창세기 31:39의 주석

טרפה THAT WHICH WAS TORN by a lion or a wolf.

אחטפנה, the meaning is that Yaakov would have to pay for the loss from his own pocket. A similar construction occurs in Kings I 1,21. where the line אני ובני שלמה חטאים does not mean “I and my son Shlomoh will be guilty,” but I and my son Shlomoh will have to bear the cost.

לא הבאתי אליך, אנכי אחטנה, I never brought you a diseased or fatally wounded animal whose death had been due to my negligence; all I ever brought you were animals which were the victims of genuine accidents, something I could not have prevented. Even so, מידי תבקשנה, you held me responsible for making good your loss, illegally, of course.

טרפה לא הבאתי אליך, "I did not bring you those torn by wild animals, etc." How does the expression הבאה, bringing, fit the situation of an animal torn by wild beasts? Also, why did he repeat: "They were my loss, you collected from me?"

טרפה לא, even if an animal had been attacked by wild beasts in a manner which could not have been the fault of the shepherd, I did not bring you the evidence to prove my innocence in such an accident but replaced it out of my own pocket. I did not want you to claim that I could have protected the animal against its attacker. I knew that it would have been futile to claim that I was not to blame as you would have illegally debited me with its worth.

טריפה לא הבאתי אליך, “I did not present to you wounded animals.” Even animals which had been wounded or killed by wolves and lions, for which I was not legally liable, I did not bring you as proof that I had not caused you the loss of an animal. I rather made restitution out of my own pocket. Seeing that according to Jewish law, a paid guard is responsible for this type of loss, how did Yaakov excel in any way by making good such losses to Lavan? When he speaks about stolen (not by violence) animals he refers still to the above-mentioned torn animals. He is only describing various situations which are all classed as force majeure, conditions beyond man’s control, for which he could not have been held responsible. Losing an animal to wolves or lions is something that no shepherd can be blamed for.

.טרפה לא הבאתי אליך , “that which was mangled I never brought to you.” Yaakov meant that while under his care no ferocious beast mangled any of Lavan’s animals. The expression טרפה is employed as in 37,33 חיה רעה אכלתהו, טרוף טורף יוסף, “a wild beast has devoured him, Joseph has been horribly mangled.” We have other verses in Scripture using the word in the same sense.

טרפה, obgleich ich selbst als bezahlter Hüter für unabwendbare Unfälle nicht zu stehen hatte, ersetzte ich freiwillig, und wenn ich es nicht getan hätte (אונסין) oder einmal nicht that, so fordertest du es, als wäre es meine Schuldigkeit; geschweige denn, dass ich jeder Zeit das, was gestohlen wurde, zu ersetzen hatte.

טרפה לא הבאתי אליך, “I did not bring you the remains of animals that had been torn by wild beasts; even if I was completely powerless to prevent such incidences I did not expect it to become your loss; neither did I expect you to compensate me for animals stolen by day or night.

אנכי אחטנה I BARE THE LOSS OF IT — It has the same meaning as the verb in (Judges 20:16) “sling stones at a hair-breadth and not miss (יחטא)”, and (1 Kings 1:21) “that I and my son Solomon shall suffer the loss of it (חטאים)” i.e. shall be lacking in authority. The sense therefore is: “I” was short of it; if it was missing, it was missing to me because you required it of my hand.

גנבתי יום, the letter י appears to be superfluous; Yaakov states that he had to make good both for animals stolen by day and any stolen by night. The construction is similar to Lamentations 1,1 רבתי עם שרתי במדינות. The word גנובתי with the vowel kametz under the letter ב would mean “the stolen one would be considered as if it had been mine.”

אנכי אחטנה, I would have been blamed even if I had not been at fault

אנכי אחטנה, “I myself would bear the loss.” The word is closely related to אל השערה ולא יחטיא, “accurate to a hair, without missing.” Yaakov assumed responsibility for such eventual loss in the event it would occur. He would consider it as his own fault. The author quotes Kings I 1,21 where Bat Sheva says to King David והייתי אני ובני שלמה חטאים, “and I and my son Solomon would be considered at fault,” as a similar meaning for the word אחטנה in our verse.

Jacob pointed out to Laban that he took compensation from him for something that he was legally liable for as well as for losses for which Jacob was not legally liable at all. He spelled out טרפה as an example of losses due to wolves, and: "I did not bring you," as examples of losses due to attacks by a lion. We find the following statement in Baba Metzia 93: "When a shepherd or trustee abandons the animals under his care by making a trip to the city, and a lion came and trampled an animal to death, or a wolf came and tore an animal, etc." We see that different animals cause death by different methods. A wolf leaves the scene of where he caused harm immediately, whereas the lion kills his prey and remains at that site until he has devoured it. He leaves only the skin and the dung. Similarly, Jacob alluded to these two kinds of predators. He added: אנכי אחטנה, concerning the fence for which he was responsible. Had there been a single wolf, proper fencing in of the animals would have prevented such an attack; therefore the paid keeper is responsible for such damage (Baba Metzia 72). Jacob referred to the other kind of fence, i.e. one that is trampled on by the lion, something for which the shepherd is not responsible. Laban took no notice of these distinctions and insisted on compensation from Jacob regardless of the cause of the damage he suffered. Rashi must been inspired by the Holy Spirit when he gave this explanation. He had the same thing in mind as we have have just elaborated on.

I will suffer its loss. If it be missing... Rashi adds the words, “If it be missing,” because you might ask: Yaakov declared, “Your she-goats never miscarried... I never brought you a mutilated animal....” If so, why did he then say, “I would take the blame for it,” [when no animal was missing]? Therefore Rashi explains, “If it be missing.” Yaakov was saying: If something ever happened and any animal was missing, I would take the blame for it. I.e., I would cover the loss.

אנכי אחטנה In the Targum it is translated by דהות שגיא ממנינא which means that which was missing and deficient from the number of the animals. The words (Numbers 31:49) “There is missing (נפקד) not one man of us”, is rendered in the Targum by ולא שגיא

גנבתי יום, if an animal had been stolen from the flock either by day or by night I was always blamed for it and held responsible. I paid you for it regardless of the circumstances.

מידי תבקשנה, “from me you would exact it.” Lavan would hold Yaakov responsible for any animal stolen from the flock under Yaakov’s control. He considered Yaakov a שומר שכר, a paid watchman who assumes such risks as thievery, robbery etc. We find a verse in Ezekiel 34,4 making a similar point where the prophet writes את האובדת לא בקשתם, “you have not sought out the lost one.” In that chapter the prophet scores the kings who are charged with tending their sheep, i.e. their human subjects, and who have been remiss in doing so, doing the reverse of what Yaakov considered himself charged with.

When Jacob added: גנובתי יום וגנובתי לילה, "regardless of whether it was stolen from me by day or by night," he referred to damage incurred through hostile humans; in either case Jacob paid, whether he was legally responsible or not, such as when it was stolen at night.

גנבתי יום וגנבתי לילה WHETHER STOLEN BY DAY OR STOLEN BY NIGHT — everything I paid back.

גנבתי, the letter י at the end has been added for reasons which are not clear. It is similar to another superfluous י which is found in Isaiah 1,21. If the function of the letter י had been that of a pronoun, i.e. “mine,” the letter ב would have had to be written with the vowel kametz.

גנובתי יום וגנובתי לילה, “whether it had been stolen by day or by night.” “I was always considered liable to make restitution.” A שומר שכר is responsible for these kinds of losses as we know from Exodus 23,11 ואם גנב יגנב מעמו שלם ישלם לבעליו, “if it be stolen, the keeper has to pay compensation to its owner.” Our sages (Baba Metzia 94) query “if the paid keeper is liable to compensate the owner for animals stolen, something akin to an accident, beyond the keeper’s control, why did Yaakov have to add that he was also liable for “lost” property, i.e. that negligence is also subject to restitution by the keeper? Yaakov simply stated here that whatever the cause of any loss, he personally assumed responsibility.

גנבתי As regards the suffix י it is similar to the י in (Lamentations 1:1) “great (רבתי) among the nations, princess (שרתי) among the provinces”; (Isaiah 1:21) “that was full of (מלאתי) justice”; (Hosea 10:11) “that loveth (אהבתי) to thresh”.