The Talmud Megillah 17 arrives at the same conclusion). All of this supports the view that the only way to account for an obvious discrepancy in dates supplied by the Torah is to conclude that Yaakov studied Torah for 14 years before arriving at Lavan’s house.

Dreimal wird in diesem Verse wiederholt, dass Laban Jakobs Mutterbruder gewesen. Denn in allem, was Jakob hier tat, wird er durch das Gedächtnis an seine Mutter geleitet, die ihm hier in ihrem nächsten Verwandten lebendig vor die Seele trat. Es heißt ja gleich, dass Jakob Rahel geküsst habe. Ohne diesen wiederholten Hinweis auf die Erinnerung an die Mutter hätten wir Jakobs ganzes Verfahren als Galanterie gegen ein schönes Mädchen auffassen können. So wird bei ähnlichem Begegnen Moses und der Töchter Jithros einer solchen Auffassung durch den auffallenden Wechsel der Sexualform vorgebeugt und die richtige gesichert, dass keine geschlechtliche Regung, sondern das lebhafte Rechtsgefühl ihn geleitet. ויבאו הרעים ויגרשום, die rohen Hirten vertrieben sie ohne Rücksicht auf ihr schwächeres Geschlecht, ויקם משה ויושען Moses rettete sie aus Rücksicht für ihr Geschlecht, weil sie die Schwachen waren, dann aber וישק את צאנם, war er ihnen gefällig nicht aus geschlechtlicher Rücksicht. So auch hier. Obgleich Rahel schön war, sah er nur die Verwandte in ihr. Das spricht sich auch durch sein Weinen aus, das sich kaum aus einem anderen Motibe wird erklären lassen. Wer weiß, wie lange Jakob gewandert war, ohne eine verwandte Seele zu sehen. Da tritt ihm mit einemmal in Rahel die Tochter eines Bruders seiner Mutter entgegen und ruft das Bild der Mutter überwältigend bis zu Tränen in ihm wach. Die Träne zeigt, wie der Kuss ein durchaus sittlicher war, ja selbst die Sorge für die Schafe glaubte er der Mutter zu leisten. — Rahel musste ihn ja für verrückt gehalten haben, indem er ihr küssend und weinend um den Hals fiel. Darum reißt er sich los und erklärt ihr den Grund seiner Rührung.

ויבך AND HE WEPT- because he foresaw by the Holy Spirit that she would not be buried with him in the cave of Machpelah (Genesis Rabbah 70:12). Another explanation is: he wept because he came with empty hands. He thought: Eliezer, my grandfather’s servant, had with him rings, bracelets and all good things, whilst I have nothing with me (Genesis Rabbah 70:12). This was because Eliphaz Esau’s son pursued Jacob by his father’s order to kill him, and overtook him. But because Eliphaz had been brought up on Isaac’s lap, (cp. Deuteronomy Rabbah 2:13) he withheld his hand. He said to him (Jacob), “But what shall I do as regards my father’s order?” Jacob replied, “Take all I have and you can say that I am dead for a poor man may be accounted as dead" (Nedarim 64b).

And cried in a loud voice. He was pained that he did not merit marrying her in his youth so that by now he would have had grown up children.

וישק, since she had realised that Yaakov had done all this on her account, she accepted his kiss. Furthermore, he had told them כי אחי אביה הוא, i.e. a son of her father’s sister, a son of Rivkah, who was known to all the people of Charan to have become married to Yitzchok.

וישק יעקב לרחל, “Yaakov kissed Rachel, etc. The reason the Torah referred to Rachel as קטנה, “small,” is that she was still a minor and Yaakov could not consummate marriage vows with her. This was the reason Lavan was not worried to hand his flocks to her instead of to his already adult daughter Leah who was liable to be molested by the male shepherds on account of her age. We should also note that Yaakov did not kiss Rachel on the mouth but on the head or the shoulder, suggesting that there was no sexual element in that kiss (Ibn Ezra).

Because he foresaw... she would not be buried with him. There is a question on this explanation: If she would ask him, “Why are you crying?” he surely would not mention her death to her. What would he answer? Therefore Rashi brings another explanation. And with the second explanation alone, a question arises: Why would this great tzaddik cry because he came empty-handed? (Maharshal)

ויבך, he wept for joy. When close relatives meet after not having seen each other for a while, their emotional cup runs over so that they find it hard to control their feelings and they give way to them by crying for joy.

כי אחי אביה הוא HE WAS HER FATHER’S BROTHER — near kin to her father, as (Genesis 13:8) “for we are men, brothers (אחים)” (i. e. near kin). A Midrashic explanation is that he meant: if he (Laban) intends to practice deceit upon me then I am his brother (a match for him) in deception; if, however, he is an honest man then I, too, am the son of his sister, the pious Rebekah (Genesis Rabbah 70:13).

AND SHE TOLD HER FATHER. Rashi comments: “Her mother was dead.” And so it is stated in Bereshith Rabbah.⁷⁴70:12. But according to the plain meaning of Scripture, Rachel related it to her father in order to inform him of the arrival of his relative and so that he should go forth to meet him and honor him. For, as regards her mother, what was Jacob to her and what could she do for him? However, Rebekah did show her mother the jewels which Eliezer gave her,⁷⁵Above, 24:28. as is the custom of maidens.

כי אחי אביה הוא, the Torah adds this at this point to justify his kissing Rachel and her allowing herself to be kissed by him.

ויגד יעקב לרחל כי כי אחי אביה הוא, Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother, etc. This means that Jacob told Rachel that his relationship to her was based on two elements. 1) There was a biological relationship, i.e. he was a blood relative of her father; 2) there was a spiritual relationship between them inasmuch as he was a son of Rebeccah who was known far and wide for her righteousness. Righteous people are considered as all related to one another.

כי אחי אביה הוא, i.e. a son of her father’s sister, a son of Rivkah, who was known to all the people of Charan to have become married to Yitzchok.

ויגד יעקב לרחל כי אחי אביה הוא, ”Yaakov told Rachel that he was the brother of her father.” According to Ibn Ezra, the Torah now fills us in on something Yaakov had told Rachel already earlier in their conversation, before he had kissed her.

Because her mother had died... Regarding Rivkah it is written (24:28), “The girl told her mother’s household.” [Why here did Rochel tell her father?] Thus Rashi explains that Rochel’s mother had died.

ויגד יעקב לרחל, “Yaakov told Rachel;” He must have identified himself already previously, or he would not have dared kiss her as is reported in verse 11. Now he told her more details about himself. כי אחי אביה הוא, “that he was a brother of her father.” After having told her this, he kissed her. Another exegesis of this sequence: Yaakov first told Rachel that he was the brother of her father in order that she should not feel insulted that he had been fresh enough to kiss her. ותגד לאביה, “she told her father.”[This is already the second time that Bethuel is described as alive; I do not understand why our author has claimed that he died before Lavan ever came to Charan, as he did on verse 5. Ed.] When Rivkah had a similar experience with Eliezer, she is reported as relating her encounter to her mother, as she did not know precisely who Eliezer was. Daughters normally keep their mothers’ company, not their father’s.

ותגד לאביה AND SHE TOLD HER FATHER, because her mother was dead and she had no one to tell except him (Bereishit Rabbah 70:13).

וכי בן רבקה הוא, he mentioned Rivkah to Rachel although Rachel did not know Rivkah at all. He did so because he wanted her to tell Lavan about who exactly Yaakov was.

ותרץ ותגד לאביה, “she ran home and told her father.” Rashi explains that the reason she told her father, not her mother, as when Rivkah had encountered Eliezer, was that her mother had died already. Nachmanides writes that we do not need to resort to Rashi’s explanation and assume that Rachel was a semi-orphan. Seeing that Yaakov was a relative of her father’s and not of her mother’s, it was natural that she would bring this news first to her father. Rivkah, running to her mother was natural, as she wanted to entrust the jewelry she had received to her mother’s safe keeping.

He may have hinted at something we learned in Megillah 13 where we are told that Rachel told Jacob that her father was a swindler. Jacob told Rachel that he could match her father since he was of the same family. Having said so Jacob became afraid that Rachel would form a bad impression of his character; he therefore added that he was the son of Rebeccah who had employed wiles only in order to help justice and righteousness to prevail. This is the deeper meaning of Kohelet 7,12 that "(applied) wisdom preserves the lives of its possessors." He would never employ trickery for nefarious purposes something that would result in the destruction of its perpetrators.

וירץ לקראתו HE RAN TOWARDS HIM — thinking that he was laden with money, for the servant of that household (Eliezer) had come there with ten camels fully laden (Bereishit Rabbah 70:13).

את הדברים האלה. that his father and mother had sent him to the members of his family.

את שמע יעקב, that he had succeeded in single-handedly rolling the rock off the top of the well.

ויהי כשמוע לבן, And as soon as Laban heard, etc. The word ויהי, as usual, introduces a negative element. Here too Laban formed evil intentions as soon as he heard about Jacob's arrival. Bereshit Rabbah 70,13 suggests that Laban searched Jacob bodily under the guise of hugging him and kissing him. When the Torah describes that Laban heard that Jacob "was the son of his sister," this means that Rachel had not told her father that he was her father's brother, only that he was the son of Rebeccah. This is why Laban entertained thoughts of tricking him. When the Torah reports that Laban brought Jacob into his house this was also because he thought that maybe Jacob's wealth was following some distance behind him. He wanted to keep Jacob around pending arrival of his possessions.

ויהי כשמוע...ויספר ללבן את כל הדברים האלה, he revealed the reason why he had left his father’s home and that he had done so at the command of both his father and his mother.

He thought that he was loaded with money... Otherwise, why would he run?

את כל הדברים האלה. Alles, was wir wissen, insbesondere dass, ob gleich aus dem reichen Hause seiner Schwester, er doch nichts als seinen Stecken mitgebracht. Dies erklärt das "אך" in Labans Antwort. Obgleich arm, bist du mir doch als Verwandter willkommen.

ויספר ללבן את כל הדברים האלה, “he told Lavan in detail about all these events;” i.e. how he had acquired the birthright and subsequently the blessing, in order that Lavan would agree to give him Rachel in marriage. He also told him that he had been forced to flee from his brother Esau in order to explain why he had arrived emptyhanded.

ויחבק AND EMBRACED HIM — When he saw that he had nothing with him, he thought, “Perhaps he has brought gold coins and they are hidden away in his bosom!”

ויספר ללבן, in order to inform Lavan that he had not come to him because he needed to look for a livelihood, but rather to that he was escaping from the wrath of his brother and that his mother had commanded him to go to Lavan and to stay there for a while.

He thought: “Maybe he has brought gold coins...” Since Lavan did not run [to greet Yaakov because of affection] but only because [he thought that Yaakov was loaded with] money, why then did Lavan embrace him? Thus Rashi explains as he does.

ויספר ללבן את כל הדברים האלה. He told Laban all that happened. The word בואו in this verse may refer to Jacob explaining how Eliphaz had pursued him and robbed him of his possessions.

וינשק לו HE KISSED HIM — he thought, “Perhaps he has brought pearls (or precious stones, in general) and they are in his mouth!” (Genesis Rabbah 70:13)

He thought: “Maybe he has brought pearls and he has them in his mouth.” [Question:] Is it normal to carry jewels in one’s mouth?! The answer is: Someone carrying jewels hides them and does not reveal them. Lavan thought: “I will kiss him and appease him so that he will reveal to me what he has.” (Maharshal)

It is also possible that the reason Jacob told Laban everything- seeing Rachel had told him that her father was a swindler- was in order to convince him that there was no point in trying to swindle him as he had himself gotten the better of Esau by obtaining both the birthright and the blessing. He also told Laban of his having single-handedly moved the stone on top of the well to show that he possessed physical strength. He went on to tell Laban that he had watered his flock to show him that he harboured friendly feelings toward him.

ויספר ללבן HE TOLD LABAN that he had come only because he was forced to do so by his brother, and that all his money had been taken from him.

That he came only under duress, because of his brother. Otherwise why does it say, “All that had happened”?

אך עצמי ובשרי SURELY THOU ART MY BONE AND MY FLESH — Really, I have no reason to take you into my house, since you have brought nothing with you; but because of our relationship I will put up with you for “the space of a month”. Thus, indeed, he did, but even this was not for nothing, for he tended Laban’s sheep.

אך עצמי ובשרי, you have therefore done well in coming to me.

אך עצמי ובשרי אתה, even though you are no doubt able to make a living without me by undertaking to look after the flocks or in some other manner, the fact remains that you are my flesh and blood and it is therefore appropriate that you should stay under my roof.

ויאמר לו…אך עצמי ובשרי אתה, He said to him…"after all you are of my bone and flesh, etc." The word אך which is always a diminutive here serves to restrict the identification of Jacob with Laban.

ויאמר...אך עצמי, the word אך in this instance means “truly!” It appears in this meaning in several other passages in the Scriptures, as for instance, Psalms 73,1 אך טוב לישראל”G’d is truly good to Israel.” Or, Isaiah 63,8 אך עמי המה, “truly, they are My people!” Essentially, what Lavan said to Yaakov was that he should not worry about having left home seeing that all he needed would be provided for him by Lavan.

אך עצמי ובשרי אתה, “after all, you are of my own flesh and bone.” The word אך usually denotes an expression of pain, regret, i.e. in this instance: “how sad it is that you are penniless; but seeing you are my flesh and bone, etc.” Alternately, Lavan meant:: “although seeing that you deceived your brother, and I should by rights keep my distance from you, the fact that you are my own flesh and blood causes me to deal with you differently.”

Now I have no reason to take you into the house... I.e., every אך comes to exclude something. What does it exclude here? Therefore Rashi explains, “Now I have no reason...”

אך עצמי ובשרי אתה, “Lavan said that legally speaking he should not have given Yaakov shelter, just as his other relatives had not protected him and forced him to flee after he had cheated his brother on two separate occasions. However, “seeing that you are my own flesh and blood,I will make an exception and not kick you out.”

וישב עמו, during which time he looked after Lavan’s livestock. The expression ישב implying more than just being a tourist, a visitor in someone’s house for an extended period is found elsewhere also, as for instance in Exodus 2,21 when Moses is described as ויואל משה לשבת את האיש, where it means not merely that Moses agreed to stay at the house of Yitro but that he undertook to become a shepherd for him. When Lavan, in verse 19 of this chapter asks Yaakov שבה עמדי, he did not merely offer hospitality but meant that Yaakov would continue to mind his flocks. The fact that Lavan himself refers to Yaakov working for him without wages makes it clear that during the first 30 days he was not merely sitting around, but had been more than earning his keep.

I will put up with you for a month. You might ask: How does Rashi know [that Lavan said] specifically for a month? The answer is: Since he actually did so, as it says, “Yaakov lived with him for a month,” this surely is [what he said] at the beginning.

On the one hand Laban considered Jacob as his bone (self), on the other hand, he was well aware of the difference between them. Laban represented darkness rather than light. Perhaps he wanted to specify that all they had in common was flesh and bone.

וישב עמו חדש ימים, “he stayed with him for a month.” The Torah uses this opportunity to teach us for how long a person must practice hospitality with his relatives. (B’reshit Rabbah 70,14) An alternate exegesis: When Lavan had heard what Yaakov had done to Esau, he was afraid to hire him until he had at least assured himself of his skills and suitability.

וישב עמו חודש ימים. He stayed with him for a month. He waited for a whole month, hoping that Jacob's possessions might arrive during that period. When he realised that there was no hope of that he had to decide how to relate to Jacob. Inasmuch as Laban had wanted Jacob to work for him from the moment he set eyes on him, he concealed this from him for a period of thirty days during which time Jacob worked without compensation. After that time he arranged working conditions with him for reasons which I shall explain later. During those thirty days he wanted to see if Jacob would prove to be an asset to him, if he would be successful. As a result of all this he had made a servant of Jacob from the very day he arrived; this is why he used the expression ועבדתני חנם, "you have already served me without compensation." Laban had satified himself during that month that Jacob was very successful in his work.

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.

וללבן שתי בנות, the Torah interrupted Yaakov’s narrative by telling us that seeing that Lavan had only two daughters and the younger one appealed to Yaakov, he asked her father for her hand in marriage.

וללבן שתי בנות, And Laban had two daughters, etc. The Torah meant to inform us that both daughters were well known, the elder as Leah and the younger as Rachel so that Laban could not pretend afterwards that their names were different. Jacob stipulated that he would serve Laban for his smaller daughter Rachel in order to remove all possible doubt about whom he had in mind. When the Torah described Leah as גדולה, this was not a relative term, but she was tall in her own right not merely by comparison to Rachel, apart from the fact that she may have been a year or two older than her sister. Rachel too was of below average height not only because of her age.

וללבן שתי בנות, the fact that Lavan had two daughters, etc., is mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph in order for us to understand what is reported later about Yaakov having fallen in love with Rachel and offering to serve Lavan for 7 years for her hand in marriage. The Torah wants us to understand that Yaakov would never have agreed to work for Leah’s hand in marriage for even a fraction of such a long period.

רכות TENDER — She thought she would have to fall to the lot of Esau and she therefore wept continually, because everyone said, “Rebekah has two sons, Laban has two daughters — the elder daughter for the elder son, the younger daughter for the younger son” (Genesis Rabbah 70:16).

רכות, beautiful; our sages in Taanit 24 say that when a prospective bride has beautiful eyes, the bridegroom need not have the rest of her body checked out for possible blemishes. Black eyes are not considered as beautiful as white ones. [I suppose the reference is to blue ones. Ed.]

יפת תאר, possessed of beautiful features, as described in Isaiah 44,13 ובמחוגה יתארהו.

ועיני לאה רכות, Leah's eyes were soft, etc. It is not customary for the Torah to reveal physical blemishes of such righteous people as our matriarchs. Therefore, the meaning of this comment must be to tell the reader that Laban could never have claimed that Rachel was Leah or vice versa because even their eyes were totally different. Leah was not only not as beautiful as her sister Rachel, but she suffered from a blemish, i.e her eyes were not attractive. Since Leah and Rachel were so different from one another in their external appearance Laban had no way of cheating on Jacob by palming off the wrong daughter on him.

The eyes of Leah were soft: She was beautiful, but her eyes were soft and teary,

ועיני לאה רכות, “Leah’s eyes were sensitive;” according to Onkelos, this is a compliment, Leah’s eyes being round and lustrous like those of a young and beautiful calf. Targum Yonathan omits the comparison with a calf. Apparently, when the Torah points out Leah’s eyes as being beautiful, this is in contrast to the remainder of her physical features which were not attractive. Other commentators who view the comment as describing a flaw, feel that the Torah was at pains to point out that Leah’s only physical flaw were her eyes. Her sister Rachel, however, was flawlessly beautiful.

ועיני לאה רכות, “and Leah’s eyes were soft.” Rabbi Avraham [Ibn Ezra] commented on this that someone called Ben Efrayim said that the word רכות really should have been spelled with the letter א, meaning ארוכות. I can only comment that his own name should have been spelled without the letter א. [In other words, his comment is without foundation.]

Because she thought she would fall to the lot of Eisov. [Rashi is answering the question:] Why does the verse speak badly about this righteous woman? He answers: “Because she thought...” I.e., from her bad point we learn her good point. You might ask: The verse implies that Leah also was of beautiful form, but had tender eyes. If so, why does the verse contrast her with Rochel by saying, “Rochel was of beautiful form”? It should rather say, “The eyes of Rochel were beautiful.” The answer is: Since Leah’s eyes were not beautiful, she was not beautiful either. For it says in Taanis 24a: “If a bride’s eyes are beautiful, her entire body need not be checked.” Thus it was rightly said that “Rochel was of beautiful form.”

Statt zu sagen: Lea war minder schön, ist es eine Feinheit, von ihr nur das zu rühmen, was schön an ihr war: sie hatte zarte und milde Augen, im Gegensatz zu Rahel, die überhaupt: schön war.

ועיני לאה רכות, “Leah’s eyes were soft, so that due to her beautiful eyes she appeared beautiful all over,”[the expression רך appears next to טוב, “good, when” the calf served by Avraham to the angels in Genesis 18,7 is described) in contrast to Rachel, whose body was beautiful, but whose eyes detracted from this as she cried a lot, fearing that her lot would be to be married to Esau after Yaakov would divorce her due to her barrenness. (No source quoted for this unusual interpretation)

תאר FORM — this denotes the shape (outline) of the face, just as the verb formed from the same root in (Isaiah 44:13) “he marks it out (יתארחו) with a pencil” old French compas.

יפה תאר, as in Isaiah 44,13 במחוגה יתארהו, “he marks out a form with a stylus.” This is a reference to the shape of her nose, forehead, lips and cheeks.

ויפת מראה, her skin looked very healthy. Colour is something which attracts closer inspection by the sense of sight.

But Rachel was of beautiful form and fair to look upon, without any blemish. And "form" refers to the shape of the face and the rest of the body, the posture, and skin color which was write and red (pink), and the hair was dark.

יפת תואר ויפת מראה. Both her face and her body were beautiful. Beauty may expresses itself in two ways. 1) Every individual feature is beautiful by itself; We have examples of this by Solomon in his Song of Songs where he describes the beauty of different parts of the anatomy. 2) There is such a thing as an overall beauty of both the facial features and the body. The Torah describes Rachel as blessed with both these kinds of beauty.

מראה OF BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE — this denotes the beauty of her features (a good complexion).

יפה מראה, healthy looking skin.

The expression יפת תואר may also be understood as "objectively beautiful," whereas the expression יפת מראה may refer to the impression Rachel made on those who looked at her.

אעבדך שבע שנים I WILL SERVE THEE SEVEN YEARS — These are the “few days” of which his mother had spoken to him (27:44)): “And thou shalt tarry with him a few days”. You can see that this is so, for it is written (v. 20) “And they (the seven years) were in his eyes (i.e. according to his view) the few days” of which his mother had spoken (Genesis Rabbah 70:17).

אעבדך שבע שנים ברחל, there can be no question that a righteous man such as Yaakov would not have the audacity to marry a woman and to found a family unless he were able to support her and to provide her with the requirements specified in Exodus 21,10 as spelled out in Yevamot 19. “a man is allowed to marry several wives provided he can look after them financially.” There is therefore no reason to believe that Lavan, who was himself a man of means, would give his daughters to sons-in-law who were unable to provide for them in the manner they had been accustomed to. If all this is so, how do we explain Yaakov’s referring to the time when he crossed the river Yabbok on his way to his uncle as having only his walking staff? (Genesis 32,10)? What Yaakov meant when he said this was that at the time he referred to he had not owned any livestock, nor any profession with which to earn his livelihood. The reason he offered to work for Lavan for 7 years was to use his work in lieu of a cash dowry he would pay her father for her hand in marriage, something that was customary in those days. Lavan’s daughters themselves referred to their father having sold them into marriage in Genesis 31,15. They were modest enough to know that Lavan had taken advantage of Yaakov by demanding an exorbitantly huge amount as dowry from him. We know also from Exodus 22,16 that a father used his daughter as a source of augmenting his income and when the value of such “merchandise” had been reduced through rape or seduction of the daughter (loss of virginity) he is entitled to financial compensation by the man who seduced his daughter (when he refuses to give her to the seducer in marriage in exchange for a regular dowry).

ויאהב יעקב את רחל. Jacob loved Rachel. The reason the Torah mentions her name again is to tell us that Jacob did not love Rachel on account of her beauty but on account of the fact that she was the life-partner destined for him.

ויאהב...אעבדך, in response to the question: “what shall be your wages?,” he answered Lavan that his wages would be in addition to food lodging and clothes that Lavan would give him his daughter Rachel as a wife. Even though Yaakov had spelled out which daughter, namely Rachel, he added the word הקטנה, “the younger one,” so that Lavan could not deceive him by giving him a different girl called Rachel. Some people question that seeing that the righteous marry with a view to producing children, why would Rachel’s exterior appearance have been of interest to Yaakov at all? After all they did not want their wives to be women who would excite their libidos, and it is clear from the fact that Yaakov was willing to delay marriage by seven years was due to his choosing a beautiful bride. He appears to have been angry at Lavan for having given him Leah instead, seeing that Leah was not as attractive as her sister. We have to answer this by saying that in choosing a beautiful woman as their brides, the righteous people had good intentions. They wanted their libidos to be aroused by them in order to produce many children together. Furthermore, they also wanted their children to be handsome like their mothers. Looking at beautiful people helps a person to remain in a joyous frame of mind, something which is a requirement for man for we know that people who are not in a joyful frame of mind cannot serve G’d in the best possible fashion. Even prophets cannot function as such unless they are in a state of joy, and on occasion they require stimulants such as music in order to put them in a more joyful frame of mind (Kohelet 5,19,--compare also Kings II 3,14-15)

אעבדך שבע שנים ברחל בתך, “I will serve you for seven years in return for your daughter Rachel.” Under normal circumstances it is not good manners, is inappropriate, to serve for a woman. The only reason that Yaakov agreed to this arrangement was that his father had commanded him not to marry a Canaanite woman but to marry one of Lavan’s daughters. He therefore told Lavan that if he would not give him Rachel as a wife now, he would not violate his father’s command by marrying some other local girl, but would serve for Rachel for seven years. The reason why he offered to wait seven years for consummation of this arrangement may have been that at the time Rachel was so young that he could not expect to have children from her at her tender age.

These are the “few days” that his mother had told him... Otherwise, he would be disobeying his mother’s command.

ויאהב יעקב את רחל, “Yaakov loved Rachel;” he already had set his eyes on her with a view to wedding her.

ברחל בתך הקטנה (literally, for Rachel, thy daughter, the younger one) — What reason was there for mentioning all these detailed descriptions of Rachel? Because he (Jacob) knew that he (Laban) was a deceiver. He said to him, “I will serve thee for Rachel”: and should you say that I mean any other Rachel out of the street, therefore I say “your daughter”. Should you say, “I will change Leah’s name and call her Rachel”, I say “your younger one”. In spite of this, however, all these precautions did not avail, for he did actually deceive him (Genesis Rabbah 70:17).

בתך הקטנה, although she was very young at this time, within the seven years of Yaakov’s service for her she would mature and be able to be a wife for him in the full meaning of the word.

ברחל בתך הקטנה, “for your younger daughter Rachel.” He did not want to marry Leah, seeing she was the older of the two and therefore was meant for his older brother Esau. It would have been impolite to speak about her directly; this is why he chose to add the words “your younger daughter.”

And you may know... for it is written: They seemed to him... Rashi is saying that by nature, Yaakov’s love of Rochel should make [even] a few days seem long—as it is written (Mishlei 13:12), “A delayed hope makes the heart sick.” [Why did seven years seem to him like a few days?] Perforce, it is referring to the “few days” that his mother had told him.

Alternatively, we may approach the verse by citing Shabbat 25 where we are told that a Torah scholar should have an outwardly attractive wife so as to minimise temptations by the evil urge. Even though Jacob was on a spiritually far higher level and did not present much of a target for the evil urge, it is prudent to take whatever precautions against the evil urge that are feasible.

אעבדך, “I will serve you;” the letter ב in this word is vocalised with a chataph kametz, an abbreviated vowel kametz. (Not in our editions of the chumash).

And lest you say, “I will change Leah’s name...” therefore, I say “the younger one.” You might ask: Why did he not just say, “Your younger daughter”? The answer is: Had he not said “Rochel,” Lavan would have given him Zilpah. She also was his daughter, but from a concubine, as Rashi explains on v. 31:50. And she was even younger than Rochel. But if so, why did Yaakov not fear Lavan might change Zilpah’s name to “Rochel,” and give her instead, since she was his youngest daughter? The answer is: Zilpah was not his true daughter as she was from a concubine. And her name was not really “Rochel” so he would have to change her name. Yaakov did not fear a double deceit by Lavan. Another answer [why Yaakov said “Rochel”]: If Yaakov had only said, “Your younger daughter,” perhaps Lavan’s wife would have another daughter, whom Lavan would give him. The marriage would be after seven years of work, and though she would be a minor, she would be fit for relations — as Yitzchok married Rivkah when she was just three. And then Lavan would not be tricking him at all, as the stipulation was to give his youngest daughter! Therefore Yaakov said: “For Rochel, your younger daughter.”

אעבדך שבע שנים, "I shall serve you for seven years, etc." This צדיק had a habit of humbling himself by using the number seven. When he bowed down to Esau later on he is also reported as having done so seven times (Genesis 33,3). This is the mystical connection with Proverbs 24,16: "the righteous will rise even if he falls seven times." Perhaps he wanted to demonstrate that he considered Rachel worth more than the maximum servitude that a Hebrew servant serves with his master (Exodus 21,2).

שבע שנים, “for seven years.” He should not have offered to serve Lavan for more than a year or maximum two years. Yaakov felt that Lavan would not give him a beautiful girlsuch as Rachel for a relatively cheap price. He also wanted Rachel to know how highly he prized her as a wife to be. This is why he volunteered seven years of work.

ברחל בתך הקטנה, for your smaller daughter Rachel. "For Rachel, and not for Leah; for your daughter and not another girl called Rachel; for the small one, and not someone whose name you have changed. הקטנה, the one who is the small one now and not someone whose name you may change."

ברחל בך הקטנה, “for your small daughter Rachel.” The use of the word: “the small” one, instead of “the younger one,” implied that her father did not think very highly of her. This is why she was assigned the duties of a shepherd. He volunteered to perform the duties that she had been assigned previously by being a shepherdess. An alternate exegesis: why did he add the word: ברחל. Who did not know that this was her name? Yaakov reasoned that if he were to marry Lavan’s older daughter, Esau would have another complaint against him by claiming that he had not only stolen his birthright, but also the woman designated for him as the firstborn son of Rivkah. [This seems very weak, as the Torah had already told us that Yaakov was in love with Rachel from the moment he met her. Ed.]

ויאמר לבן טוב תתי אותה לך, Laban said: "better that I give her to you, etc." We need to understand what Laban meant by this comparison. Why would he be justified in making such a comparison between Jacob and someone else when no one else had been willing to serve for Rachel? Perhaps Laban simply told a lie making Jacob believe that he had a competitive offer for Rachel by another suitor willing to serve for her. Besides, how could Laban have the nerve to describe letting Jacob marry Rachel as a gift, i.e. תתי? Did not Jacob contract to work for seven years thus paying for her worth? We also need to understand Laban's last words שבה עמדי, "stay with me."

ויאמר...טוב תתי, Lavan admitted that marrying members of one’s family was a good thing.

.טוב תתי אותה לך , “it is good that I give her to you.” Rabbeinu Chananel understands Lavan’s words as follows: “even though giving her to someone else would be preferable, seeing that a woman should not be without a man, nor a man without a wife, [and a delay of seven years is very long, Ed.] I agree.” He bases his commentary on Talmud Jerusalem Berachot 9,1 and Genesis 2,18. Lavan expressed his agreement that Yaakov was the better of two good choices as son-in-law. We encounter the use of the word ...טוב מ also in a different context where it refers to the better one of two bad choices. In Kohelet 5,4 we read טובים היו חללי חרב מחללי רעב, “the ones who were killed by the sword are better off than those killed by famine.” On a third occasion we find the expression ...טוב מ as comparing a good alternative with a bad alternative. We read in Kohelet 4,13 טוב ילד מסכן וחכם ממלך זקן וכסיל. “A poor and wise child is preferable to an old but foolish king.” The expression also occurs when it clearly contrasts two positives but gives preference to one of them. We read in Proverbs 15,17: “better a dish of vegetables served lovingly than a fatted ox served grudgingly.” [The author continues with more examples which I have decided to skip. Ed.]

ויאמר לבן טוב תתי אתה לך מתתי אתה לאיש אחר, even though giving her to another man [presumably someone with liquid assets, and she would not have to wait for seven years to be married, Ed.] would also be good. Man without a woman, a wife, or a woman without a husband are both not considered as טוב as a “good situation.” (based on Jerusalem Talmud Berachot 9, but expressed in negative terms, i.e. that being single is not good, intolerable.) This reflects what G’d said in Genesis 2,18 that it was not a good situation for Adam to be solitary, without a mate, without a wife. The term טוב is not an absolute, objective term, but is often used to describe a relative situation, i.e. “better than.” Even when used in such a context, it may not necessarily be relative to one other choice, but could be relative to a variety of choices, some bad, some relatively good when compared to the bad choice but relatively bad when compared to the best alternative. The author quotes from Lamentations 4,9 and Kohelet 4,17 as well as from Proverbs 15,17 as well as from Kohelet 5,4 and Kohelet 4,2-3 to illustrate how the word טוב is used in different contexts, generally as a comparative to an alternative. (According to Rabbeinu Bachya’s understanding of Rabbeinu Chananel, Lavan meant to say that although a good case could be made for giving Rachel in marriage to someone else, in fact such a choice might be considered superior, he was agreeable to Yaakov’s proposal.)

שבה עמדי, on the basis of the conditions which you yourself have suggested. After you have fulfilled these conditions I will give her to you.

It is clear from Laban's very words that he intended to trick Jacob by giving him Leah, as he indeed did later on. This is why he engaged in this kind of statement. He meant that it is better that he would give Rachel to him as in such a case Jacob would not be able to argue that he had not received his purchase. After all, we observe Jacob argue later: "Did I not serve for Rachel?" We will explain all of this later. Laban wanted Jacob to understand that he would receive Rachel as an absolute gift. As to the seven years of service Jacob would perform, this was only the justification for giving Rachel to him rather than to another suitor. Laban could have given Rachel to another man who did not perform labour for him, i.e. מתתי אותה לאיש אחר. Laban did not agree that Rachel's worth could be purchased by seven years of labour.

When he added: שבה עמדי, he made the eventual marriage to Rachel conditional on Jacob remaining with him all the seven years. Laban was not content to allow Jacob to perform this service for him away from his presence. He also phrased it so cunningly that it could mean that Jacob was to remain with Laban all his life. Acording to Shemot Rabbah 1,33 Yitro made a similar condition when he gave his daughter Tzipporah to Moses. Laban had no need to make Jacob take an oath since the matters he and Laban had discussed could be acquired legally by an exchange of words. Yitro, on the other hand, may have made Moses swear in order to forestall Moses moving away if Tzipporah would be willing to move away with him. The above mentioned thoughts all crossed Laban's mind to be used in the event that he would later on have a disagreement with Jacob. This is why G'd warned him in Genesis 31,24 not to speak to Jacob. Jacob did not pay heed to Laban's intention at this time because Laban spoke to him in terms of endearment. Jacob interpreted Laban's words to mean: "there is certainly no one around who is better suited than you that I would prefer to give my daughter to! All you have to do is to stay around!"

ויהיו בעיניו כימים אחדים, he considered himself as having struck a good bargain, considering Rachel as worth far more than seven years of his labour.

ויעבד יעקב ברחל, Jacob served for Rachel, etc. The reason the Torah mentions ברחל is that Jacob made a public announcement at the time that his service with Laban was for Rachel and that her hand in marriage was the wages Laban had agreed to pay him in return for his service. A major reason he made this public pronouncement was to make it clear that he did not serve for Leah.

ויהיו בעיניו כימים אחדים באהבתו אותה, “they were in his eyes like a few days because of his love for her.” According to our yardsticks such a long wait is extremely difficult. The Torah reports that after the seven years were over, in retrospect, these seven years appeared as if they had been only a few days, as he was so in love with Rachel that he considered the price he had to pay as cheap.

ויהיו בעיניו כימים אחדים, “they were in his eyes as if only a few days.” We would have expected these years as appearing extremely long in Yaakov’s eyes. However, we must not look at the Torah’s description as referring to the waiting period Yaakov underwent; the Torah refers to the amount of labour Yaakov performed. Viewed from that angle Yaakov did not measure the time in months or years but in days. We find confirmation of this when at the end of the period he said to Lavan “give me my wife for my days have been completed (29,21). He was careful not to say: “my years.”

ויהיו בעיניו כימים אחדים, “these seven years went by for him as if they had been only a few days.” Yaakov considered having to work for seven years in order to marry Rachel, as cheap at the price, as if he had paid only the equivalent of a few days’ wages for her. This reflected how much he was in love with her. If Lavan had demanded a higher price, he would also have been willing to pay it. While engaged actively in labouring, however, he felt the opposite way and could not await the time when he would finally be united with her.

באהבתו אותה, on account of how much he loved her.

מלאו ימי MY DAYS ARE FULFILLED — which my mother told me to remain with you. And another explanation is: MY DAYS ARE FULFILLED for I am now eighty-four years old and when shall I beget twelve tribes? That is what he meant by adding “that I may go in unto her”; for surely even the commonest of people would not use such an expression. But he said this because his mind was intent upon having issue (to fulfil his mission of rearing children who would carry on the religious traditions of his fathers) (Genesis Rabbah 70:18).

FOR MY DAYS ARE FULFILLED. This means “the time which my mother told me to remain away from home.” Another explanation is: For my days are fulfilled — “I am now eighty-four years old and when shall I beget twelve tribes?” These are the words of Rashi.

כי מלאו ימי, “I have served you for seven years.”

ואבאה אליה, let us make the consummation of the wedding immediately after the betrothal, i.e. the chuppah. He wanted to skip as many of the formalities in order to achieve his purpose of building a family with her.

ויאמר יעקב הבה לי אשתי, Jacob said: "hand me over my wife, etc." The reason that Jacob added the (uncouth sounding) words "so that I can have physical relations with her," something that even an uneducated person would not say, much less a person of Jacob's learning and sensitivity, can be explained by reference to Maimonides in chapter five of his Hilchot Ishut. If someone declares to his bride to-be: "you are betrothed to me in exchange for certain work I shall perform for you and he performs this work, this is not a valid form of betrothal since the compensation the bride receives (the work) is considered as a loan only, and one cannot acquire a bride by means of a loan." This is why Jacob said: הבה, "hand over!" Up until he had completed the work contracted for, Rachel had not even been his betrothed. Jacob was aware that he had not acquired Rachel by means of the value of the work he performed for Laban. As a result he could acquire her only by means of having physical relations with her. He therefore had to ask Laban to make this possible by handing her over, i.e. ואבא אליה.

Even the lowest of the low would not express himself in such a manner... I.e., it is not acceptable behavior for a hired worker to say, right when the years of his contract are up, “Give me my wages.”

הבה אשתי, nicht תנה und nicht בתן.‎ הבה ist die Aufforderung zu einem neuen Entschluss, von dem bis jetzt nicht die Rede gewesen. Mit dem letzten Augenblicke der bedungenen Dienstzeit, die Jakob geleistet, ist sie bereits seine Frau geworden, waren bereits die קידושין vollzogen, sie war bereits sein, und er fordert nunmehr die Seine.

כי מלאו ימי, “for my days have been completed;” Yaakov means that the number of years since he came to live with him have been completed. Fourteen years have elapsed since he received his father’s blessing when he had been sixty three years old, during which he had been hiding, so that he had been 77 years old when he came to Lavan. The numerical value of the letters in the word מלאו totals 76. [If I understand the author correctly, he means that Yaakov was not telling Lavan the obvious, as he knew that Lavan could count seven years. He hinted to Lavan that seeing he was by now 84 years old it was high time that he married and started a family. Ed.]

כי מלאו ימי, “for my days of labouring (for her) have been completed.” seven full years had passed. Another exegesis of this line: he hinted that the time had come for him to start his family seeing that he was already 84 years old, and was approaching old age. Use of the term in that sense is found also in Jeremiah 6,11, i.e. זקן ומלא ימים.

There is another way to solve our problem. We know that both Rachel and Leah told Jacob later on that their father considered them as strangers whom he had sold (Genesis 31,15). Concerning the laws of purchase of properties or slaves Maimonides writes in Hilchot Mechirah chapter 7 that if one acquires either slaves or real estate by means of a loan such a purchase is valid even if no money changes hand at the time. When Jacob said to Laban הבה את אשתי he meant that inasmuch as Rachel had already become his wife at the beginning of his servitude because he thought that he had "bought" her (in accordance with Maimonides), there was no need for actual money to change hands. The words הבה לי were not to be understood as the final act in the acquisition of Rachel as a wife, but were to be the prelude to his fulfilling his marital duties with a woman already his wife. He added the words ואבא אליה to preclude any pretense by Laban that Rachel was not yet his legally acquired wife.

ויאסוף לבן....ויעש משתה, Lavan assembled the people from Charan and arranged a feast. Lavan was a swindler, and that is why he is always referred to by our sages as “Lavan the swindler.” He planned to make Yaakov drunk in order to deceive him so that he could not tell the difference between Rachel and Leah. If we needed proof for this interpretation, we only need to look at when he gave Rachel to Yaakov a week later, when he did not spend a penny on making a celebration.

ויהי בערב, It was in the evening, etc. Laban caused great pain by deceiving such a righteous man as Jacob; the exchange resulted in a dilution of the hold holiness exerted on earth. You are well advised to study what the Zohar סתרי תורה on Parshat Vayetze item 176 has to say on the subject. According to the Zohar, Laban's having switched Leah for Rachel was the cause that the sanctity of the birthright became downgraded. Originally both monarchy and priesthood would have been the share of the firstborn just as the firstborn receives a double portion of the inheritance from his father. When Jacob slept with Leah he intended to impregnate Rachel (since he was not aware of his partner's real identity). This meant that his marital relations with Leah at the time were not totally pure. As a result the sanctity that he could have achieved by this union if his partner had truly been his intended bride, the sanctity he hoped to create, was diluted, was significantly reduced.

ויהי בערב, the Torah uses this opportunity to teach us that sexual intercourse even with artificial light, i.e. during the night is not appropriate, how much more so is it inappropriate during daylight hours. If it were appropriate to indulge in intercourse using artificial light Lavan could not have passed off Leah as Rachel without Yaakov becoming aware of this. It is clear from the text that Yaakov did not realise Leah as having been his partner in bed until the following morning. [the word הנה in verse 25 which we explained as always adding a new, up until then unknown, element is proof for this. Ed.]

ויקח את לאה, he took Leah. Perhaps Leah did not intend to deceive Jacob but was forced by her father Laban to go through with this charade. It is also possible that Laban managed to persuade her. Unless one of these two reasons is correct the Torah did not need to write "he took," but could have simply written: "he brought his daughter Leah to him."

ויבא אותה, he brought her. Laban was careful to do this personally; this was part of the deception. He did not allow time for the deception to be discovered. It would have been very unbecoming for the bridegroom to have demanded at that moment that Leah (Rachel) identify herself.

ויבא אליה. He had marital relations with her. The reason that Jacob did not notice that the woman beside him was not Rachel was that a righteous man of his calibre did not engage in actions that would arouse him before performing the commandment of marital intercourse in order to produce children. There was no one who could match Jacob in this kind of piety. The Torah itself testifies in Genesis 49,3 that he was able to say of himself that Reuben was the product of the first time he emitted semen, i.e. ראשית אוני. Look at our commentary on that verse. He joined Leah without engaging in what is called "foreplay" in our parlance. Even after completing intercourse with Leah Jacob did not recognise her since everything took place in darkness as required by halachah (compare אור החיים 240).

ללאה בתו שפחה. for his daughter Leah as a maidservant. Why did the Torah have to mention that Leah was Laban's daughter? Surely we know this by now! If it was sufficient to write: "Laban gave her her his maidservant Zilpah," why did the Torah have to add "to Leah his daughter" at the end of the same verse? Besides, why did the Torah write שפחה, maidservant, instead of לשפחה, as a maidservant?

ויתן לבן לה את זלפה שפחתו, when she was led under the wedding canopy Lavan gave her this handmaid to be her personal maid.

Er war sehr vorsichtig, er gab sie nicht Jakob, gab sie ausdrücklich Lea zum Eigentum. Es ist dies auch für später nicht unwichtig; denn wenn später Jakob auch sie geheiratet, so konnte das, da sie eine Hörige der Lea war, nur in Folge einer Initiative der Frau geschehen sein.

את זלפה שפחתו, “his servant-maid Zilpah.” Why is Lavan’s daughter called his “servant maid” here? It was customary in those days to refer to the offspring of one’s concubines as “servants,” to distinguish their status from the offspring of one’s wives. (Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, chapter 36)

את זלפה שפחתו, “his servantmaid Zilpah;” how could the Torah describe them as servantmaids when they were actually Lavan’s daughters? (Compare B’reshit rabbah 74,13) We must therefore assume that the Torah used the terminology of the people at that time who described their daughters born by concubines as their servantmaids.

We must explain this by referring to the tradition that Zilpah and Bilhah respectively had been inherited by Rachel and Leah from their mother. This is what the Torah meant by the words "to Leah his daughter a maidservant." The Torah merely points out that the maidservant was Leah's personal property because she had inherited her from her mother. The Torah emphasises בתו, to hint that Leah had acquired this maidservant because she was Laban's daughter and the maidservant had been part of the marriage settlement, כתובה, of her mother; Leah had not purchased the maidservant in some other way. This is also why the Torah needed to write ויתן לבן, that Laban gave. Otherwise Laban's name did not need to be repeated here again as we know of whom the Torah was speaking. The Torah wanted us to know that Laban did not give his daughter a gift in the usual sense of the word.

ויהי בבקר והנה הוא לאה AND IT CAME TO PASS, THAT IN THE MORNING, BEHOLD, IT WAS LEAH —But at night it was not Leah (i. e. he failed to recognise that it was Leah) because Jacob had given Rachel certain secret signs by which they could at all times recognise one another, and when Rachel saw that they were about to bring Leah to him for the marriage ceremony, she thought, “My sister may now be put to shame”, and she therefore readily transmitted these signs to her (Megillah 13b).

והנה היא לאה, whenever something had not been known or recognised previously the word הנה alerts the reader to this fact. (compare Genesis 41,7 והנה חלום, “it was a dream.”) Until Pharaoh awoke he had taken what he saw in the dream as being real.

ויהי בבוקר. When morning came, etc. The reason the Torah uses the word ויהי which always relates to some painful experience is simply that Jacob experienced anguish that Rachel had been denied him.

ויהי בבוקר והנה היא לאה, for he had not recognised her until morning as we explained. The aggadic explanation mentioned by Rashi that Rachel had given her sister Leah the codeword which she and Yaakov had agreed should serve to preclude such a swap is well known.

והנה היא לאה, “and lo and behold it was Leah.” Our sages (Megillah,13) ask the obvious question: “had she not been Leah up until now?” What did the Torah mean by writing “and here it was Leah?” They answer that Yaakov had supplied Rachel with a secret code to protect himself precisely against the duplicity practiced by Lavan under the wedding canopy when the girl’s face is veiled so the groom cannot see her. When Rachel became aware of what her father was doing, she realized that her sister was going to be publicly shamed. She therefore decided to spare Leah the embarrassment and told her of the secret code. Bereshit Rabbah 71,5 phrases it thus: “Rachel made silence her trademark (vocation); as a result all her sons were able to keep secrets, on the other hand, Leah made gratitude her trademark (vocation); as a result we find that all her sons are recorded as confessing errors and giving thanks to G’d. Binyamin, a son of Rachel knew that Joseph had been sold but he kept the secret. Saul, a descendant of Binyamin is reported in Samuel 10, 16 as ואת דבר המלוכה לא הגיד לו not telling even his uncle that Samuel had told him he would become king. [The uncle had been aware that Saul had had an interview with Samuel the Seer and titular head of the nation. The prophet had told him not to worry, that the asses had been located. Ed.] Another descendant of Rachel who was distinguished by keeping silent at crucial times was Queen Esther who obeyed Mordechai’s instructions not to reveal her identity even when such a refusal resulted in the King threatening to depose her.” (Esther 2,20).
Leah’s son Yehudah confessed that he had been wrong in bringing Tamar his daughter-in-law to trial as a whore. Moreover, The Torah credits him with giving thanks to the Lord (49,8), and we find David, Yehudah’s most illustrious descendant composing innumerable hymns to G’d including Psalms 136,1 in which he asks the Jewish people to give thanks to the Lord. Another descendant of Yehudah, Daniel, was in the habit of praying to G’d as a way of giving thanks to Him (Daniel 6,11).

(25-26) Du kennst die hiesigen Sitten nicht. Wenn bei uns jemand um die Jüngere anhält, so meint er stillschweigend auch die Ältere, da es bei uns nicht Sitte ist, die Jüngere vor der Älteren zu verheiraten. Er kann daher zu der Jüngeren nur durch die Ältere kommen und bekommt erst die Ältere und dann die Jüngere. Das ist alles ganz in Ordnung. Nach Leas Hochzeit kommt dann Rahels. Die "geben wir" dir dann. In dem "wir" liegt die ganze lokale Statthaftigkeit seines Verfahrens — die er ihm vorlügt. Natürlich musst du mir dann noch sieben Jahre dienen!

ויהי בבוקר, “when it had become morning, etc.” during the entire night Leah had pretended to be Rachel, using three different items to identify herself as her sister, which Rachel had received from Yaakov, one had to do with the laws of menstruation, the second one with the laws of challah, and the third one with the lighting of candles on Friday night. We are told the following in B’reshit Rabbah 70,19: all night long people were singing what sounded like the praises of Leah, sort of hinting to Yaakov that he was being swindled. Yaakov, who had no reason to fear that the town’s people wished him ill, did not suspect being tricked when Leah always answered when he addressed her as Rachel. In the morning when he found out that he had been tricked by Leah, and he complained to her, she responded that she had learned from him to do this, as when Yitzchok had asked him if he was his firstborn son Esau, he had answered in the affirmative. This is when Yaakov began to hate her as is reported in verse 31, where G–d is reported as taking note of that. Yitzchok himself had told Esau that his brother had tricked him.

ויהי בבקר והנה היא לאה, “and when it was morning Yaakov found out that the woman in bed with him had been Leah;” this verse teaches us a great deal about how chaste a person Yaakov was, and that he had hardly exchanged any words with who he thought was his wife while having marital relations with her. Had he been speaking with her, surely he would have known from her voice that he had been deceived. After all, he had lived in her proximity for the last seven years, and she was no stranger to him. If you were to ask that seeing that the so called marriage ceremony was clearly invalid, as the woman under the wedding canopy had not been the one with whom he thought that he had exchanged sacred vows, we would have to answer that as soon as he found this out he had relations with her for the purpose of legalising their marriage.

והנה הוא לאה, and behold it was Leah! The reason the Torah writes הוא with the letter ו, is best explained by Bereshit Rabbah 70,12 where the local people are described as singing all night long (in Aramaic) הא ליא, הא ליא. Jacob understood only in the morning what that singing had been all about. This explanation also explains the need for the word הנה satisfactorily.

רמה Grundbedeutung: schleudern. Was man schleudern will, muss man erst in die Hand bekommen und auf der Hand ruhen lassen; sobald es aber dort ruht, schleudert man es weg. Ebenso der Betrüger. Er kann nur den betrügen, der sich ihm zuvor in die Hand gegeben, der ihm zuvor getraut. Nur das Vertrauen ist Mittel zu seinem Verderben.

מה זאת עשית לי? What is this that you have done to me? We need to understand what exactly Jacob referred to with this complaint. If it referred to the fact that Laban had tricked him, he already mentioned this by saying: "why did you deceive me?" We must therefore search for something else that Jacob complained about.

Jacob did indeed complain about two matters. 1) That Laban had given him Leah instead of Rachel. 2) That he had done so in such a deceptive manner. Jacob thereby revealed that had Laban forced Leah upon him he, Jacob, would have been less concerned than now that he slept with one woman while believing he slept with another. This deception had far-reaching spiritual consequences, as we already alluded to earlier on verse 23.

It is also possible that Jacob referred to the humiliation experienced by Leah who now found herself Jacob's wife and had to expect that her husband would hate her instead of love her. Jacob's question "why did you deceive me?" indicates that he had immediately decided not to divorce Leah but to keep her as a wife.

He also displayed wisdom by the choice of his words, realising that what had been done could not be undone. He realised that it would not have been moral to reverse what had been done but resolved to marry Rachel also. In this manner he hoped that Laban would not now demand an even higher price for Rachel by suggesting that they make a new agreement. He complained to Laban that the latter had seen fit to achieve something by deception which he could have achieved amicably (i.e. that Jacob marry Leah also).

It is not done in our place. Lavan claimed that the people would not allow him to keep his word, since it was in violation of local custom.

ויאמר לבן לא יעשה כן במקומנו. Laban said: "This is not the way things are done in our place, etc." How could Laban expect now to get away with such an explanation when he and Jacob had entered into a specific agreement that Rachel was to be given to Jacob? Why would local customs override such an agreement?

ויאמר...לא יעשה כן במקומנו, even though you asked for the hand of my younger daughter in marriage, seeing that apparently where you come from it does not matter if the younger sister gets married before the older one, in our place that is not a permissible procedure. I will therefore give you both of them with the proviso that the nuptials of the older one must precede those of the younger one.

Actually, Laban argued that the local inhabitants had protested what he had agreed to. Inasmuch as the inhabitants were the majority and he was only a single individual, he Laban, had to bow to their wishes. This is why he spoke about במקומנו, "in our place."

He may also have argued that at the time he made the deal with Jacob there had not been a paragraph saying that he would receive Rachel as a wife without also marrying Leah. Their agreement therefore never violated the local custom that the elder daughter be married off first. It had been obvious that Jacob would first receive Leah. As soon as he had completed seven years of labour he would receive Rachel immediately after having married Leah. He, Laban, had taken it for granted that Jacob would first stay with him long enough to conform to the local custom and marry Leah. When Jacob had said: "give me my wife!" Laban had naturally understood that Jacob referred to Leah. After all, the local customs were no secret. Laban rejected the accusation that he had acted with subterfuge. Should Jacob be of the opinion that Laban differentiated between his two daughters, this was not so. He loved both equally and treated them both equally. To prove this, he would not ask a higher price for Rachel than he had been willing to accept for Leah. If Jacob was indeed so enamoured of Rachel that he could not wait another seven years, he would show his understanding by letting him have Rachel in another week, as soon as the wedding festivities in honour of Leah had been concluded, i.e. מלא שבוע זאת, when he had completed a week with this wife.

In view of Laban's argument we need to understand why the extremely careful Jacob had not even considered the local customs in this matter. Jacob considered that it was Laban's duty to tell him about such customs. If Laban failed to do so it was proof he did not care about the local customs. Therefore, when he asked Laban to hand over his wife he had naturally referred to Rachel. It had been up to Laban to tell him at least at that moment that he could not hand over Rachel as long as Leah was not married, and that it was up to Jacob either to wait till Leah was married or to marry her himself. By failing to do so, Jacob maintained that Laban had lived up to his reputation as a swindler.

מלא שבע זאת FULFIL THE WEEK OF THIS ONE — The word is in the construct state for it is punctuated with Sheva, so that the meaning is “the seven days of this woman”, referring to the seven days of the marriage feast. Such is the statement in the Talmud Yerushalmi Moed Katan 1:7. It is impossible to say that it means an actual week, (i. e. a calendar week), so that it would mean “finish this week” in the sense “wait until this week be ended”) — for, if so, the ש should be punctuated with Patach (Rashi terms our Kametz a Patach) for the noun must be in the absolute state. Then, again, the word שָׁבֻעַ is masculine — as it is written (Deuteronomy 16:9) “Seven (שבעה) weeks shalt thou number unto thyself” (and here we should have had שָׁבֻעַ זֶה). Consequently the word שבוע can only mean “a period of seven days” old French septaine (cf. Rashi on Exodus 10:22).

FULFILL ‘SHVUA’ (THE WEEK OF) THIS ONE. The word shvua is in the construct state for it is punctuated with a sheva. It thus means the seven days of this wife, referring to the seven days of the wedding feast. These too are the words of Rashi.
But if so, [i.e., if Rashi interprets shvua as referring to the seven days of the wedding feast rather than, more simply, the seven years of labor, thus implying that the seven years of work had been completed], why did not the Rabbi [Rashi] explain the verse above, my days are fulfilled, as referring to the years of work and the condition which were completed, as Onkelos has it,⁷⁸The days of my work are fulfilled. (Onkelos, Verse 27.) and which is the true sense of the verse, [instead of explaining it as referring to the length of time his mother told him to remain there or to his advanced age]? For merely because the days his mother told him to remain with him were completed or because of his advanced age, Laban would not give him his daughter before the mutually agreed time, and it is enough to expect of Laban that he fulfill his condition. It is according to Onkelos, [who says that Jacob’s seven years of work had been completed], that we are bound to explain, fulfill ‘shvua’ this one, as referring to the seven days of the wedding feast for as Jacob had told him, the days of work had already been completed. So also did Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explain it. And I do not know [how the reference here could be to “the seven days of the marriage feast,” as Rashi claims], for “the seven days of the wedding feast” is an ordinance established for Israel by our teacher Moses.⁷⁹Yerushalmi Kethuboth I, 1.
Perhaps we may say that the dignitaries of the nations had already practiced this custom of old, just as was the case with mourning, as it is written, And he made a mourning for his father seven days.⁸⁰Further, 50:10. Thus the seven-day period of mourning was already an established practice in the days of the patriarchs. And that which the Rabbis have deduced from here in the Yerushalmi⁸¹Moed Katan I, 7. and in Bereshith Rabbah,⁸²70:18. “One must not mix one rejoicing with another,” that is merely a Scriptural intimation based upon the customary practices of the ancient ones prior to the giving of the Torah. But in our Gemara,⁸³Moed Katan 9a. the Rabbis did not derive it from here, [i.e., from Laban’s statement], but instead they deduced it from the verse, And Solomon held the feast etc.⁸⁴I Kings 8:65. The verse reads: And Solomon held the feast at that time … seven days and seven days, even fourteen days. The Rabbis explain that the first seven days were a feast of dedication of the new Temple, and the second seven days were the feast of Tabernacles, and he did not combine the two festivities into one because “we must not mix one rejoicing with another.” — The explanation for this principle is stated by Tosafoth Moed Katan 8b. “For just as we must not perform religious duties bundle-wise, but pay exclusive attention to each singly, so must we turn our heart completely toward one rejoicing only, without interference from another.”
Now it is possible to say that this was part of “the changing of the hire ten times”⁸⁵Further, 31:41. of which Jacob accused Laban. For Jacob told Laban originally that the days were fulfilled, and Laban kept quiet and gave him Leah. Later, Laban told him, “Fulfill ‘shvua’ this one, for the work period for Leah has not been fulfilled, and I gave her to you before the time I had agreed upon.” And Jacob listened to Laban and completed the days as defined by Laban, for he desired Rachel, and what could he do? Therefore, Scripture does not say at first, “And it came to pass when the days were fulfilled, and Jacob said, etc.,” [for this would have indicated mutual agreement concerning the completion of the work period, whereas Laban, as explained, claimed that that time had not yet arrived].
It is also possible to say that when the seventh year arrived, Jacob said to Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, meaning that this is the year in which the days will be fulfilled. Similarly, The aged with him that is full of days,⁸⁶Jeremiah 6:11. which means, “he who is attaining his final year.” Similarly, Until the day of your consecration be fulfilled,⁸⁷Leviticus 8:33. which means, “until the seventh day in which the days of your consecration will be fulfilled.” It is possible that Jacob said, My days are fulfilled, because they were about to be fulfilled and are considered as if fulfilled. There are many similar examples in Scripture. Likewise, in the next Seder (portion of the Torah), As her soul was departing, for she died,⁸⁸Further, 35:18. which means, “when she was near death, and was considered as if she had already died.” And this is the meaning of the expression, that I may come unto her,⁸⁹Verse 21 here. that is to say, Jacob said, “My request is not that you give her to me and I will then leave, but rather that I marry her and complete the few days which are still obligatory upon me for now that the period is almost over, you will not be afraid that I might leave you.” Our Rabbis have given a Midrashic interpretation to the words, that I may come unto her,⁹⁰Bereshith Rabbah 70:17; also mentioned in Rashi, Verse 21: his mind was intent upon having children and rearing them in the religious traditions of his fathers. because it is not the ethical way to mention it in this manner, the more so with righteous people, but the intent is as I have said.
Laban then told Jacob, “Fulfill the seven years of this one, Leah, for perhaps since I transgressed your will by giving you Leah instead of Rachel you will not fulfill them.” Perhaps he mentioned it in order that it be known when the days of work for Rachel begin, and then he told him, “I will give you the other daughter, Rachel, for the service which thou shalt serve with me after the wedding.”

מלא שבוע זאת, a reference to the seven days of the wedding festivities for Leah.

ונתנה לך, then they will agree for the younger one to be given to you also.

מלא שבוע זאת, conclude the days of the wedding celebration with this one as your exclusive wife,

מלא שבוע זאת, “let this week pass.” According to Rashi the week in question were the seven days of celebration following the nuptials. Nachmanides writes that he has found no record of such a practice prior to Moses having instituted it for the Israelites. Perhaps in earlier times only the elite of the people observed 7 days of festivities after the wedding, just as they observed seven days of mourning after the death of prominent personages. (Compare Genesis 50,10 when Joseph decreed seven days of mourning for Yaakov) It is also possible to explain that when Yaakov entered the seventh and final year of his service, the year known as שנת מלואים, the final year, he asked Lavan to give him Rachel, arguing that now Lavan did not worry about Yaakov leaving his employ as he had so much more to gain by staying for a relatively short period. At that time Lavan refused. Now that he was about to assuage Yaakov’s feelings of bitterness of Lavan’s deception, he told him that Rachel would be given to him at the end of seven more years of service to make plain that he would have to wait until then, as if he were to give him now, on account as it were, Yaakov might not honour the terms of the contract and would abscond with both women before carrying out his duties. [the anomaly causing the commentators difficulty is that on the one hand Yaakov refers to מלאו ימי, “my days are complete,” whereas twice the Torah refers to שבוע instead of either ימים or שנים, “days, or years.” In verse 28 it is difficult to explain the word שבוע as meaning “week,” as Rashi does in verse verse 26. Ed.]

Immediately after the seven days of the marriage feast. For it is written, “And he completed the week for this one, and he gave him...”

ונתנה לך גם את זאת, “we will give you this one also;” the plural mode used here shows that Yaakov had not believed that Lavan would not try to trick him and had confirmed his betrothal already then in the presence of and with the consent of the local population. The entire population of Padan Arom had been a party to this deception from the start.

ונתנה לך AND WE WILL GIVE THEE — The verb is plural 1st pers. like (נרדה) (Genesis 11:7) “let us go down”, ונבלה “and let us confuse and (Genesis 11:3) ונשרפה “and let us burn": so, also here, it is a form of וְנִתֵּן “and we will give”.

‘VENITNAH’ (AND WE WILL GIVE) THEE. The verb is plural, as in, Let us go down, and let us confound there;⁹¹Above, 11:7. And let us burn.⁹²Ibid., Verse 3. Here too it is a form of venitein (and we will give). This is Rashi’s comment, but he did not say why an individual person [Laban] would use the plural form. Perhaps Rashi thought that this is the manner in which dignitaries speak in the Sacred Language, i.e., as if others are speaking. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said here that nitnah is in the (niphal) passive tense and the prefix vav converts it from the past to the future, thus meaning, “and it shall be given to you.”
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that Laban’s words were spoken with cunning. He said to Jacob, “It is not so done in our place,⁹³Verse 26 here. for the people of the place will not let me do so, [i.e., to marry off the younger before the firstborn], for this would be a shameful act in their eyes. But you fulfill the week of this one, and we — I and all the people of the place — will give you also this one, for we will all consent to the matter, and we will give you honor and a feast as we have done with the first one.”

ונתנה, she will be given to you;

ונתנה לך, it is possible to understand the word ונתנה as a passive construction in the feminine mode, or it could be understood as an active mode of the kal conjugation first person plural, meaning “we will give to you,” i.e. with the consent of the local inhabitants. Or, the letter נ represents what we know as the pluralis majestatis, the arrogant, pompous “we” employed by kings etc., people who consider their individual opinions as equivalent or superior to the collective wisdom of their subjects. In Scripture we find an example of this mode of speech in Song of Songs 1,4 משכני אחריך נרוצה, נגילה ונשמחה בך, “draw me after you! Let us run! Let us delight in your love.” There are a number of parallel examples in Scripture. After you will complete enjoying Leah for one week I will also give you Rachel and you may immediately celebrate another seven days of your nuptials with her. It is not proper to allow one celebration to interfere with another celebration at the same time.

ונתנה לך גם את זאת, “and we will give you also this one.” Rashi explains the word ונתנה as an active form of the word נתן in the first person plural of the future conjugation. As in Genesis 11,7 הבה נרדה ונבלה [as opposed to the third person singular passive mode with the prefix ו changing the meaning to the future tense of the same root, meaning “it will be given.” Ed.] Nachmanides writes that everything Lavan said was deceptive in nature, and when he said that it was not the custom in his town to give the younger daughter’s hand in marriage to anyone until the older daughter had been married, and that the people of the town would not let him get away with making such a precedent, as it would offend their sense of propriety, he added that if Yaakov would agree to these terms, i.e. to complete another term of service,מלא שבוע זאת, they would then honour him greatly by their making a feast for him when he would wed Rachel.

גם את זאת THIS ONE ALSO we shall give to you immediately after the seven days of the marriage-feast and you may serve for her after marriage with her.

(3) THIS ONE TOO. Immediately.

בעבודה אשר תעבוד עמדי , after having wed Rachel. We can confirm this seeing that when Joseph was born, at the end of these seven years, Yaakov wanted to take his leave and to return to his parents.(compare 30,25 “for I have served you for your two daughters”).

(5) ANOTHER SEVEN YEARS. As it is written (Gen. 30:25), "After Rahel had borne Yosef, Ya'akov said to Lavan, 'Give me leave etc.,'" for it was at that point that he had completed the 14 years for his [Lavan's] two daughters.

לו לאשה. As a wife for him. The emphasis on the word לו indicates that Rachel was to be the mainstay of Jacob's household, the עקרת הבית, seeing she was his true mate, בת זוגו.

ויעש...ויתן, Lavan, in accordance with what he had said.

Auffallend ist die Wiederholung לו לאשה. Ob es die größere Innigkeit des Verhältnisses Jakobs zu ihr als zu Lea andeutet?

ויתן לו את רחל, “he gave him Rachel;” if you were to ask how Yaakov could legally have lived with two sisters, while both were alive, something forbidden by Jewish law, and according to tradition he kept the entire Torah laws, our sages have said that when a pagan undergoes conversion, all previous family relationships are retroactively cancelled (Yevamot 22), so that as soon as Leah became Yaakov’s wife, Rachel automatically had ceased to be her sister. A convert is considered as if a newly born person. An alternate exegesis: Leah and Rachel had been halfsisters sharing only their father. In Jewish law these family ties are dependent on the mother, not the father. Proof of this can be found in Deuteronomy 7,4; from here it is clear that the word בנך, “your son,” is a term that applies only to a son born by a Jewish mother, otherwise he would have been referred to as “her son.”

לה לשפחה. as a maidservant for her. The Torah was careful to add the word לה, as I have already explained in connection with verse 24.

Alternatively, Laban made a condition that Jacob should not have any claim on Bilhah; we find in chapter 22 of Maimonides' Hilchot Ishut that if someone gives a wife a gift with the proviso that her husband should not have any claim on that gift, then the husband is not permitted to enjoy the "fruits" of such a gift (in this case Bilhah's labour, etc,). It is a principle of our sages to follow a line of exegesis which puts Laban in a bad light.

עוד שבע שנים אחרות YET SEVEN OTHER YEARS — Scripture adds the apparently redundant word אחרות another seven years, for the purpose of comparing them to the preceding seven years. — Even as he had worked faithfully during the earlier period (not anticipating any deception on Laban’s part), so he worked faithfully during the latter period, although he (Laban) had practised this deception on him (Genesis Rabbah 70:20).

AND HE LOVED RACHEL MORE THAN LEAH. The reason why Scripture mentions that he also loved Rachel more than Leah is that it is natural for a man to have more love for the woman with whom he first had relations, just as the Sages have mentioned with reference to women:⁹⁴Sanhedrin 22b. “And she makes a firm commitment only to he who marries her first.” Thus Jacob’s loving Rachel more than Leah was unnatural. This is the sense of the word gam: [and he loved ‘gam’ Rachel than Leah].

ויאהב גם את רחל, he not only slept also with her, but also loved her more than he loved Leah. On most occasions in Scripture when the word גם appears in an inverted fashion, such as here, the meaning is similar. In Exodus 12,32 when Pharaoh said to Moses וברכתם גם אותי, the meaning is: “also bless me.” In Numbers 22,33 when the angel said to Bileam: גם אותך הרגתי, he meant: “I would also have killed you, seeing that I first squeezed your foot and you are already lame. Now I would have killed you if not for your ass lying down.”

ויאהב גם את רחל, not only because she was his wife, and such love is natural, but because she was Rachel, because of her distinct personality and her deeds which reflected this personality.

ויבא גם אל רחל. He also slept with Rachel. The reason that the word גם, also, appears twice in this verse maybe to indicate that Jacob spent more time with Rachel than with Leah. According to Bereshit Rabbah 98,4 Jacob's bed was usually besides that of Rachel. The Torah states not only that Jacob spent more time with Rachel but that he also loved her better than Leah. This was unnatural inasmuch as familiarity usually leads to a lessening of the bonds of love. We know this from Proverbs 25,17 where Solomon advises "visit your neighbour's house sparingly, otherwise he will become fed up with you." On the other hand, we are familiar with the proverb that "absence makes the heart grow fonder." This is what is meant when Proverbs 9,17 describes "stolen waters as especially sweet." In Jacob's relationship with Rachel and Leah respectively, these psychologically sound rules did not apply. All of this is alluded to in the repeated use of the word גם.

ויתן...ויבא גם אל רחל, just as he had slept with Leah previously, he now slept with Rachel.

ויאהב גם את רחל, “he loved Rachel also.” Concerning Yaakov also loving Rachel, when he had loved her all along, Nachmanides explains that normally a man loves the first woman he marries, i.e. has intimate relations with.. In this instance, the Torah informs us that in spite of this general rule, and Yaakov having had intimate relations with Leah, he continued also to love Rachel.

גם את רחל מלאה, “also Rachel, better than Leah.” The Torah means that whereas Yaakov did love Leah, he loved Rachel more. This was something contrary to accepted psychology prevalent in those days which claimed that a man’s greatest love is his first wife. This is the reason the Torah commenced this verse with the word גם, “also.”

[The Torah] compares the others to the first... Rashi deduced this from the extra word אחרות. Alternatively, since it is written עוד, it implies “additional” ones similar to the first ones. Just as he was faithful in the first ones, as Lavan had not yet deceived him, so was he faithful in the latter ones, although he had deceived him.

ויאהב גם את רחל, also liebte er Lea auch und ließ sie das Verfahren ihres Vaters und die Art, wie sie sein Weib geworden, nicht entgelten. Wir dürfen hieraus schließen, dass Lea ebenso wie Jakob vom Vater mit Vorspiegelung der örtlichen Sitte getäuscht worden, und sie nicht mit Bewusstsein die Täuschung geübt. "Er liebte auch Rachel, (und zwar) mehr als Lea".

ויאהב גם את רחל מלאה, “Yaakov also loved Rachel more than (he loved) Leah.” What is the meaning of the word גם, “also,” in this verse? Normally a man’s first wife occupies a permanent place in his heart, more so than any subsequent wives he will take. The Torah tells us that whenever Yaakov spent time with Rachel, he enjoyed that “quality time,” more than when he spent time with Leah. This was so although his first experience of marital intimacy had been with Leah. This is hinted at by the word גם.

מלאה, even though since she was his first wife it would have been natural for her to capture most of her husband’s love, (Yevamot 63) Yaakov preferred Rachel.

ויאהב גם את רחל, the Torah had to write this in order to inform us that Yaakov loved Leah also, even though originally he had not chosen her to become his wife. In the event, now that she had become his wife, he loved her just as most husbands love their wives. However, he loved Rachel better.

AND THE ETERNAL SAW THAT LEAH WAS HATED. Now Leah had deceived her sister and also Jacob. For even if we were to say that she showed respect for her father, who took her and brought her in to him and she was not rebellious against him, she should have by word or sign indicated that she was Leah. All the more is this so since she feigned herself all night to be another, which was the reason why Jacob did not recognize her until he saw her in the morning. It was for this reason that Jacob hated her. But G-d, knowing that she did so in order to be married to the righteous one, had compassion upon her. And so the Rabbis said in Bereshith Rabbah:⁹⁵71:2. “When Jacob saw the deeds by which Leah had deceived her sister, he decided to divorce her. But when the Holy One, blessed be He, remembered her by giving her children, Jacob said, ‘Shall I divorce the mother of these children?’” This is the meaning of the expression, And the Eternal saw: He had compassion upon her so that Jacob should not leave her. But there are some scholars⁹⁶R’dak in his Commentary on the Torah. who say that in the case of two wives, one of whom is loved exceedingly, the second one, who is the less beloved, is called “hated” relative to the first, just as Scripture said, And he loved Rachel more than Leah,⁹⁷Verse 30 here. but not that he hated her. Leah however was ashamed of the matter and so G-d saw her affliction.

ורחל עקרה, she was punished for having said to Yaakov: “get me children!” (30,1)

כי שנואה לאה, because after his first meeting with her Yaakov recognised that Leah bore the symptoms of a woman who is unable to have children.

וירא ה׳ כי שנואה לאה, G'd saw that Leah was hated, etc. The Torah tells us here that only G'd was aware of the fact that Leah was hated; she herself only felt that she was not beloved as we shall explain by examining her own words presently. Bereshit Rabbah 71,2 sees in the word שנואה merely an allusion that Leah had been slated to become the wife of Esau who was hated (compare Maleachi 1,3 where G'd expressed His hatred for Esau). Accordingly, Leah is here called by the name of the husband originally intended for her. If Leah had not produced children the people would have seen this as proof that she was not meant to be Jacob's wife; this is why G'd opened her womb and granted her children. The Torah goes on to say that Rachel was barren to indicate that it was hoped that by making Leah fruitful Jacob's hatred towards Leah would abate when she could give him children whereas Rachel apparently could not.

וירא ה' כי שנואה לאה, Yaakov did not hate her; in fact he loved her. However, seeing that he loved Rachel better it appeared as if he hated Leah. We find a similar situation in Deuteronomy 21,15 where the Torah speaks about a husband “hating” one of his two wives. The meaning there is also relative to the wife he prefers. G’d, Who knew the true state of affairs, i.e. what Leah’s perception of her husband’s feelings toward were,

וירא ה' כי שנואה לאה, “The Lord took note of the fact that Leah was hated, etc.” According to Bereshit Rabbah, 70,2 the reason Yaakov hated Leah was that she had betrayed her sister. Seeing that G’d knew that her intentions were pure, that she wanted to be married to a righteous person such as Yaakov, He had compassion with her. Some commentators believe that we must not understand the word שנואה at face value; the Torah merely describes Yaakov’s relations with Leah by comparing them to his relations with Rachel. When looked at from that angle, Leah appeared as if she were hated. We would have to say that G’d saw that Leah was “hated,” [not just by Yaakov, but when compared to her sister who was popular, Ed] so that G’d compensated her by granting her motherhood in spite of natural biological obstacles to this.

כי שנואה לאה, “that Leah was hated.” This certainly does not mean that Yaakov hated Leah. [If he did, he would have had to divorce her. Ed.] The word שנואה is strictly relative and tells us that by comparison to Yaakov’s feelings for Rachel, Leah appeared as if she were hated.

Nicht: כי לאה שנואה, dass Lea gehasst, sondern: כי שנואה לאה dass die Gehasste von beiden, d. h. die Mindergeliebte Lea war. So האחת אחובה והאחת שנואה Es ist tief bedeutsam, dass der eigentliche Kern des — (5. B. M. 31, 15) jüdischen Volkes nicht diejenige zur Mutter hat, die Jakob — so weit der heilige Text erzählt — zunächst nur nach dem sinnlichen Eindruck ihrer größeren äußeren Schönheit gewählt hatte, und dass Gott gerade die sich zurückgesetzt Fühlende die Hauptstammmutter seines Volkes werden ließ. Zeigen uns ja die Namen, welche diese Mindergeliebte ihren Söhnen gab, wie sie gerade in dem Gefühle der Zurücksetzung um so heißer von dem Gefühle der Gattenliebe durchdrungen ward, sich zur vollsten beglückenden und beglückten Würdigung des Mutterberufs für die Bestimmung des Weibes und die Beglückung der Ehe emporschwang, und sich für beide an das Vertrauen auf die alles sehende und hörende Gegenwart Gottes in der Ehe anklammerte. Die Liebe ihres Mannes war ihr Ziel, und mit jedem Kinde, das sie ihm geboren, hoffte sie einen Baustein mehr zum Grundbau dieser Liebe zu besitzen, und erfuhr die Verwirklichung dieser Hoffnung. Was der Braut und Gattin versagt war, der Mutter seiner Kinder gelang es ganz. Und so wurden die Stämme des jüdischen Volkes unter dem Sonnenstrahl der wärmsten und reinsten Gatten- und Mutterliebe und des hingehendsten Hinaufblickes zu Gott empfangen und geboren, gepflegt und erzogen, und in ihren Namen dem jüdischen Volke alle die heiteren und ernsten Güter und Geister verewigt, die das Glück der jüdischen Ehen und Häuser bedingen — wie wir dies bereits im Jeschurun, zehnter Jahrgang S. 339 f. niedergelegt. Und gerade Lea, der Betrübten, war es beschieden, die heitersten Seiten der Ehe und des Hauses zu erfahren und zu verewigen, während Rahel, der Glücklichen, die ernsten beschieden waren.

ויפתח את רחמה, Yaakov had thought that the reason Leah had been willing to deceive him was because of her awareness of her barrenness. She remained in such a state until G’d took pity on her and opened her womb.

ויפתח את רחמה, seeing that the Torah describes her womb as needing to be “opened,” it is clear that she had been barren before.

ורחל עקרה, but Rachel remained barren, as she had been. We already explained on 25,20 why the matriarchs were basically all barren until G’d intervened visibly.

ותקרא שמו ראובן AND SHE CALLED HIS NAME REUBEN — Our Rabbis explained it thus: she said, “See (ראו) the difference between (בין) my son and my father-in-law’s son who himself sold the birthright to Jacob and yet wished to kill him afterwards. This (my son) did not sell it (his birthright) to Joseph (it must be remembered that Joseph being the founder of two tribes was regarded as the first-born of Jacob’s sons since the eldest son took a double portion in the father’s property), yet he did not raise any protest to him being regarded as the first-born and not only did he not raise a protest but he even wished to take him out of the pit and so rescue him from death (Berakhot 7b).

יאהבני, the vowel patach under the letter ב is equivalent to the letter having been vocalised with a tzeyreh. We have a similar construction in Isaiah 56,3 where the word yavdilani means the same as if the prophet had written yavdileyni.

בעניי, that my husband suspected me of agreeing to deceive him. As compensation for having been unfairly suspected G’d granted me male seed. (compare the reward for a woman unjustly suspected of infidelity Numbers 5,25)

ותהר..יאהבני, just as much as he loves my sister. The vowel patach under the letter ב substitutes for the vowel tzeyreh.

ותהר לאה,…ותהר עוד. Leah gave birth,..she gave birth again. I have paid attention to the meaning of the names. Normally, a name which alludes to removal of hatred should have preceded a name alluding to love. Leah seems to have reversed this sequence by proclaiming: "now my husband will love me" after the birth of Reuben, whereas after the birth of Shimon she proclaimed: "G'd heard that I am hated, therefore He has given me this one too." Another strange thing is Leah's conviction when Levi was born that "now my husband will grow attached to me." Was he then not attached to her previously?

(32-35) Die aufeinanderfolgenden Namen zeigen, wie mit jedem neuen Kindessegen, den Jakob Lea verdankte, auch sein Benehmen gegen sie lieberfüllter wurde. Zuerst: ראה ד׳ בעניי. Es war also bis dahin die Bevorzugung Rahels in Jakobs Benehmen sichtbar, das schwand mit Reubens Geburt, aber hörbar blieb es noch für Leas Ohr. Sie fühlte es seinem Tone an, dass sie noch nicht in vollem Besitze seiner Liebe war, darum nannte sie den zweiten Sohn: Schimeon. Durch die Geburt des Dritten fühlte sie den Unterschied schon gänzlich verwischt, ja sie sprach die Zuversicht aus, dass jetzt das reinste, wahrste Gattenverhältnis zwischen ihnen bestehen werde, wie es eben der Begriff לויה ausdrückt. הִלָוה ,לוה ist nämlich jenes Aneinanderschließen zweier Wesen, wo jedes sich als den לוה, als den Schuldner des andern fühlt, sein Glück nur in dem andern und durch den andern findet. Höchst bedeutsam spricht daher beim Lewi nicht sie, sondern er dies in seinem Namen aus. Was bei ihr Anmaßung gewesen wäre, war aus seinem Munde das süßeste Bekenntnis, על כן קרא שמו לוי. Als daher Juda, der vierte, von ihr geboren ward, brauchte sie sich des Kindes nicht mehr zunächst als eines Fortschrittes zu der Liebe ihres Mannes zu freuen, die ihr schon voll sich zugewandt hatte, sondern konnte die Freude am Kinde rein genießen, und sprach daher die seligen Worte einer glücklichen Mutter aus: Diesmal kann ich Gott rein für seine Gabe danken, und nannte ihn: Jehuda.

Righteous Leah had shed tears about her fate to become Esau's wife; this is why the Torah mentioned the softness of her eyes. When she now saw that she had become Jacob's wife, she realised that he was not her true בן זוג. When she had a son she attributed this to an act of mercy by G'd who had seen that she was not beloved. The righteous always live according to the imperative of our sages (Avot 1,6) to always interpret everyone else's actions favourably. It therefore did not occur to her that her husband could actually hate her. People who think in that fashion are blessed. When Leah's first son was born she assumed that all she lacked was her husband's love. It was only when her second son was born that she realised retroactively that she had erred; not only had she not been loved but Jacob had actually hated her. When she said: "G'd has heard," she meant that G'd had been aware of something that she herself had not allowed herself to become aware of. When she had her third son she concluded that her previous reasoning that she was not Jacob's intended wife had been wrong too and that she was indeed Jacob's intended wife. She felt that the time had come when her husband would recognise this fact too and that his relationship with her would change for the better.

ותקרא שמו ראובן, “she called his name Reuven.” All the names given to the children of Rachel and Leah were inspired by Holy Spirit assisting their mothers in naming them. The names they gave the children all alluded to certain attributes of G’d. When Leah named her first four sons she alluded to the ten emanations from the bottom up. He called the first son Reuven alluding to the attribute of Justice which corresponds to the last letter ה in the Ineffable Name. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 44,12) had said that until Avraham had that letter added to his name he was unable to have a son with Sarah. The word ראובן alludes to ראייה, “seeing, taking note of.” The faculty of seeing is derived from the attribute of Justice, and this is why the עין הרע, “the evil eye” is such a dangerous and powerful characteristic as it directs attention to the attribute of Justice, i.e. retribution. The name שמעון which is derived from שמועה, as Leah said: “for G’d has heard that I am hated,” corresponds to an attribute symbolized by the letter ו in the same four-lettered name of G’d, and the 6 directions in which it extends. When Yaakov blessed Ephrayim and Menashe, the two sons of Joseph, by saying: “they shall be to me just as Reuven and Shimon” (Genesis 48,5), he meant to protect them against this influence of the evil eye which is associated with the attribute hate. Similar considerations prevailed when naming all the rest of the twelve sons. I will go into details when we get to the relevant verses.

Leah also thought of the time after she and Jacob would depart this world when she said ילוה אישי, "my husband will remain attached to me." She was now convinced that their souls would not become separated in the Hereafter as she was his true soul-mate. We have been told by the Zohar Mishpatim section 102 that truly matched pairs will remain together in the Hereafter. She underlined the fact that she had borne Jacob three sons as the number three is indicative of something permanent, enduring.

She also foresaw in her prophetic mind that Jacob would have four wives. Accordingly, she had fulfilled her destiny by bearing him three sons. When she bore Jacob a fourth son subsequently, she said: "this time I will thank the Lord" because up to now G'd had treated her on the basis of justice, i.e. she had borne one fourth of Jacob's sons. Now that she had borne him four sons she thanked G'd who had done more for her than was required by justice.

כי שנואה אנכי, and because of this hatred He has given me also this son.

'ותהר עוד כי שמע ה, He heard my prayer and my plea.

הפעם ילוה אישי THIS TIME WILL MY HUSBAND BECOME ATTACHED TO ME — Because the Matriarchs were prophetesses and knew that twelve tribes would issue from Jacob and that he would have four wives, she said, “From now he will have no fault to find with me, for I have assumed my full share in giving him children” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayetzei 9).

על כן קרא שמו לוי, one may assume that it was Yaakov who gave the boy this name. (compare Kimchi)

הפעם ילוה, I have by now acquired a tendency, a justified presumption, חזקה, of producing numerous children. Our sages in Yevamot 64 consider an occurrence thrice repeated as establishing such a presumption.

ותהר...ילוה אישי אלי, he will be more inclined to respond to my love than to that of my sister.
כי ילדתי שלשה בנים, seeing that what the righteous expect from their wives is that they bear sons for them.

.על כן קרא שמו לוי, “this is why He called his name Levi.” The word “He” refers to G’d. This is why the Torah does not write קראה, “she called,” as it had done with the first two sons of Leah. Seeing that this son belonged to G’d as the “tithe” Yaakov had vowed to give of all G’d would give him, it was up to G’d to name what belonged to Him. We had mentioned that the matriarchs had a prophetic inspiration that Yaakov would have 12 sons from four wives. Having given birth to a third son, Leah had received her fair share of sons. When Leah said after giving birth to her third son על כן ילוה אישי אלי, she was not merely referring to the attachment between Yaakov and her; rather, she used the word איש as an acronym for א=כתר, י=חכמה ש,=בינה, as indicated in the Sefer Habahir. (compare the comment in that book on Exodus 15,3 ה' איש מלחמה). Leah meant that the three emanations represented by these letters in the word איש are really part and parcel of a larger concept. This is why the descendants of Levi became teachers of Torah and wisdom in Israel as we know from Moses’ blessing in Deut. 33,10 יורו משפטיך ליעקב , “they will teach Your ordinances to Yaakov."
When she gave birth to her fourth son, Yehudah, she gave thanks to the emanation בינה, the emanation from which children originate. As a result of all this we find that all the important elements were represented in the first four sons of Leah. Reuven and Shimon were allusions to G’d (His attribute with the six extremities), Levi and Yehudah being allusions to the three topmost emanations

Since the Matriarchs were prophetesses... You might ask: [If so,] why does Megillah 14a mention only seven prophetesses — Sarah, Miriam, Devorah, Chan-nah, Avigayil, Chuldah and Ester? The answer is: Scripture testifies about Sarah [that she prophesized], as it is written (21:12): “Regarding all that Sarah tells you, listen to her,” teaching that Avraham was inferior to Sarah in prophecy. And so [Scripture testifies about] all of them. But we do not find [it written unequivocally] that the [other] Matriarchs prophesied, as our verse could follow to its simple meaning. Maharshal answers that the Matriarchs prophesied only on matters pertaining to themselves: they knew what the future held for them but not for others. Therefore, they were not counted with the other prophetesses.

ילוה אישי אלי, “my husband will be more firmly connected to me.” She meant that up until now she would take her two children one with each hand, and did not need to call on her husband’s support. Now she needed to call on his support as she could not take three children by her two hands.

על כן THEREFORE — Wherever in the case of the names given to Jacob’s sons the word “therefore” is used, that tribe had a numerous population (Genesis Rabbah 71:4), Levi forming an exception, because the Ark decimated them.

על כן קרא שמו, Yaakov gave the boy this name because, as Leah had predicted, that he was so overjoyed at Levi’s birth. It is also possible that Yaakov had seen with a prophetic eye that the sons of Levi would be outstanding servants of the Lord and teachers of His Torah, and that they would constantly keep company with G’d, i.e. strive to fulfill His will. He therefore named this son both because of what his wife had proclaimed when he had been born, and because of the prophetic insight he had received regarding the descendants of this son. If we needed proof for this approach it is the fact that he was the only one of Yaakov’s sons who had been named by his father. The naming of Binyamin, respectively, renaming him, was due to a different consideration altogether. We will discuss this in due course.

With the exception of Leivi, because the Ark decimated them. I.e., the tribe of Leivi would carry the holy Ark and could not handle it with sufficient caution. Thus, many of them died.

על כן קרא שמו לוי, “this is why he named him Levi, companion. [All the other eleven children of Yaakov were named by their mothers, Yaakov, adding a second name to the youngest whom Rachel had named ben Oni. Ed.] There is some debate about the name of Zevulun; (30,20) some commentators assume that Yaakov did not agree with Leah’s implying that he would now make his permanent residence in Leah’s tent.

קרא שמו לוי [THEREFORE] WAS HIS NAME CALLED LEVI (literally, he called his name) — Of all of them (the sons) it is written “And she called”, but of this one Scripture writes “he called!” There is a Midrashic statement in Deuteronomy Rabbah that the Holy One, blessed be He, sent Gabriel who brought him (Levi) into His presence. He called him by this name and gave him the twenty-four perquisites with which the priesthood was favoured, and because He gave him these perquisites as an accompaniment (לוהו) He called him Levi (accompanied).

הפעם אודה NOW WILL I PRAISE [THE LORD] — because I have assumed more than my share, from now on I should praise God (Genesis Rabbah 71:4).

על כן קראה שמו יהודה, to reflect the letters in the name which alludes to the Essence of G’d, the tetragram. Upon closer inspection we can detect elements of such allusions to G’d’s “great” name in the names of the sons Leah had born earlier also. The names mentioned both here and later in the Scriptures were not necessarily innovations, but people who had lived in former times had already been given such names. We encounter יהודית בת בארי in 26,34; there is a שמואל בן עמיהוד in Numbers 34,20, (so that Channah, wife of Elkanah had not invented a new name when making her son the prophet Samuel as she did. (Names usually were associated with an event in the lives of either parent that the parent wanted to perpetuate.)

'ותהר... אודה את ה, I can only continue to thank the Lord and to praise Him, Who has granted me more than I have requested from Him.

הפעם אודה את ה', “this time I will give thanks to the Lord, etc.” She had now received her entire share of blessings seeing that she had born four children for Yaakov. Seeing that she considered herself fulfilled, she no longer became pregnant, ותעמוד מלדת.

'הפעם אודה לה, “this time I give thanks to the Lord;” she foresaw that her son Yehudah would admit having wronged Tamar and embarrassing himself greatly in the process. (Genesis 38,26) She therefore decided to admit that she had been very wrong in deceiving Yaakov by posing as Rachel.

ותעמד מלדת, “she was (temporarily) unable to conceive and give birth again. Seeing that several years later Leah did give birth to Dinah, the Torah chose a word (עמידה, temporary standing still) which indicated that her inability to give birth for a while was not due to her having become too old. She was not able to conceive and give birth again until after Asher had been born.

ותעמוד מלדת, at this time she stopped conceiving. This was also due to intervention by G’d, Who wanted the servant maids to also have children for Yaakov.