פירוש על בראשית 31:33

באהל יעקב INTO JACOB’S TENT — This was Rachel’s tent also, for Jacob was constantly with her. For the same reason Scripture says (46:19) “the sons of Rachel Jacob’s wife”, whilst in the case of the other wives it does not state “Jacob’s wife” (Genesis Rabbah 74:9).

IN THE TENT OF JACOB AND IN THE TENT OF LEAH. Rashi comments: “In the tent of Jacob — this was Rachel’s tent, for he was constantly with her. And so also Scripture says, The sons of Rachel Jacob’s wife,²¹⁷Further, 46:19. while in the case of the other wives it does not say ‘Jacob’s wife.’ And he entered into Rachel’s tent. When Laban left Leah’s tent he returned again to Rachel’s tent before he searched the tent of the two maid-servants. And why did he feel compelled to do all this? Because he knew her to be inclined to touch everything.” But in line with the plain meaning of Scripture, it is not correct for the same tent to be called by two names, [i.e., “the tent of Jacob” and “the tent of Rachel”] in one verse.
And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that Laban entered into the tent of Jacob, the tent of Leah, and the tent of the two maid-servants [the singular form “tent” being used] since one tent served both. Afterwards he came back a second time to Leah’s tent, and after that he entered into Rachel’s tent. But this too is incorrect.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra further wrote: “The feasible interpretation appears to me to be that Scripture followed here a way of brevity and delayed mentioning the tent of Rachel in order to state concerning all of the others, but he found them not, as they were not there. Scripture then returns and explains that when he went out of Leah’s tent he came into Rachel’s tent where the teraphim were.” That is the correct interpretation.
It is true that there were separate tents for all of the wives for this was due to the righteous man’s regard for modesty. Thus each one of the wives²¹⁸The above mentioned opinion that one tent served the two maid-servants was that of Ibn Ezra; Ramban however differs. had a separate tent so that one should not know when he came to the other. It is also a matter forbidden by Torah law, as the Sages have mentioned in Tractate Niddah.²¹⁹17a. And Jacob had a special tent, in which he would eat at his table with his children and people of the household. And the reason why Scripture mentions Jacob’s wife²¹⁷Further, 46:19. in connection with Rachel in my opinion, according to its simple sense, is that she is mentioned in that chapter among the concubines. For this reason Scripture does not say so in the Seder Vayishlach Yaakov,²²⁰Further, 35:23-26. for there it mentions Leah and Rachel and then the maid-servants.

ויבא לבן באהל יעקב ואחר כך באהל לאה ואחר כך באהל רחל. He entered all the various tents of the wives separately. The reason Lavan did not find the Teraphim in Rachel‘s tent was that as soon as he left Leah’s tent Rachel put the Teraphim beneath the saddle of the camel that she sat upon.

באהל יעקב ובאהל לאה, “in Yaakov’s tent and in Leah’s tent.” According to Rashi Yaakov’s tent was in fact Rachel’s tent as he spent most of his nights in her tent. Even when he left the tent of Leah, he, Lavan, went back a second time to Rachel’s tent as he was aware that she was fond of rummaging around. (Bereshit Rabbah on that section. Ed.] . Nachmanides does not agree that the same tent in the same verse is referred to once as Rachel’s tent and another time as Yaakov’s tent. Ibn Ezra wrote that Lavan searched in this order: 1) the tent of Yaakov, 2) the tent of Leah, followed by the tent of the two maidservants who shared a tent, or to each of their tents separately, Afterwards he went back once more to Leah’s tent. The proof is that the Torah writes: “he departed from the tent of Leah.” The Torah describes this procedure in a manner which enables it to say that Lavan had failed to locate the teraphim in any of these tents. as they had not been hidden there. In verse 34 when he came to a tent that did contain the teraphim, the Torah reports this search separately, to stress that although this tent contained the teraphim, Lavan failed to find them. Hence the words “he did not find” are repeated again. He continues that he feels that what most likely happened is that Lavan proceeded in order by first searching Yaakov’s tent, followed by searching the tent of Leah, followed by searching the tent of Rachel, and that of the two servant maids. The reason why the Torah describes Rachel’s tent as being searched last was to emphasise that in spite of the fact that the teraphim were in her tent, he did not find them as by then she had hidden them under the saddle of the camel that she was sitting on.

Because Yaakov was constantly with her... Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say, “Yaakov’s tent”? Did Lavan suspect Yaakov of idol worship?! Especially as Yaakov was returning to his father’s house, about which Lavan himself said (v. 30): “For you yearned for your father’s house, but why did you steal my gods,” when your father’s house is not idolatrous? Thus Rashi explains that it is the same as Rochel’s tent.

ויבא באהל רחל “he came into the tent of Rachel;” Rashi on these words (basing himself on B’reshit Rabbah 74,12) says that Lavan now went back to the tent of Rachel once more after having already searched the tent of Leah, before proceeding to the tents of the other matriarchs, because he considered her a thief. What is the reason that prompted Rashi to accept this interpretation, i.e. that Lavan searched the tents of the matriarchs last? I believe it is based on the words: ולא מצא “and he had not found” in our verse, after having told us that he searched the tents of Yaakov and the matriarchs. Clearly this had to refer to the tents of the matriarchs which would have been the logical starting point for the search. On the one hand, seeing that Rachel was Yaakov’s favourite wife and he spent most of his time with her, the reference to the tent of Yaakov could be understood as including searching Rachel’s belongings. Rachel’s personal tent, presumably used by her only while experiencing her menses, and therefore ritually impure, was located in the centre of the whole camp. The entrances of the tents of the matriarchs opened to public paths on the one side and to Rachel’s tent on the other. Some commentators argue that we must follow the sequence of the text, i.e. that Leah’s tent was in the centre Rachel’s tent adjoining, and the other two matriarchs’ tents adjoining that of Rachel. Only Leah’s and Rachel’s tents also had an entrance facing a public path, so that Yaakov could not go out to the public domain without the knowledge of either Rachel or Leah. Lavan was therefore forced to return to the tent of Leah, and subsequently to that of Rachel. [Lavan searched in the order of who he thought had most to gain by stealing his teraphim, commencing with Yaakov. Ed.]

ויבא באהל רחל AND HE CAME INTO RACHEL’S TENT — When he left Leah’s tent he returned again to Rachel’s tent before he searched the tent of the two maid-servants. Why did he feel compelled to do all this? Because he knew full well that she was meddlesome (Genesis Rabbah 74:9).

ויצא מאהל לאה ויבא באהל רחל, even though according to what has been written earlier he went to the tent of Leah and the tent of the two maidservants, this was not quite the sequence in which Lavan searched. He had entered Rachel’s tent upon leaving Leah’s tent, before having searched the tents of the servant maids. The Torah abbreviated the narrative somewhat as it was tediously long.

When he left Leah’s tent he returned to Rochel’s tent... Yaakov’s tent is Rochel’s tent, as Rashi just explained. If so, why does it say, “And came into Rochel’s tent,” when he already searched it? Furthermore, why is it written, “He left Leah’s tent and came into Rochel’s tent”? It should have written: “He left the tent of the two handmaidens and came into Rochel’s tent,” as he already left Leah’s tent and came to the tents of the handmaidens. Thus Rashi explains, “When he left Leah’s tent he returned to Rochel’s...”