שְׁמֹ֣ר רגליך [רַגְלְךָ֗] כַּאֲשֶׁ֤ר תֵּלֵךְ֙ אֶל־בֵּ֣ית הָאֱלֹהִ֔ים וְקָר֣וֹב לִשְׁמֹ֔עַ מִתֵּ֥ת הַכְּסִילִ֖ים זָ֑בַח כִּֽי־אֵינָ֥ם יוֹדְעִ֖ים לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת רָֽע׃
Rabbeinu Bahya
הסירו את אלוהי הנכר, “remove the alien deities!” These were the various images captured as part of the loot of the town of Shechem which the Torah mentioned as described already by Rashi. In spite of the fact that such artifacts were permissible for use by people prior to the Torah having been given seeing that they had undergone a process of involuntary abandonment by their owners which disqualified them from further use as idols, (Avodah Zarah 52), Yaakov commanded the members of his household to remove these former idols and to sanctify themselves in order for them to qualify to serve G’d. This is what is implied in the words: “let us arise and go to Bet-El.” He meant that he would offer a sacrifice there to G’d. Yaakov based himself on a concept found in Kohelet 4,17: שמור רגלך כאשר תלך אל בית אלוקים, “watch your step when you are on the way to the House of the Lord.”
Rabbeinu Chananel
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.)
Rabbeinu Bahya
ובארצכם לא תעשו, “and in your land you shall not do so.” Seeing the Torah had mentioned such defects as damage to the reproductive organs earlier in our verse, the Torah adds that it is forbidden to castrate animals in the land of Israel even if such animals were not intended as offerings. Even animals which are not fit for consumption by Jews must not be castrated. Contrary to the first impression that the word בארצכם, “in your land,” suggests that only in the land of Israel is it forbidden to castrate animals, this is misleading, and castrating G’d’s creatures is forbidden everywhere. The only reason the Torah wrote that word was to emphasize that even in our land where many of these animals cannot serve the general population as food seeing the animals in question are ritually impure, we must still not castrate such animals as a means of keeping down their numbers.
It is also possible that the use by the Torah of the word תעשו here points out that castrating an animal is equivalent to “undoing it;” G’d made it, we undo it but allow it to live at the same time preventing it from procreating. We find a similar use of the word לעשות in Kohelet 4,17 where Solomon speaks about כי אינם יודעים לעשות רע, “for they do not know that they are to destroy the evil and remove it.” At first glance we would have translated the verse as “they do not know how to do evil,” something that clearly does not fit the context of the verse.“ [Rashi does not have trouble with the ordinary meaning of the word לעשות in that verse. Ed.] Another verse in which the word עשה does not have the meaning which it usually has is Genesis 9,24 where the Torah speaks about אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן, normally translated as “which his younger son had done to him,” (Noach who had been naked in his tent). On the face of it, the son (Cham) had done nothing except tell his brothers that their father had uncovered himself while drunk. Nonetheless, our sages in Sanhedrin 70 use the word to mean that he had castrated his father. So we see that the word עשה, though normally meaning “did” in a constructive sense such as when G’d created the universe, may appear in exactly the opposite sense such as when depriving the animal of its regenerative potential by castrating it. This may also be the meaning of the word יעשנה in Proverbs 6,32, where Solomon writes משחית נפשו יעשנה, which at first glance looks as if he says that “he who destroys his life is really creating it.” Instead, the meaning is “if he wants to destroy himself let him do such a thing (commit adultery).” When someone destroys his soul, his life, he most certainly deprives (יעשנה) it of the opportunity to achieve its lofty aims..”
It is also possible that the use by the Torah of the word תעשו here points out that castrating an animal is equivalent to “undoing it;” G’d made it, we undo it but allow it to live at the same time preventing it from procreating. We find a similar use of the word לעשות in Kohelet 4,17 where Solomon speaks about כי אינם יודעים לעשות רע, “for they do not know that they are to destroy the evil and remove it.” At first glance we would have translated the verse as “they do not know how to do evil,” something that clearly does not fit the context of the verse.“ [Rashi does not have trouble with the ordinary meaning of the word לעשות in that verse. Ed.] Another verse in which the word עשה does not have the meaning which it usually has is Genesis 9,24 where the Torah speaks about אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן, normally translated as “which his younger son had done to him,” (Noach who had been naked in his tent). On the face of it, the son (Cham) had done nothing except tell his brothers that their father had uncovered himself while drunk. Nonetheless, our sages in Sanhedrin 70 use the word to mean that he had castrated his father. So we see that the word עשה, though normally meaning “did” in a constructive sense such as when G’d created the universe, may appear in exactly the opposite sense such as when depriving the animal of its regenerative potential by castrating it. This may also be the meaning of the word יעשנה in Proverbs 6,32, where Solomon writes משחית נפשו יעשנה, which at first glance looks as if he says that “he who destroys his life is really creating it.” Instead, the meaning is “if he wants to destroy himself let him do such a thing (commit adultery).” When someone destroys his soul, his life, he most certainly deprives (יעשנה) it of the opportunity to achieve its lofty aims..”