פירוש על בראשית 29:19

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!"