창세기 29:19의 인용 해설

That I will set. We need not ask: The same word, שת , is written in Parshas Vayeitzei: “ וישת his own flocks. . .” (Bereishis 30:40), and in Parshas Va’eira: “Pharaoh . . . did not שת even to this” (Shemos 7:23). Why did Rashi not comment there? The answer is: Here [the shin of] שתי is vocalized with a chirik and no yud, so I might think it does not mean שימי but is a different word, such as, “For they destroyed the שתות (foundation)” (Tehillim 11:3). Or, “ שות שתו (they did battle) at the gates” (Yeshayah 22:7). That is why Rashi needs to explain it here as שימי , although generally, the meaning is obvious. Even after explaining that שתי means שימי , Rashi explains further and says, “that I will set,” because שתי still has two possible meanings. This is similar to תִּתִּי , which has two possible meanings. One is written regarding Lavan, in Parshas Vayetzei (Bereishis 29:19): “Better תִּתִּי (I shall give) her to you.” The other [possible] meaning is written in Parshas Balak (Bamidbar 22:13): “For Hashem has refused לְתִתִּי (to give to me) permission to go with you.” Thus Rashi explains that here, שתי means “I will set” [and not “set for me”]. (Re”m) Alternatively: Rashi explains further and says, “that I will set,” because שתי could mean the past tense, “I already set.” Thus Rashi explains “I will set,” is in the future tense.

When Lavan first agrees to take Ya’akov on as a son-in-law, he already couches his graceless agreement in words of resentment at the whole institution. “It is better that I give her to you than that I should give her to another man” (Bereshit 29:19)¹⁶⁰Bereshit 29:19. he says, as if this is the better of two evils. Indeed, by the end of the story, when Lavan catches up with his fugitive son-in-law, his feelings become quite transparent. Referring to that which has accrued to Ya’akov, Lavan unabashedly claims that “the daughters are my daughters and the sons are my sons and the flocks are my flocks and everything that you see is mine!” (Bereshit 31:43)¹⁶¹Ibid., 31:43. In effect, Lavan’s depiction of a son-in-law is that of a culturally sanctioned thief. Even more, this is a thief who steals that which is most precious. Put otherwise, taking on a son-in-law is a sort of grueling compromise that one must make in order to provide for a daughter’s needs. From this perspective, if one’s sons are an asset that will add to one’s wealth, daughters are only a liability. In fact, from this callously commercial perspective, they are a net loss.

לשבת את האיש, to tend his flocks, a similar construction to Lavan inviting Yaakov to stay with him in Genesis 29,19.