Comentário sobre Gênesis 30:44

ותקנא רחל באחתה RACHEL ENVIED HER SISTER — She was envious of her because of her good deeds, thinking, “Unless she were more righteous than I am she would not have been privileged to bear children (Genesis Rabbah 71:6).”

GIVE ME CHILDREN. The commentators⁹⁸Rashi and Ibn Ezra. said that this means that Rachel asked Jacob to pray on her behalf. Or else I die — Rashi comments: “For one who is childless may be considered as dead.” This is a Midrash of our Rabbis.⁹⁹Bereshith Rabbah 71:19.
But I wonder. If so, why was Jacob angry with her? And why did he say, Am I in G-d’s stead?¹⁰⁰Verse 2 here. for G-d hearkens to the righteous.¹⁰¹See Psalms 69:34. [I wonder concerning] that which Jacob said [to Rachel, as quoted in Rashi:¹⁰⁰Verse 2 here. “You say that I should do as did my father, who prayed on behalf of Rebekah, but I am not circumstanced as my father was. My] father had no children at all. I, however, have children. It is from you that He had withheld children and not from me.” Do not the righteous pray on behalf of others? There were Elijah¹⁰²I Kings 18:21. and Elisha¹⁰³II Kings 4:33. who prayed on behalf of strange women.
It would appear that on account of Jacob’s answer, our Rabbis took him to task, saying in Bereshith Rabbah:¹⁰⁴71:10. “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Jacob, ‘Is this the way to answer a woman who is oppressed by her barrenness? By your life! Your children are destined to stand before her son Joseph!’”
In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, Rachel asked of Jacob that he give her children, but her intent was truly to say that he should pray on her behalf and continue indeed to pray until G-d would, in any case, grant her children, and if not, she would mortify herself because of grief. In her envy she spoke improperly, thinking that because Jacob loved her he would fast, put on sackcloth with ashes,¹⁰⁵Esther 4:1. and pray until she would have children, so that she should not die of her grief.

מתה אנכי, in this verse when the word מתה is in the present tense, the stress is on the last syllable, whereas in Genesis 48,7 where the same word occurs in the past tense, the stress is on the first syllable.

מתה אנכי, a figure of speech, meaning the same as הן אני עץ יבש, “here I am a dried out tree,” in Isaiah 56,3.

ותרא רחל כי לא ילדה, Rachel saw that she had not borne children, etc. The Torah adds the word ליעקב, for Jacob, since it was clear that Jacob was not the one who was sterile. The cause therefore had to lie with her. When the Torah describes Rachel as jealous of her sister, this indicates that had Leah not been her sister Rachel would have attributed the fact that she did not conceive to genetic differences between her and another wife of Jacob. She could not account for such genetic differences when her sister was involved, i.e. someone who was genetically similarly equipped (she thought).

ותרא..ותקנא רחל באחותה, she saw that during the period that Leah bore 4 sons for Yaakov she had not even born him a single one.

הבה לי בנים, “get me children!” Rachel demanded that Yaakov pray on her behalf, failing which she would die She considered any woman who had no children as “dead.” Nachmanides expresses his amazement at such an interpretation as he cannot understand why this was something that would infuriate Yaakov, as the Torah reports in the next verse when he upbraids her by asking if he was in place of the G’d Who had denied her children. One even prays on behalf of people to whom one is not married, so why should he feel offended by her demand that he pray on behalf of his wife? As to the comment by the Midrash that Yaakov rejected the comparison with Yitzchok praying for Rivkah to have children as inappropriate, seeing that Yitzchok at the time did not have children, whereas he, Yaakov did have already four children, surely that is not a reason why he should not pray on behalf of his favorite wife!? According to the plain meaning of the text, Rachel demanded children from her husband. She threatened that if he refused to pray on her behalf she would kill herself. She would not lay a hand on herself, but she explained that she would simply die from frustration and shame, and would blame her death on her husband. Yaakov’s anger was aroused because she so misunderstood the power of prayer that she felt that the prayer of a צדיק automatically commits G’d to fulfill it. Yaakov thought that Rachel used the threat of her death as a ploy, something not unknown when women are denied having their way. At any rate, after telling Rachel that the matter was not really in his hands, seeing that G’d had granted him children but not from her, she decided to pray on her own behalf. This is what the Torah means in verse 22 that G’d “listened to her,” as a result of which she bore Joseph.

She was envious of her good deeds. [Rashi knows this] because envy is [otherwise] forbidden.

הבה לי בנים. Sie glaubte wohl, es sei ihm gleichgültig, da er doch durch Lea Kinder habe, und lasse er es daher an dem rechten Wunsch und an der rechten Bitte vor Gott fehlen. Hatte doch auch seine Mutter erst auf das Gebet seines Vaters Kinder erhalten.

ותקנא רחל באחותה, “Rachel became jealous of her sister;” she had not become jealous until after Leah had given birth to her fourth son. The reason was that by doing so she had received more than her “fair” share of the 12 sons Yaakov was supposed to sire.

הבה לי GIVE ME [CHILDREN ] — Did, then, your father act so towards your mother? Did he not pray on her behalf (Genesis Rabbah 71:6).

If not I am dead. According to the Sages (Baba Basra 116a) a person who leaves offspring is not said to “die” but only to “lie down,” because he will still be remembered.

Did your father act this way to your mother. Rashi derives this from Yaakov’s answer: “Who has withheld from you.” This implies, as Rashi says there, that Yaakov was saying: “You tell me to act as my father did. I am not like my father. It is from you that Hashem has withheld children, not from me,” implying that she had mentioned his father.

The word ליעקב may have an additional meaning here. Her major concern was the fact that she was unable to bear children for an outstandingly righteous man such as Jacob. Had Jacob not been clearly righteous, she would have attributed his bad luck to a character defect in her husband. Knowing that she herself was righteous she could not understand why the promise contained in Psalms 125,3 that "the scepter of the wicked will not be allotted to the fate of the righteous," would not apply to their union. Had Jacob not been so clearly a pious man she could have attributed their lack of success to a shortcoming in Jacob. As it was this was impossible. Therefore, she was jealous of her sister who had succeeded where she had failed.

מתה אנכי I AM A DEAD WOMAN — One may infer from this that he who is childless may be regarded as dead (Genesis Rabbah 71:6).

From here, that one who has no children is considered as if dead. Otherwise, [if it meant that she is presently dying,] why did she ask for children? מתה is an adjective, not a present tense intransitive verb [conveying that she is dying]. And it is not a transitive verb [conveying that if Yaakov does not give her children, she will kill herself].

התחת means AM I IN HIS STEAD?

ויחר, because she had said: הבה לי!. This sounded as if Rachel’s having children was something within the power of her husband. His anger was on behalf of his Creator, G’d, Who had been insulted by Rachel’s words. He had to ignore his love and commiseration for Rachel’s plight seeing she had been guilty of such a fauz pas.

ויחר אף יעקב, Jacob became agitated, etc. Jacob's agitation was due to her having uttered a curse, i.e. declaring that she would die. When the righteous utter a curse, even conditionally, this makes an indelible impression. We know from Bereshit Rabbah 74,9 that Rachel died prematurely because Jacob himself uttered a curse when he decreed death on the thief who stole Laban's Teraphim. This is why the Torah added the word ברחל, i.e. on her account. He was also upset because she demanded children, הבה לי בנים, instead of having asked her husband to pray on her behalf.

ויחר...אשר מנע ממך, G’d denied you children, not I. You have to pray to Him, not to berate me. As far as I am concerned, I have made my contribution already having slept with you far more often than with Leah. If you are genetically barren then you have to ask G’d to open your womb. Your sister did the same and her prayer has been answered. The word מנע, prevented, which Yaakov used meant that the sperm did not enter the area of the womb where fertilisation takes place. Yaakov’s anger was due to Rachel attributing her problem to Yaakov and something Yaakov had failed to do, and not to G’d, Who decrees who is barren and who is fertile. The demand to her husband הבה לי בנים, “get me children,” was entirely out of place. Had she asked Yaakov to plead with G’d to have mercy on her, she would have been perfectly in order. He would not then have become angry at her.

From you that He has withheld, not from me. Question: Many prophets prayed for others, such as Elisha (Melachim II 4:33), and [Eliyahu] for the Tzorphis woman. Why did not Yaakov, too, pray for her, although he had children? Furthermore, why was he angry? He should have answered her calmly, as the words of the wise are heard when spoken calmly. The answer is: Yaakov told Rochel that he had prayed for her, but Hashem did not accept the prayer. Rochel said, “If so, you must be wicked.” Thus he was angry with her, as she considered him wicked. He answered her: “I am not like my father. Both of them were childless, and his prayer was accepted because of both their merits. But I am not childless; Hashem has withheld children only from you. With us, only one person’s merit [is relevant]. That is why my prayer is not answered! (Maharshal)

AND JACOB’s ANGER WAS KINDLED. It is not in the power of the righteous that their prayer be heard and answered in any case, and because she spoke in the manner of yearning women who are loved, thus attempting to frighten him with her death, his anger was kindled. Therefore, he said to her that he is not in G-d’s stead that he should remember the barren ones by giving them children in any case, and he does not care about it since it is from her that children were withheld and not from him. He said this in order to admonish her and shame her. Now the righteous woman Rachel, seeing that she could not rely upon Jacob’s prayer, then went to pray on her own behalf to Him Who hears the cry of those in trouble. This is the sense of the verse, And G-d hearkened to her.¹⁰⁶Further, Verse 22.
Perhaps we can rectify Jacob’s retort in consonance with the opinion of our Rabbis [who related that Jacob said to Rachel, “It is from you that he has withheld children and not from me,”] for it is impossible to think that Jacob did not pray on behalf of his beloved wife who was barren, however his prayer was not accepted.
Now Rachel came to him with a pretext saying that he should, in any case, give her children through his prayer for he is not of less stature than his father who did so. At this, his anger was kindled and he said to her that the matter is up to G-d and not to him, and that his father’s prayer was heard because he was a righteous man and was destined to have children, but here it is from her that He has withheld children. This is a correct interpretation.

התחת א׳ אנכי , an meinen Wünschen und Bitten liegt es nicht, Gott hat dir die Mutterfreude versagt.

אשר מנע ממך WHO HATH WITHHELD FROM THEE —You say that I should do as my father did; but I am not circumstanced as my father was. My father had no children at all, I, however, have children. From you He has withheld children and not from me (Genesis Rabbah 71:7).

אשר מנע ממך, Yaakov had detected clear physiological symptoms indicating that Rachel was incapable of conceiving.

על ברכי UPON MY KNEES — as the Targum takes it: she will bear children and I will rear them.

בוא אליה, this was Rachel’s answer to her husband’s accusation. She had not meant that it was within Yaakov’s power to make her pregnant, but she wanted to nurse a child by the next best method, that of becoming foster mother to her handmaid’s child.

ותאמר הנה אמתי, She said: "here is my bondwoman, etc." She was careful to say: "my bondwoman Bilhah," before mentioning that Jacob should sleep with her, instead of saying: "sleep with my bondwoman Bilhah," as Sarai had done at the time (Genesis 16,2). I have explained there that Rachel did not mean for Bilhah to be still called a bondwoman after she had slept with Jacob. She gave Bilhah to Jacob to become a wife to him; any sons of her should be free men. Leah acted similarly when giving her bondwoman Zilpah to sleep with Jacob.

ותאמר, she said that after Yaakov had explained to her that her failure to have children was G’d’s doing, she suggested what Sarah had suggested to Avraham, that she was willing to become a vicarious mother through her servant maid having a child by him. She therefore asked Yaakov to sleep with Bilhah.

הנה אמתי בלהה, בא אליה ואבנה גם אנכי, “here is my maidservant Bilhah, sleep with her and I too will be built through her (child).” Sarah, when suggesting that Avraham sleep with Hagar, had phrased it differently, saying “perhaps I will be built up though her.” (Genesis 16,7). Rachel appeared certain that Bilhah would have a son. The reason for her feeling certain that she would succeed was that Avraham had not yet been told by G’d that he would have a son by Sarah. Rachel, having revealed to her sister the secret code between her and Yaakov so that she would not be embarrassed under the wedding canopy, was certain that this merit would work in her favour now. Her preparedness to allow a competitor to sleep with her husband would, she was sure, produce in the desired result. Some commentators believe that Rachel’s certainty was based on the extra letter ה in Bilhah’s name, this being an allusion to offspring as per הא לכם זרע, or כי בי-ה ה' צור עולמו, this world having been created under the aegis of the letter ה. Rachel, רחל was the only of one of the matriarchs who did not have the letter ה in her name. She meant to make up for this deficiency by giving בלהה to her husband as her alter ego.

She said to him, “Your grandfather Avraham, had children from Hagar...” I.e., although he had children from Hagar he interceded for Sarah. So you too, although you have children, you should do the same for me.

ואבנה גם אנכי AND I ALSO MAY HAVE CHILDREN — What force has “also”? She said to him, “Your grandfather, Abraham, had children from Hagar and yet he girded up his loins (actively interceded) for Sarah and she afterwards was blessed with a child”. He replied, “But my grandmother brought an associate wife unto her house”. She retorted, “If that is what prevents me being blessed with children, הנה אמתי BEHOLD MY HANDMAID” etc.

ואבנה גם אנכי ממנה, so that I will have a share in posterity just as has my sister through her children.

ותלד על ברכי, whomsoever she will give birth to shall be considered as having been born on my knees, my becoming his foster mother seeing he will be part of my family.

If we find that even Sarai did use the term "wife" in connection with Hagar (Genesis 16,3), she countermanded such an interpretation by saying that she should be a wife only vis-a-vis Abraham. She was to remain a slave-woman vis-a-vis herself. Compare my commentary there.

ואבנה נם אנכי AND I ALSO MAY HAVE CHILDREN through her as Sarah was built up through her handmaid (Genesis Rabbah 71:7).

ממנה, a recipe found in Megillah 13 for barren women to be jealous of other women who have no problem conceiving in order for their own organs to respond in a manner that helps them conceive.

ואבנה גם אנכי, so that I too will be built through her (Bilhah). The word גם here refers to Leah, Rachel saying that she too, as a foster mother, would consider herself as “built,” i.e. as leaving something of herself to posterity. We have explained the meaning of the word ואבנה in Genesis 16,2.

If you were to point out that we find Bilhah described as a bondwoman even after she had slept with Jacob (30,7) and already bore him a second son, this simply means that she used to be Rachel's bondwoman. The Torah there was also interested in pointing out that the matriarchs attributed such righteousness to their husbands and it is certain that the Torah did not need to be afraid that someone would misunderstand having previously outlined what Rachel had in mind (compare what we have written in Genesis 37,2).

ותתן לו...לאשה. she provided Yaakov to be Bilhah’s exclusive sexual partner.

את בלהה שפחתה לאשה, “her servantmaid Bilhah as wife.” This was similar to what Leah had received from her father when she had married. She also gave that servant maid to her husband Yaakov, as reported in 30,9. We know that Joseph in his early years kept company with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah who are described there as his father’s “wives.” (Genesis 37,2) This teaches that these women were not concubines, but regular wives with all the financial security that such a status guarantees the wife. None of the 12 “tribes” were born to women who were merely concubines. The only time when the expression “concubine” is used about them is when they are mentioned in comparison to Rachel and Leah, when the indiscretion of Reuven is alluded to by the Torah in both Genesis 35,22, and 49,4. Gad and Asher had already been born when that indiscretion took place.

AND SHE BORE ‘L’YAAKOV’ (TO JACOB) A SON. In the case of all the handmaids Scripture mentions the phrase, to Jacob [in connection with the birth of their children], in order to relate that Jacob desired and acknowledged them and that they were not called by him “sons of the handmaids,” but “sons of Jacob,” just like the sons of the mistresses who traced their lineage to him. In the case of the fifth and sixth sons of Leah it also says, to Jacob,¹⁰⁷Ibid., Verses 17 and 19. since due to her abundance of sons, Scripture deems it necessary to say that Jacob desired and befriended all of them. This is not mentioned in connection with the birth of the first [four sons of Leah because it is obvious that Jacob desired them].

ותהר, we find with each of the four sons born to Yaakov by the servant maids that the Torah adds the word ליעקב, that these were born for Yaakov, although this word is missing when Leah gave birth to her first 4 sons. The reason is to underline that these sons by servant maids had the same status in Yaakov’s eyes as the sons born by Leah and Rachel. When it came to the Israelites being divided into 12 tribes, twelve army groups, supplying a specific number of judges, they were all treated equally.

ותלד ליעקב בן, “She bore a son for Yaakov.” Nachmanides draws our attention to the fact that with all the births by the maidservants the Torah writes the formula: “she bore a son for Yaakov,” to indicate that Yaakov wanted these sons and acknowledged them as his, and that is why they are not referred to as “sons of the maid.” When the Torah speaks of “a fifth son and a sixth son” (verses 17 and 19) when Leah bore them, whereas no such ordinal numbers had been used in connection with her first 4 sons, and we could have expected these ordinal numbers to have been applied to the two sons Bilhah bore, the Torah wanted to emphasise how welcome these sons were not only to Leah but also to Yaakov. The repetition of “for Yaakov,” was more important seeing that Leah had already borne him four sons.

דנני אלהים GOD HATH PRONOUNCED JUDGMENT UPON ME — He judged me and found me guilty; he judged me again and found me guiltless (Genesis Rabbah 71:7).

דנני אלוקים, G’d was just and fair in not granting me children.

ותאמר...דנני אלוקים, He compared my legal status with that of my sister and found me also as deserving to have children, just as she is deserving. Seeing she spoke about the legal aspect of G’d’s judgment, as opposed to the favours granted by G’d’s attribute of Mercy, i.e. ה', she used His attribute of Justice when referring to Him, i.e. אלוקים.

He has judged me and found me guilty, and found me innocent. In Bereishis Rabboh (71:7) it says: “He judged me and found me guilty — ‘Rochel was barren.’ He judged me and found me innocent — ‘And has given me a son.’” Accordingly, “Hashem has judged me” is one matter [i.e., “found me guilty”], and “He has also heard my voice” is another matter [i.e., “found me innocent”]. See Re’m.

דון heißt sowohl: das Recht an jemandem vollziehen, wie וגם את הגוי Es .כי ידין ד׳ als jemandes Recht zur Geltung bringen, wie וגו׳ דן אנכי ist zweifelhaft, wie es hier zu verstehen sei. Das וגם שמע וגוי spräche für die erste Bedeutung: Gott hat ein strenges Recht an mir geübt und mir selbst die Fähigkeit Mutter zu werden versagt, allein er hat nun doch auch meinen Wunsch erhört, indem er mir ein Kind gewährt, dem ich wenigstens geistig Mutter werden und das, wenn ich es auch nicht geboren, ich doch pflegen und erziehen kann als meinen Beitrag zum Jakobshause.

דנני, “He has judged me;” she acknowledges that she had been appropriately punished for having been jealous of her sister. Nonetheless she had also then been rewarded. (Compare B’reshit Rabbah 71,7)

וגם שמע בקולי, but even so He did accept my prayer.

וגם שמע בקולי, to the prayer I offered to Him concerning this child. Even if I had not been worthy, He accepted my prayer.

ויתן לי בן, someone who will look after me in my old age., seeing he has been born on my knees, i.e. will be raised by me. When Yaakov’s senior wives, Rachel and Leah made such statements, they thereby signaled their agreement to freeing their handmaids who had possessed slave status up until then. They did this by referring to the sons of the handmaids as בנים, children, rather than as עבדים, slaves. If their mothers had been slaves, the children would have to be viewed and treated as slaves. We have proof of this from Exodus 21,4 האשה וילדיה תהיה לאדוניה, “the woman and her children will belong to her master.” This is the reason why these matriarchs did no longer have the mothers of the handmaids’ sons perform menial tasks for them as they did before these women were given to Yaakov to have children with. This was quite different from when Avraham had said to Sarah that Hagar, mother of Ishmael was “in your hand, do to her what you like,” i.e. she continued in her status as slave. They are always listed as בני יעקב, and participate fully in the inheritance, as opposed to a slave who cannot inherit as anything given to him automatically belongs to his master. In the case of Ishmael, the Torah had made sure by saying כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע “for your (Avraham’s) seed will be perpetuated through Yitzchok, that we would understand that Ishmael was not Avraham’s heir. (21,12)

ויתן לי בן, seeing that I intend to relate to him as if he were the fruit of my own womb. He is part of my family. [according to tradition both Zilpah and Bilhah were sisters to Rachel and Leah paternally, though they did not have the same mother. Ed.]

Rochel’s handmaid. This is reiterated here to indicate that unlike Hagar, she continued to treat her mistress with respect even after she conceived.

נפתולי אלהים WRESTLINGS OF GOD — Menachem ben Seruk explains in his Machbereth (Dictionary) that the word נפתולי is of the same root as פתיל in (Numbers 19:15) “a covering (פתיל) closely bound upon it”, so that the words here mean: By bonds from God have I been joined to my sister (made equal to her) to merit the privilege of having children. I, however, explain it in the same sense as (Deuteronomy 32:5) “perverse and crooked (עקש ופתלתול)”. I have been persistent and have made many importunities and wrestlings with God that I may become like my sister.

נפתולי אלוקים נפתלתי, this formulation is partly due to literary considerations, so that the letter נ at the beginning of the word נפתולי is due primarily in order to match the latter נ in the word נפתלתי. We encounter something similar is the construction of Samuel I 20,28 נשאל נשאל דוד,

נפתלי אלוהים נפתלתי, the word נפתולי is a variant of the word פתיל as in צמיד פתיל, a tightly fitted lid (Numbers 19,15) Rachel meant that her cleaving to her husband was an attachment containing spiritual, religious dimensions, making the bond between them immeasurably stronger.

ותהר...ותאמר נפתולי אלוקים, “I have engaged in a difficult contest with my sister;” the root פתל means to twist or be twisted as in פתיל תכלת, a string made of blue wool, i.e. two strands of yarn combined to make a cord, twisted. By pulling the two strands together the whole string becomes stronger. ותהר...ותאמר נפתולי אלוקים, “I have engaged in a difficult contest with my sister;” the root פתל means to twist or be twisted as in פתיל תכלת, a string made of blue wool, i.e. two strands of yarn combined to make a cord, twisted. By pulling the two strands together the whole string becomes stronger.

נפתולי אלוקים נפתלתי, “I have writhed repeatedly in prayer before G’d, etc.” (a prophetic pronouncement) I have become closer to G’d through him (Naftali) as Chirom of the tribe of Naftali did for the construction of Solomon’s Temple what Betzalel had done for the building of the Tabernacle in Moses’ time. (Kings I 5,24,32) Other commentators view Rachel’s struggles with G’d as concerning the inclusion of Bilhah’s sons in the 12 tribes, “the tribes of the Lord.”

Menachem ben Saruk explains it in the Machberes as צמיד פתיל... Meaning: In his work that connects words of the same root, he connects נפתולי אלהים נפתלתי with צמיד פתיל.

פתל. Lautverwandt mit , בטל ,בתל ,בדל ,die alle ein Scheiden und Sondern von anderem bedeuten, heißt פתל: eine von allem andern abschließende Ver- bindung. So פתיל die feste, zusammengedrehte Schnur, wodurch die verschiedenen Fäden zu einem gesonderten Ganzen werden. So צמיד פתיל: der fest aufliegende Deckel, wodurch das Gefäß von allem anderen abgeschlossen wird. הִפָתֵל wäre demnach das Bestreben, den Körper des andern so fest mit dem seinigen durch Umschlingung zu verbinden, dass er dadurch von jedem anderen Halt losgelöst, ganz in seine Gewalt kommt und so zum Falle gebracht wird. Es ist dies ganz der Kampf des Ringens. נפתולי אלקים, ein göttlicher Ringkampf, ein Kampf, der nicht um Gemeines ringt, dessen man sich zu schämen hätte, sondern: um göttliche Ziele habe ich mit meiner Schwester gerungen, um auch meinen Beitrag zum geistigen Aufbau unseres Hauses zu leisten; das habe ich damit bewiesen, dass ich selbst meine Sklavin meinem Manne zum Weibe gab, um so nahe als möglich Spenderin eines Kindes zu unserem Hause zu werden, dem ich dann ganz als dem meinen alle Mutterpflichten erfüllen könne.

נפתולי אלוקים נפתלתי עם אחותי, “I have wrestled mightily with my sister;” Rachel meant that she had managed to put up with a great deal of pain in her struggle with her sister but had managed thus far to hold her own. An alternate explanation: the expression נפתל is similar its meaning to the line in Deuteronomy 32, ,5: דור עקש ופתלתול, “a crooked and perverse generation.” She had to behave in a perverse manner through making allowance for her sister’s fertility. Nonetheless, she felt that she had prevailed seeing that she now had also two children to her credit. A third approach to this statement by Rachel: the word is related to the word פתיל as in צמיד פתיל in Numbers 19,15, where it means “a close connection,” She hinted that whereas Betzalel, the chief artisan that would build the Tabernacle in the future of whom the Torah stated that he was endowed with a great deal of wisdom, (Exodus 31,3) would be descended from Leah, her sister, at least his chief assistant Oholiov, would be descended from the tribe of Dan, one of her descendants through Bilhah. (Exodus 31,6) She would enjoy the vicarious satisfaction of having a share in that undertaking. She would also prevail, יכולתי, when it would come to the building of Solomon’s Temple when Chirom from the tribe of Naftali helped Solomon greatly. (Kings I, 7,14).

נפתלתי עם אחותי, “I have struggled mightily with my sister;” first she had been judged by the attribute of Justice of G-d; as a result of realising her error, she had now become closer to her sister. This is reflected in history. Though Betzalel, from the tribe of Yehudah (son of Leah) became the primary architect of the Tabernacle in the desert, his second in command was Oholiov, from the tribe of Dan, i.e. from Rachel’s servant maid. She felt that in a measure she had also prevailed over her sister in her rivalry, as the permanent Temple in Solomon’s time would be constructed by a descendant of Naftali, from her family. (Compare Kings I7,1314: וישלח המלך שלמה ויקח את תירם בן אשה אלמנה הוא ממטה נפתלי, “King Solomon sent for Chirom and brought him down from Tyre. He was the son of a widow of the tribe of Naftali, and his father had been a Tyrian, a coppersmith. He was endowed with skill, ability, and talent, for executing all work on bronze.” He came to King Solomon and executed all his work.”

גם יכלתי AND I HAVE PREVAILED — He has yielded to my importunities. Onkelos translated it in the sense of prayer (תפלה), in this way: נפתולי אלהים נפתלתי means prayers that were pleasing to God I offered and I was accepted and was answered like my sister.

עם אחותי, I did this jointly with my sister, both of us having liberated our respective handmaids in order to enable them to become mothers of the founding fathers of the Jewish people. This is what they meant when considering the sons of these former handmaids as בנים instead of as עבדים. Accordingly, Leah had already liberated her handmaid Zilpah before Bilhah had given birth to Naftali. How else could 8 of the 12 tribes have been born within 7 years of Yaakov’s getting married? 6 of these sons were Leah’s and 2 were Zilpah’s. Assuming each pregnancy lasted 9 months, and further assuming that none of these pregnancies occurred simultaneously, 8 times 9 months amounts to 72 months, i.e. 6 years. Unless Leah had given her handmaid to Yaakov before Naftali was born there would not have been enough time for Joseph to have been born at the end of the second 7 years of Yaakov’s service. At that time, after Joseph’s birth, Yaakov requested permission to go home to his parents.(3,26). The only alternative to our calculation would be that all the children were born after only 7 months pregnancy, and that none of the mothers observed even basic days of ritual impurity before again sleeping with their husbands.

אלוהים. The use of the word אלוהים is symbolic of the fierceness of the sisters’ competition, When we want to emphasise something as being extraordinary, we sometimes use the word “elohim” to do this, as for instance in the description of the size of the city of Nineveh in Jonah 3,3 where it is described as עיר גדולה לאלוהים. A similar expression in Psalms 36,7 כהררי א-ל describes towering mountains by using the word elohim as the appropriate adjective to describe this. Psalms 80,11 Jeremiah 2,31, and Song of Songs 8,6 are some more examples of the use of the word el or elohim as such an adjective.

נפתלתי means my prayer was accepted. There are many Midrashic explanations in the manner of Notaricon (i.e. making the letters of the word the initial letters of phrases having reference to the matter in question) (Genesis Rabbah 71:8).

גם יכולתי, I have achieved what I had planned by giving my maidservant to Yaakov.

WHEN LEAH SAW THAT SHE HAD LEFT OFF BEARING SHE TOOK ZILPAH HER HANDMAID, etc. I do not know what motivated this deed of Leah and why she gave her handmaid to her husband for she was not barren that she should hope to have children through Zilpah, and it is not natural for women to increase the number of their husbands’ wives. We must, however, say that the matriarchs were prophetesses,¹⁰⁸Bereshith Rabbah, end of Chapter 72. who knew that Jacob was destined to establish twelve tribes, and Leah desired that the majority of his sons be from her or from her handmaid, who was in her power, so that her sister Rachel would not prevail over her with respect to the number of her sons. Therefore, she said, G-d hath given me my share, because I have given my handmaid to my husband.¹⁰⁹Verse 18 here. Jacob also came unto her on account of this, i.e., that he raise many sons for he knew it to be so, as our Rabbis have said.¹¹⁰Bereshith Rabbah 70:17. Jacob was also aware that he was destined to establish twelve tribes.
It is possible that knowing that the Land had been given to their children, and realizing that Abraham and Isaac had not had many children, Jacob wanted to have many wives in order to increase his progeny so as to inherit the Land, for a fourth generation shall come hither again,¹¹¹Above, 15:16. and so Leah wanted to give him her handmaid so that he would not wed a stranger.

ותרא לאה, she thought that she was not going to have any more children herself, and gave her handmaid to Yaakov seeing that the matriarchs’ main concern was to increase the number of children that would be born for Yaakov.

ותרא לאה כי עמדה מלדת, “Leah became aware that she had stopped becoming pregnant, etc.” Nachmanides endeavours to justify Leah giving her servant maid Zilpah to Yaakov as a wife although she was not barren and had already born 4 sons for her husband. He suggests that Leah, as a prophetess, was aware that 12 sons would be born for Yaakov, and she wanted to be sure that the majority would be from her or her family. The reason that Yaakov agreed was that he, too, wanted to have more sons. It is possible that seeing that Yaakov knew that the land of Canaan had been given to Avraham, and both Avraham and Yitzchok had not produced many children, Yaakov wanted to make up for this by marrying a number of women. He knew that the fourth generation of Avraham’s descendants would return to the land of Canaan to take possession of it.

ותלד זלפה AND ZILPAH BARE — In the case of all Jacob’s wives there is mention of their having been with child (i. e. Scripture states ותהר) except in the case of Zilpah. This was because she was the youngest of all and quite a child in age so that her being with child was not noticeable (Genesis Rabbah 71:9) Laban had given her to Leah in order to deceive Jacob — that he might not perceive that they were bringing Leah to him in marriage — for thus was the custom: to give the elder handmaid to the elder daughter, and the younger handmaid to the younger daughter.

בא גד FOR MY HAPPINESS! — Good luck has come, as (Shabbat 67b) “Be lucky, my luck (גד גדי) and tire not”. Similar, also, is (Isaiah 45:11) “That prepare a table for fortune (גד)”. The Midrashic explanation is that he was born with the sign of the covenant upon him. It would then be like (Daniel 4:11) “cut down (גדו) the tree”. I do not know why it (בגד) is written as one word. Another comment on בגד is: why is it read as one word? It may be connected with the root בגד which denotes faithless as though Leah said to Jacob, “You proved faithless to me when you married my handmaid”, like a man who is faithless (בגד) to the wife of his youth).

בא גד, “we have been granted good fortune.” We find the word גד used in a similar sense in Isaiah 65,11 העורכים לגד שלחן, “Who set a table for Luck.” Also the Talmud Shabbat 67 גד גדי וסינוק לא, “be lucky and do not suffer from fatigue,” uses the word גד in this sense. Anyone who translates the word as derived from גדוד, related to a troop, is in error. Even though names usually reflect a popular manner of speaking, such as ראובן being related to ראה, saw, (compare 29,32) or שמעון as related to שמע, (29,33) unless Leah had mentioned the word גדוד when naming this son we would not be able to trace the word גד as an abbreviation of גדוד, (using the letter ד twice) justifying such a comparison. The expression יגודו על נפש צדיק in Psalms 94,21 “they band together to do away with the righteous,” where it does stem from the word גדוד, does so because of the dagesh in the second ד.replaces the missing second ד. We find a parallel construction in Psalms 106,43 וימכו בעונם, where the dagesh in the letter כ of the word וימוכו substitutes for the missing second letter כ of the root מכך. Job 30,12 and 16,13 also have similar constructions where a dagesh substitutes for a missing root letter.

בא גד, this one came coincidentally, for I had not planned to ring him into the world, seeing that I had stopped giving birth. The reason why the word is spelled as a single word with the letter א missing, is to indicate that the conception and pregnancy was not planned but occurred gratuitously. Her pregnancy had somehow become terminated after it had begun. We find a similar construction of the word בגד in Job 6,15: אחי בגדו כמו נחל, “my comrades are fickle like a wadi.”

ותלד...ותאמר...בגד, the 2 words בא גד have been condensed into a single word, the letter א having been omitted. The meaning of the expression is “this one came or brought with him with good fortune.” It is read as if it had been written as two separate words, i.e. “good fortune has arrived.” The phrase העורכים לגד שלחן, in Isaiah 65,11 is also to be understood as “who set a table for luck?” Rabbi Moshe hacohen Gigatilia says that the word גד refers to a star so named in the language of Kedar. This is a star presumed to forecast good fortune. If we wanted to explain the word גד in terms of גדוד, we could still explain it as having a similar meaning, i.e. בא גודד הגדוד, “with the arrival of this one there is a full troop of sons.”

ותאמר לאה בגד, “Leah said: ‘good fortune has come.’” Some commentators, in zeroing in on the name גד, point out that members of the tribe of Gad were the first ones to receive their ancestral portion of land in the land of Israel, as documented in Numbers 32,2 “the members of the tribes of Gad and Reuven came, etc.” Other commentators hold that that the word בגד means that Leah said: “now I know that my husband has betrayed me, seeing that he has taken my maid servant as a competing wife.” When Avraham took Hagar he had not had any children by Sarah. When Rachel gave her maid servant to Yaakov, she too had not born any children for him. But I have born my husband four children, so there was no reason for him to take her as a wife. If, nonetheless I have started being capable of having children again this must be my reward for allowing him to take my maid servant. When she bore another son she called him אשר to reinforce this feeling of joyous gratitude to G’d Who had blessed her with 6 sons.

He was born circumcised... Accordingly, גד means “cutting,” that is to say that the cutting of his circumcision was already done.

גדד von גד: scharf, rasch, plötzlich, trennend in etwas ein- fahren, einschneiden. Daher גדור: eigentlich ein Truppenkeil, ein Haufe Gewaffneter, der rasch und plötzlich in das Gebiet eines andern einfällt, und גוֹד: einen solchen Keil bilden, oder einen solchen Einfall machen. Wie die Begriffe des Bestimmens, Verhängens gerne durch Schneiden, Trennen, wie כרת ,חרץ ,גזר, als ein Scharfes, Absolutes ausgedrückt werden, so fand auch der Begriff eines plötzlich in die Ver- hältnisse einfallenden Geschickes seinen Ausdruck in עורכים לגד שולחן :גד, sie decken dem Glücke, dem Zufalle, den Tisch (Jes. 65, 11). Und so heißt auch hier (א)בָ wohl: ein unerwartetes Glück ist gekommen. Es war dies ein Sohn, auf den sie unter gewöhnlichen Umständen nicht hätte rechnen dürfen. War sie ja nur durch das Beispiel ihrer Schwester zu ihm gekommen.

ותאמר לאה בגד, Leah said: “he betrayed,” i.e. this son is the result of my husband’s betrayal. [based on the word בגידה, “treachery. Ed.] Leah felt that although she had given Yaakov her servant maid to sleep with, he should not have accepted that offer. Did I not bear him four sons already? While it is true that he slept with Rachel’s servant maid also, this was understandable, as she had not born him any children. She called the son גד. [If I understand our author correctly, Leah was happy to be the “mother” of another son, but unhappy about how she had to come by him, i.e. vicariously. Ed.] She called the second son her servant maid had born, אשר, i.e. source of happiness, as by now she had reconciled herself to have given Yaakov her maidservant (This interpretation is close to the one offered in the midrash hagadol)

The word: בגד, which is spelled as a single word instead of as two words: i.e. בא גד, but is read as one word. If we read this word as two words, the meaning is: בא גד, “a troop arrived,” i.e. my four sons have now been joined by another one that forms part of my little army.

She said "Elokim has gathered my shame" and she called his name Joseph saying "YHVH will add for me another son." First, we need to understand that she said G-d gathered etc... Then afterwards, she called him by a different name: that he is Joseph (will add). She should have called him Asaf (gathered). It is known that here it is different from the rest of the names where it was first written next to each one "she said he has judged me etc... and she called his name Dan (judged). Thus it is for all of the rest. In the specific case of this name, that she called him Joseph, it completely contradicts and is entirely the opposite of what was originally intended. That he would be Asaf, this is a language of gathering and bringing in, so that there would not be more, but Joseph, this name is a language of addition, that there may be more added. There is something to explain, according to the poverty of my mind, thus: Behold, she had a need to give thanks for what had happened, that HaShem Yisborach did not abandon her in His mercy and gave her a son. Also, she wanted to pray for the future, that YHVH would add for her another son. It is known that the letter Aleph is Yud Vav, that an Aleph is written with Yud, Vav, Yud like this, that it is the figure of Yud Vav. This is the value of this verse: "she said 'G-d has gathered my shame.'" She gave thanks for the past. "She called his name Joseph," the reason to say "YHVH will add for me another son" is that she needed also to speak and to pray for the future. Thus, she called his name Joseph that this name includes both of them. "YHVH will add" is a prayer, according to its simple understanding, and it is also an expression of gratitude for what has already occurred, because Yud Vav is Aleph, as has been explained above, and the letters of Joseph are also the letters of Asaf. Now, we teach about both of them. You should understand this.  

באשרי, I am glowing in the praises and good wishes bestowed on me by the other women.

באשרי, this son is part of my bliss, my happiness, because he is also a son for me.

ותלד..ותאמר..באשרי, the root of the word is in the kal conjugation. She said that others will give me credit for building Yaakov’s future seeing that between her sons and her handmaids sons they had contributed 8 out of 12.

אשר, ist einerseits verwandt mit אסר ,עשׂר ,אצר ,חשר ,עשר, die alle eine Ansammlung von Kräften mit mehr oder minderer Intensität bedeuten, anderseits finden wir אשור in der Bedeutung von Schritt und zwar insbesondere in sitt- licher Beziehung; somit dürfte die Grundbedeutung von אשר wesentlich: Fortschritt, d. h. die stetige Hinbewegung zu einem größeren Reichtum von Kräften und Eigen schaften bedeuten. Davon heißt: אֶשֶר und אשֶר: das gedeihliche Fortschreiten und אַשְרֵי heißt wörtlich: Dessen ist aller Fortschritt zum Guten und zum Heile, der usw. אְַשֵרָה ist ein bermeintlich unter besonderem Segen einer Gottheit, der er geweiht ist, gedeihender Baum. Endlich אשר, das Pron. relat., lässt ja immer das Subjekt oder Objekt mit einem neuen Prädikate denken, vergegenwärtigt ganz eigentlich einen Gegenstand durch seine Qualifikationen, ist somit die Partikel der Charak- terisierung, die den Gegenstand in den Umfang der ihm zukommenden Merk- male einführt. — בְאָשרי, sprach Lea, wie durch meine eigenen Geburten, zeigt sichs auch durch die Geburten meiner früheren Dienerin, dass ich noch in meinem alten Fortschreiten zum Heile mich befinde; denn in der Tat haben die Frauen in meinem Kindersegen mein fortschreitendes Gedeihen gepriesen.

בימי קציר חטים IN THE DAYS OF WHEAT HARVEST — This is stated in praise of the tribes (שבטים a common term for Jacob’s twelve sons, the ancestors of the Tribes of Israel): it was harvest-time, yet he (Reuben) did not put forth his hand upon private property (literally, that which is stolen) by bringing home wheat or barley, but he brought home only ownerless things (such as were free for all to take) about which no one is particular (Genesis Rabbah 72:2).

‘DUDA’IM.’ These are ‘sigli’ (violets). In Arabic it is called jasmin. So I found in Rashi’s commentary. But this is not so for the Arabic jasmin bears the same name in the words of our Rabbis, as they say in the chapter Bameh Tomnin:¹¹²“With What May They Cover Up” hot food, the fourth chapter in Tractate Shabbath. 50b. “Poppy pomace flavored with jasmin may be used [as a lotion on the Sabbath],” while they say sigli is an odorous herb concerning which they have said¹¹³Berachoth 43b. that on smelling it, one recites the blessing: “Blessed art Thou… who createst odorous plants.” However, their season is not in the days of the wheat, but perhaps Reuben found them there by chance. It is best to accept Onkelos’ opinion concerning the translation of duda’im, which he rendered as yavruchin (mandrakes). In Bereshith Rabbah¹¹⁴72:2. it is also explained similarly: “Rabbi Chiya the son of Rabbi Abba said, ‘Yavruchin,’” and these are yavruach in Arabic.
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “Onkelos translated duda’im as ‘mandrakes,’ and so they are called in Arabic. They have a good odor. And it is so written: The mandrakes give forth fragrance.¹¹⁵Song of Songs 7:14. They resemble the human form as they have the shape of the human head and hands. Now some say that they are an aid to pregnancy, but I do not know it since their effect is to produce the cold fluid in the body.” These are Ibn Ezra’s words.
The correct interpretation is that Rachel wanted the duda’im for delight and pleasure, for Rachel was visited with children through prayer, not by medicinal methods. And Reuben brought the branches of duda’im or the fruit, which resemble apples and have a good odor. The stem, however, which is shaped in the form of the human head and hands, he did not bring, and it is the stem which people say is an aid to pregnancy. And if the matter be true, it is by some peculiar effect, not by its natural quality. But I have not seen it thus in any of the medicinal books discussing mandrakes.

דודאים, flowers of the fig tree; (compare Jeremiah 24,1) In Song of Songs 7,14 these flowers are described as rich in fragrance.

וילך ראובן, when he saw that his mother was unhappy that she was no longer having children,

וילך ראובן, Reuven was about 6 or 7 years old at the time. He went out into the wheat fields, found these dudaim and brought them to his mother Leah. Dudaim are a kind of herb whose roots have a natural reddish appearance. Perhaps Reuven had heard some place that this herb is supposed to help women get pregnant, and that seeing his mother had not had any babies lately, he meant to help her in this regard. The popular belief in the efficacy of the dudaim in this respect is not based on fact. If it had been true, why did Rachel not get pregnant after eating them? Also Leah did not get pregnant as a result of eating dudaim, for the Torah says: וישמע אלוקים אל לאה, that G’d listened to Leah’s prayer. (verse 17)

דודאים, “jasmines.” According to Ibn Ezra jasmines exude a pleasant fragrance and also possess the shape of a human being with head and hands like extrusions. Other commentators claim that these flowers are conducive to its owner conceiving. Ibn Ezra himself doubts this as in his estimation theses flowers are “cold,” i.e. do not stimulate sexual arousal. Nachmanides writes these jasmines were not intended to make her pregnant, but she wanted to enjoy their fragrance, being aware that Rachel had become pregnant as a result of her prayers and not as a result of inhaling the fragrance of jasmines. Reuven brought his mother the branches of the jasmine plants, not the roots which resemble human features. This may be why people say that these roots may somehow help a woman to get pregnant, although Nachmanides did not find reference to this in any medical text at his disposal.

וימצא דודאים בשדה, “he found dudaim in the field.” According to Nachmanides the shape of the root of this plant resembles the shape of a human head and hands and is therefore especially likely to evoke feelings of desire to become pregnant in the person who looks at or eats this plant. [a common translation for dudaim is either “jasmine” or “mandrakes.”] The fruit of the plant supposedly looks like an apple and gives off a very pleasant fragrance The effect of such a plant as a fertility inducing agent is questioned by early commentators seeing it induces cold and dryness, the very opposite of the process of fertilisation. If, so, the plant was used in order to invoke G’d’s powers as opposed to the powers of nature. If Rachel used the dudaim being aware of this she would have demonstrated that she would attribute any pregancy to the effectiveness of her prayer rather than to natural causes. According to Nachmanides’ sources Reuven had brought his mother only the fruit, not the root of the plant. He (a young child of maybe 5 or 6 years of age) had meant for his mother to amuse herself with the fragrance of the plant. Leah herself had intended to provide her and Yaakov’s nuptial bed with the sweet fragrance of that flower. This practice has been described in Proverbs 7,17. Nachmanides adds that he has not found anything about the effectiveness of this plant in medical texts he has seen.

Reuvein went. Although the fields were filled with delicacies, he took nothing but jasmine flowers for his mother and only from the ownerless “field.” Moreover, he gave them to her to help her conceive, even while knowing that additional siblings would diminish his position.

Man hat hier wiederum ein ernstes Geschäft erblickt, und es ist doch ganz undenkbar, dass Lea, deren ganzes Leben in dem Streben aufging, sich die Liebe ihres Gatten zu gewinnen, die Worte: Du hast meinen Mann, nun willst du auch noch meine Feldblumen haben! in einem ernsten Sinne gesprochen haben könne. Als ob zu dem Besitz des Mannes ein paar Blumen irgend wie auch nur im geringsten etwas hinzufügen, nur irgendwie dagegen in Betracht kommen könnten! Vielmehr erscheint das Ganze als das Zeichen eines ganz vertraulichen Zusammenlebens beider Schwestern. Während Jakob auf dem Felde ist, sitzen die beiden Frauen zusammen. Die Abende verlebt er abwechselnd im Kreise der einen und der andern. Reuben, ja noch ein kleiner Knabe, bringt Blumen mit nach Hause. Gib mir welche davon! bittet Rahel. Welche Anmaßung, sagt Lea scherzend usw. gibt ihr aber von den Blumen, das ist aus dem folgenden לכן der Rahel ersichtlich. Nun, sagt Rahel, weil du so freundlich warst, darum soll er auch heute Abend bei dir einkehren. Das: קחתך את אישי kann sich auch vielleicht nur auf den Tag beziehen. Heute hast du meinen Mann usw.

וימצא דודאים, “he found figs.” (Rash’bam).

דודאים are violets: it is a plant. In Arabic it is called Jasmin.

וימצא דודאים, a pleasant smelling herb, the fragrance stimulating the human organs related to conceiving and giving birth. Our sages (Baba Kamma 82) said garlic has a similar effect on people and that this is the reason why one eats garlic on Friday nights when the husbands cohabit with their wives. The Dudaim appear to have been known as producing a similar effect. It is possible that the Dudaim had an even better effect in stimulating the feelings of love between a man and his wife. This idea is based on Song of Songs 7,13-14 שם אתן את דודי לך, הדודאים נתנו ריח, “there I will give my love to you, the mandrakes yield their fragrance.” Our verse would testify both to Reuven’s righteousness and his intelligence. especially considering that at that time he could hardly have been older than 4 or five years old.

ותאמר רחל, she was under the impression that the popularly held belief about dudaim was correct.

Is it a small matter that thou hast taken my husband and that thou wouldst do this in addition — TO TAKE MY SON’S MANDRAKES ALSO? It should therefore be translated in the Targum by ולמיטב, the infinitive like the Hebrew infinitive ולקחת “and to take.”

IS IT A SMALL MATTER THAT THOU HAST TAKEN AWAY MY HUSBAND? The intent thereof is as follows: “Is it a small matter that you take my husband unto yourself as if you are his wife and I am the handmaid? Will you now also make yourself the mistress to take the mandrakes in whose odor I delight?”
It is possible that Rachel wanted the mandrakes in honor of Jacob to perfume his couch. Leah had done in the customary way of women, just as it is written, I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes and cinnamon.¹¹⁶Proverbs 7:17. Therefore, Leah said, Is it a small matter that thou hast taken away my husband from me that you now also take my son’s mandrakes to win him over with them?
And some scholars say¹¹⁷I have not been able to identify them. However, see R’dak. that duda’im are herbs, which act as a male aphrodisiac, the word being derived from the expression, the time of ‘dodim’ (love).¹¹⁸Ezekiel 16:8. Therefore Leah said, Is it a small matter that thou hast taken away my husband? as I have mentioned.

Isn’t it enough that you took. You should not have agreed to become my co-wife in the first place, since the Torah disapproves of marrying sisters.

המעט קחתך את אישי, "Is it not enough that you have taken my husband, etc.?" Leah's words must be understood according to those rabbis who hold that Jacob's bed was permanently in Rachel's tent. She therefore argued that whatever time Jacob spent with Rachel in excess of a fair division was at her expense. When she used the expression ולקחת, "you have taken," she meant that the chances of bearing children were directly related to the frequency with which husband and wife engage in marital relations, as our sages state on several occasions (compare Chulin 11 et al in an indirect proof). The incident with the jasmin is related here as it is considered an aphrodisiac and its fragrance facilitates conception (Zohar 1,157). Leah complained that Rachel wanted the jasmin of her son in addition to almost monopolising Jacob's nights.

המעט קחתך את אישי, seeing that Rachel still did not have any children Yaakov slept with her far more often than he did with Leah in order to soothe her mind.

With me.... Otherwise, what does “in exchange for” mean? “Your son’s jasmines” clearly implies a complete trade, i.e., each gives something that is his.

המעט קחתך את אישי, “not only have you usurped my position as the senior wife, seeing that I was married to him first, but...”

לכן ישכב עמך הלילה THEREFORE SHALL HE BE WITH THEE TONIGHT —He should have stayed this night with me but I cede it to you in return for your son’s mandrakes. Because she thought lightly of companionship with so righteous a man she was not privileged to be buried together with him (Genesis Rabbah 72:3).

Would you also take. Do you now wish to increase Yaakov’s love for you and his hatred for me?

את אישי, she meant that Yaakov was her husband no less than he was Rachel’s husband.

Because she made light... she did not merit being buried with him. [You might ask:] Does it not it say in Bereishis Rabboh 82:11 [that she was buried on the road] so she would assist her children when Nevuzaradan will exile them, as Rashi explains in Parshas Vayechi (48:7)? The answer is: Had she not made light of Yaakov, Leah would be buried there instead, and she would assist her children. Because Rochel made light, she did not merit being buried with him.

The reason that Jacob did not divide his time equally between his two wives was simply that he had no obligation to sleep with Leah except when the latter had ritually purified herself after her menstruation (based on Exodus 21,10). After all he had not married her on his own initiative, as distinct from Rachel whom he had wanted to wed in the first place.

לכן ישכב עמך הלילה. In order that the effect of your sleeping with him will become effective before I can use the effect of the mandrakes. You will therefore not suffer any damage if you give me some of the mandrakes now. This is all the more so if, as our sages contend, these mandrakes were ownerless and had never belonged to anyone specifically. (Bereshit Rabbah,72,2)

ולקחת גם את דודאי בני, the word ולקחת is in an infinitive mode, as if she had said ותרצי לקחת, “you want to take.” If the meaning of the word would be as the translater (Onkelos) renders it as ותסבין, the letter ת in ולקחת should have had a dagesh as is customary, for instance in Kings I 14,3 ולקחת בידך.

לכן ישכב עמך הלילה, "therefore he shall sleep with you tonight." It appears as if this depended exclusively on Rachel's wishes. Therefore she added: "in exchange for the jasmin of your son."

לכן, in exchange for this.

Alternatively, this can be understood as an oath. There are matters which are acquired only by means of an oath, such as items that are intangible. (the fragrance of the jasmin). Compare my commentary on Genesis 25,33 when Esau sold his birthright.

שכר שכרתיך FOR SURELY I HAVE HIRED THEE — I have given Rachel the hire she demanded.

You will come to me. This will entail no injustice since Rochel agreed. Like Adam before the sin, the Patriarchs and Matriarchs related to reproduction as nothing other than a way to produce more servants for Hashem.

ותצא לאה, Leah went out, etc.. The reason Leah went to meet Jacob, something that was not considered good manners was that she was afraid Rachel might change her mind. If we accept the view that Rachel swore to her and therefore could not go back on her word we must justify Leah's behaviour as being based on the lack of precision of Rachel's promise. Rachel had not said that Jacob could sleep with Leah on that night. Leah did not want to be put off. By displaying eagerness to sleep with her husband she profited by becoming pregnant.

ויבא יעקב, the reason why this whole paragraph has been preserved in the Torah for all times is to demonstrate that what motivated our matriarchs in their relations with their husbands was exclusively their task to produce as many children for them as possible. They were not concerned with indulging their libido. When Rachel, during those years, made a point of sleeping with Yaakov at every opportunity, it was because she hoped that on one of those occasions her prayers would be answered and that she would conceive. We find that in verse 22 this did indeed happen. It stands to reason then that when Leah requested that Yaakov sleep with her on a certain occasion, she too prayed that she would conceive as an answer to her prayers. She had resumed praying for additional children as soon as she had noticed that she no longer seemed to become pregnant easily. G’d did indeed listen to her prayer as we know from verse 17. As to Leah going out towards Yaakov while the latter was on his way home from work, she did this fully in accordance with accepted moral ethical rules, seeing that Yaakov had been unaware of the bargain Leah had made with Rachel. Had she not headed him off, Yaakov would have proceeded to Rachel’s tent, as was his custom. It would have been most inappropriate for Leah to ask Yaakov to leave Rachel’s tent after he had already arrived there.

God helped him... Rashi is saying that הוא refers to Hashem, for otherwise, [if it meant “that night,”] it should say ההוא. How did He help him? Yaakov came from the field riding a donkey, intending to ride to Rochel’s tent. Hashem caused the donkey to bray so that Leah would hear and go out to meet Yaakov, so he would come to her tent. And so it was. He came to Leah’s tent, and that night, Yissachar was conceived. Thus it says יששכר חמור גרם(49:14). I.e., how did יששכר come to be born? חמור גרם. I.e., the donkey was the cause (הגורם).

וישכב עמה בלילה הוא, “he slept with her on that night.” [In order to be grammatically correct, the Torah should have written: בלילה ההוא. Our author points out that this is not a scribe’s error, but that we have a similar formulation in Genesis 32,23: ויקם לילה הוא, “he got up during that night,” where we also would have expected to find: בלילה ההוא. [Perhaps the missing letter is to indicate that in both instances Yaakov made the decision hastily. Ed.]

בלילה הוא THAT NIGHT — With God’s help Isaachar was born (Niddah 31a, and cf. Genesis Rabbah 99).

וישכב עמה בלילה הוא, willingly, not reluctantly. He appreciated her urgent desire to have more children fathered by him.

אלי תבא, to my tent, seeing that each of the matriarchs had her own tent.

Leah may also have walked towards her husband in order not to have to call him to her after Jacob had already entered Rachel's tent. This would have been an embarassment for her sister Rachel. It might have resulted in open jealousy. Leah's virtuous considerations therefore outweighed the unconventional manner of her behaviour. It is clear that G'd appreciated this as He rewarded her by letting her conceive; the Torah wrote: "G'd listened to Leah and she conceived." Look at my commentary on that verse

בלילה הוא the noun has the definitive article, i.e. the patach under the letter ב in the word בלילה, whereas the adjective, the word הוא, does not have the prefix ה which would signal such a definitive article, i.e. referring to a specific night we already know about. There are many such constructions in the Torah, one of the best known ones being in Numbers 28,4 את הכבש אחד, where we would have expected the word האחד instead of merely אחד. Samuel II 6,3 is another such example where we would have expected the word החדשה instead of חדשה.

שכר שכרתיך, "I have rented you, etc." This means: "I have paid a fee to someone for the pleasure of your company." The repetition of the word שכר indicates that she referred to two things, i.e. that Jacob stay with her for the night and that he should have marital relations with her.

בלילה הוא, that night. This is simply a reference to the fact that Jacob fully agreed.

וישמע אלהים אל לאה AND GOD HEARKENED UNTO LEAH —for she eagerly desired and sought means to increase the number of the tribes (Genesis Rabbah 72:5).

וישמע אלוקים אל לאה, because she had used both natural means, and then, failing to succeed, relied on prayer. She herself is on record as confirming this when she said נתן אלוקים שכרי אשר נתתי שפחתי לאישי, “G’d has given me my reward for having offered my handmaid to my husband. Giving Zilpah to Yaakov was considered by her as a way of relying on natural means of having more children, seeing she had come to the conclusion that she could not have any more from her own womb.

וישמע אלוקים, G'd heard, etc. This means that Leah prayed to G'd first.

וישמע, when the Torah speaks of “the fifth son,” “the sixth son,” this is to remind us that this woman was deemed worthy to bear half of the 12 founding fathers of the Jewish nation.

She desired and sought to increase the number of tribes. [Rashi knows this] because normally the phrase וישמע אלהים pertains only if one prayed. But here it is not stated that she prayed for sons. Thus Rashi explains, “Because she desired...” I.e., since she so wished to increase the tribes, it was considered as if she prayed for this — and Hashem granted her wish.

It may also mean that G'd had understood the reasons for Leah's behaviour. She was motivated by her love for G'd and her desire to fulfil His commandments. If, in the process, she had committed an error of etiquette, G'd on His part did the same by allocating to her more than the four sons originally intended. The other two sons were in recognition of Leah's pure motives.

יששכר, a double reward, one for handing over the dudaim; the other, that I gave my handmaid to my husband to have children with.

ותאמר, seeing that she had stopped bearing children and had given her maidservant to Yaakov in her stead, she thought that she had been rewarded for this by G’d (for two reasons; 1) for helping her husband to father more children so that his indulging in sexual intercourse with a woman who could not provide him with children would not be accounted as mere physical gratification. 2) for having done her maidservant a great favour to become able to mother the children of such a righteous man as Yaakov. For both of these reasons she expressed the hope that G’d would reward her. When she subsequently indeed bore children for Yaakov again herself, she considered this as her reward from G’d and thanked Him for it. She made certain that her son’s name reflected her feeling of gratitude by naming him יששכר.

ותקרא שמו יששכר, “she named him Issachar.” Actually, she should have called him שכר, “reward.” Since she felt she had been rewarded for two actions, the handing over of her maid servant, as well as the handing over of her son’s jasmines, she indicated this by the second letter ש in the word שכר calling this son יששכר.

יששכר, this name (word) has two successive letters ש, one in order to express Leah’s gratitude to G–d for having been paid her reward, שכר, for having given Rachel her son’s mandrakes in order to help her to conceive more easily, and the second for allowing her an extra night with her husband, i.e. hiring him, שכר, so as to become pregnant from him again. (verse 16), [Normally, this arrangement is viewed with distaste by the Torah; but the Torah reported the whole sequence in order to show the reader that Leah’s intentions had not been to satisfy her libido, but to become the mother of another one of the twelve tribes making up the Jewish nation. Ed.] This is also the reason why when reading the Torah in public, the second letter ש is not read, i.e. cannot be heard by the audience. An alternate approach: the reason this letter in the name of יששכר here is not read aloud was that it was “stolen:” from Yissochor’s son יוב which was really ישוב, as we know from Numbers 46,24. When the latter had first been called יוב, he protested against this name so that the letter ש was added to his name by his father.

נתן אלוקים שכרי אשר נתתי שפחתי לאישי, “G-d gave me my reward for having given my maidservant to my husband.” She acknowledged G-d’s generosity, by having realised that if her sister had become a mother only vicariously by having given her servant maid to her husband, she had had good reason, as she had failed to personally provide him with children, and this was excusable; she, Leah having done so also was probably inexcusable; if nonetheless G-d had blessed her with having two more sons to raise, she considered this as a reward for her generosity in offering Yaakov her servant maid as a wife. In light of these considerations she named this son יששכר, “he who will be the symbol of a reward.” The name is written with two letters ש to draw our attention to what she meant.

זבד טוב A GOOD DOWRY — explain it as the Targum renders it: a good portion.

G-D HATH ‘Z’VADANI’ (ENDOWED) ME WITH A GOOD ‘ZEVED’ (DOWRY). The commentators have not found the source of this word in the Sacred Language.
We could perhaps say that zeved is a composite word formed from zeh bad, just as is the word madua, [which is composed of the two words, mah dua, meaning “what is the opinion of this matter” or simply “why”] or the word bagad¹¹⁹Verse 11 here. in its written form. [It is read, however, as two words: ba gad (good luck cometh.)] Since the vowel signs segol and patach interchange in many places, particularly in composite words, [the second segol in zeved could have come from the patach of bad: zeh bad]. So also in the word tzalmaveth, [which consists of the two words: tzeil maveth (the shade of death)], and the word biladai, [composed of bal ad (except unto, except unto me, or except me)]. And the second part (bad) of the word zeved comes from the word badim (branches), as in, ‘badei’ (staves) of accacia-wood;¹²⁰Exodus 25:13. And it brought forth ‘badim’ (branches), and shot forth sprigs.¹²¹Ezekiel 17:6. The thick branches of a tree are called badim, and then the word was appropriated to mean “children,” as in, The first-born of death shall devour ‘badav’ (his sons);¹²²Job 18:13. His ill-founded ‘badav’ (sons).¹²³Isaiah 16:6. See Rashi there, who explains the verse as follows: for most of Moab’s sons are illegitimate, etc. Therefore Leah said that this son whom G-d had given her would be a good son for he will cause her husband to reside in her shadow, as “he will now ‘yizbleini’ (dwell with me) in my shadow.” Similarly, I have surely built Thee a house ‘z’vul’ (of habitation),¹²⁴I Kings 8:13. meaning “in order to abide in His shadow.” This was said in this fashion out of respect for the Supreme One, just as Solomon said, Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee, how much less this house that I have builded!¹²⁵Ibid., Verse 27. Likewise, The sun and moon stand still ‘z’vulah’ (in their habitation),¹²⁶Habakkuk 3:11. meaning “stand still in the place where they abide,” as it is said, In them [the heavens] hath He set a tent for the sun.¹²⁷Psalms 19:5.
Now Onkelos translated zeved tov as a good portion. I did not understand his reasoning until I saw in the Jerusalem Targum:¹²⁸Found in our Targum Yonathan. The traditional Targumim (translations) of the Pentateuch are Onkelos, Yonathan, and Yerushalmi. The latter has not reached us in its entirety. “The word of G-d has outfitted me (zavad) with good provision.” [Zavad is written here with two vavim instead of the beth with which the word zeved is written in the Torah.] From this I learned that both Onkelos and the Jerusalem Targum considered the word zeved of the Torah, which is spelled with the letter beth, as if it were written with the letter vav, and they connected it to the Aramaic language which translates the Hebrew word tzeidah (provision) as zvadim (provisions). Leah thus said that G-d had made this son a good provision and a good portion for her because her husband, due to her many children, will now live mainly with her, and thus she will be supported together with him when it is well with him. The vav and the beth are used interchangeably in our language in many places, such as: ta’avah (desire) written with a vav,¹²⁹Above, 3:6. and ta’avah, written with a beth;¹³⁰Psalms 119:20. geivi (My back) — [written with a vav] — I have given to the smiters,¹³¹Isaiah 50:6. and, Upon ‘gabi’ (my back) — [written with a beth] — the plowers plowed.¹³²Psalms 129:3. So also, ‘Lekitzvei’ (To the bottoms) — [written with a beth] — of the mountains I went down,¹³³Jonah 2:7. is as if it were written, lekitzvei with a vav. Also, ‘Laparbor’ (For the precinct) — [written with a beth] — westward, four at the causeway,¹³⁴I Chronicles 26:18. serves as the basis of the word parvor, written with a vav, as it is written, By the chamber of Nethan-melech the officer, which was ‘baparvorim’ (in the precincts),¹³⁵II Kings 23:11. written with a vav, and the meaning of both forms, [whether written with a beth or vav] is the Court which is outside the wall. ‘Umigrash’ (And open land) round about the cities,¹³⁶Numbers 35:2. is rendered by the Jerusalem Targum as, uparvor. And so did the Jonathan Targum translate migrashoth (open lands) as parvoraya.¹³⁷Ezekiel 27:28. In the Mishnah we also find the vav and the beth interchange: “A tarvad (spoon)-full,” written with a vav,¹³⁸Nazir VII, 2. and in some editions it is written, tarbad, with a beth; “A board which has no levazbiz (edges),” written with a beth,¹³⁹Pesachim 48b. and in certain places they use the word lazbiz, written with a beth,¹⁴⁰Kelim II, 3. while in other places they use lazviz written with a vav.¹⁴¹Source is unknown to me. Also, itztaba (a balcony), written with a beth,¹⁴²Shabbath 7a. and itztava, written with a vav,¹⁴³Eirubin 77b. and many other similar words. In the Jerusalem Talmud they also write avir (space)¹⁴¹Source is unknown to me. with a beth in place of the usual vav, as they were not particular about that.

זבד, an expression denoting a generous portion of something, depending on the context in which the word is used.

Elokim has given. Hashem gave her Yissachar in reward for her first effort in giving Yaakov her maidservant and He gave her Zevulun in reward for her second effort in trading the jasmine flowers for an additional night with him.

ותהר...ותאמר זבדני אלוקים אותי זבד טוב, the meaning of the name corresponds to the circumstances surrounding the child’s birth. As to the apparent repetition, i.e. saying אותי, something already mentioned by the suffix ני in the word זבדני, this may have been to make her intention in naming the boy even more unmistakable. It is also possible that the letters את in this word mean “from,” as in Genesis 44,3 הם יצאו את העיר, “they had departed from the city,” so that the suffix י would make the word mean “from me.” She would then have emphasised that not only had she been built up through raising the children of her handmaid, but that G’d had even granted her additional children from her own womb. She was grateful that her husband’s semen when sleeping with her did not go to waste. She was grateful that the gift of this baby originated in her womb.

הפעם יזבלני אישי, “this time my husband will reside with me.” Seeing I have so many children my “tent” is no longer adequate for my needs. My husband now has to take me into his tent.

ותקרא את שמו זבולון, “she called his name Zevulun.” As we mentioned already, she attributed her good fortune to the emanation תפארת, “harmony,” [the sixth of the emanations counting from the lowest מלכות upwards. Ed.] This is the reason that the terrestrial Holy Temple is sometimes referred to as זבול in the writings of our prophets. [We also have the expression זבול בית תפארתנו in a song sung on the Sabbath. Altogether, the emanation תפארת represents the highest rung of the spiritual ladders average Jews are capable of attaining during their lifetime. Ed.] When Leah commented about her accomplishment of having born six sons for Yaakov she may well have had such a thought in her mind.

Having a similar meaning as בית זבול... Meaning: his dwelling will be with me. The suffix ויזבלני denotes “with me.” It does not mean he will take me to his dwelling.

זבד verwandt mit ויצבט קלי ,צבט (Ruth 2), jemanden etwas zumessen, zuteilen, und הצבתים ,צבת (das.): die zusammengenommenen Garbengebinde. Ebenso צבת: das Werkzeug, mit welchem man etwas von einer Masse zusammennimmt, Zange. Daher זבד: der beschiedene Teil. Da das אותי wiederholt die Person hervorhebt, so kann es auch heißen: Gott hat mich zu einem guten Teil — für meinen Mann — gemacht. Mein Mann findet in mir die Erfüllung seiner Wünsche. Ebenso יקבלני. Vergegenwärtigen wir uns, dass זְבול zunächst nur als Charakteristik des בית המקדש in seiner Geeignetheit für Gott vorkommt: בנה בניתי בית זכול לך (Kön.1. 8,13) ebenso מזבול קדשך ותפארתך (Jes. 63, 15); dass זֶבֶל; chaldäisch und rabbinisch das Mittel bezeichnet, den Boden zur entsprechendsten Aufnahme der Saat ge- eignet zu machen: Düngen; dass סבל, verstärkt, das Tragen einer auferlegten Last, somit Hingebung aller seiner Kräfte als Boden und Unterlage eines Gegenstandes bedeutet: so scheint זבל nicht einfach Wohnung, sondern eine solche Stätte zu bedeuten, die den Zwecken, Wünschen und Begehrungen dessen, für den sie bestimmt ist, vollkommen entspricht: eine behagliche, entsprechende Wohnung. Sodann auch Habakuk 3, 11. שמש ירה עמד זבולה, Sonne, Mond, harrten an der Stätte, der sie immer zueilen; die Sonne ging nicht unter, der Mond nicht auf, oder umgekehrt. Ebenso Psalm 49. 15 וצורם לבלות שאול מזבול לו, ihr, der Gerechten, Wesen ist bestimmt, das Grab zu überdauern, dass es, das Grab, ihnen nicht die eigentliche, endliche Stätte bleibe. הפעם יזבלני אישי hieße demnach: jetzt wird mich mein Mann als seine eigentliche Stätte anerkennen (vergl. מעון אתה), wird sich bei mir vor allem heimisch fühlen.

יזבלני אישי, “my husband will make a home with me.” The word is a composition of two words. Examples of similar constructions are found in Jeremiah 10,20: my sons will leave me; as well as in Genesis 49,19 גדוד יגודני, “troops will be called up from the tribe of Gad.”

יזבלני WILL RESIDE WITH ME — It has the same meaning as (1 Kings 8:13) “a house for dwelling (זבול)”. In old French herbergerie, a dwelling house. Leah meant: From now on his real home will be with me since I have as many children as all his other wives together.

(2) WILL EXALT ME. As in (I Kings 8:13), "I have now built for You a stately House," an expression of residence.

A goodly portion. She was deserving of reward because her only intention was to increase Hashem’s honor.

הפעם יזבלני, my house will now become his permanent residence seeing that I have born six sons for him. She perpetuated this feeling of Yaakov making his home predominantly in her tent by naming the child Zevulun.

His main dwelling place will not be other than with me... Re’m writes: I do not know why Rashi states it as a negative, “Will not be other than,” rather than as a positive, as the verse itself implies: “Now his main dwelling will be with me.”

דינה DINAH (Judgment) — Our Rabbis explained, that Leah set herself up as judge (דנה) against herself saying: “If this be a son, my sister Rachel cannot be even the equal of any of the handmaids”. She, therefore, offered prayer regarding it, and its sex was changed (Berakhot 60a).

ותקרא את שמה דינה. No mention is made of Leah giving thanks to the Lord for giving birth to a daughter, seeing that one does not express gratitude for bearing a daughter in the same degree as one does for bearing a son. The reason that the birth of this daughter is mentioned is to inform us that with the exception of this one girl Yaakov’s children were all males. The same thing is true of the daughter of Asher, Serach being mentioned; (46,17) among all the 70 Israelites descending to Egypt only two were females.

ואחר ילדה בת, it would appear that originally Dinah was meant to become Zevulun’s twin (brother). This is why the Torah wrote ואחר ילדה בת, without making any mention of Leah again becoming pregnant. The Torah did not even write ותלד עוד. No mention is made of why she named the girl Dinah. There is a well known aggadic explanation that Leah did not want her sister to be shamed in having fewer sons than even the handmaids; her prayer to that effect was answered by this fetus becoming a girl.

ואחר ילדה בת, “after that she bore a daughter.” In this instance the Torah fails to mention that Leah was pregnant prior to giving birth. The Midrash explains the real pregnancy producing Dinah (should have ?) commenced with Rachel who was supposed to give birth to Dinah. However, Leah her sister prayed, asking that Rachel should not become embarrassed by producing fewer sons than either of the maid servants. As a result of this prayer, the embryo in Leah’s womb at that time was changed to being a female and was born as a girl. [The Talmud Berachot 60 attributes the prayer to Leah who was pregnant, but does not mention the transfer of an embryo to her womb. According to the version in the Bereshit Rabbah 72,6 before me, the embryo was not transferred, but its sex was changed, something which the Midrash claims is possible even at a much later stage, such as the woman being already on the birth stool. Rachel had prayed for one more son, G’d fulfilling her prayer later when Binyamin was born. There is no reason to believe that Rachel was pregnant at the time Yaakov left Lavan, as she could hardly have claimed to be menstruating when her father searched her tent for the teraphim in Genesis 31,35 if she had been pregnant. The Talmud warns that a miracle such as occurred here, should not be used as a precedent for praying for male or female children, after the pregnancy has been in effect for 40 days. Ed.]

ותקרא את שמה דינה, “she called her name Dinah.” According to Rashi, the word is reminiscent of דנה,”she judged;” When Leah had become pregnant with Joseph, she prayed that the next baby should be a female, as a result G–d heard her prayer and Leah’s next birth was Dinah. When the Torah writes uncharacteristically: ואחר ילדה בת, “and subsequently she gave birth to a daughter,” this is a hint that during most of her pregnancy the fetus had been a male fetus.

ואחר ילדה בת, “afterwards she gave birth to a daughter.” This is the only time that the mother has not first been described as becoming pregnant. Our author uses this as proof at Dinah was a twin sister of Zevulun. (This interpretation is quoted also by Ibn Ezra, B’chor shor, and David Kimchi.) An alternate exegesis: the reason why no mention has been made of a pregnancy here is that originally, this child was supposed to be another male. Leah prayed that it would become a female, as otherwiseseeing that Yaakov was destined to sire 12 sons,Rachel could not have given birth to two sons. The fetus which would have been Joseph thus became Dinah. (Compare Rashi, whose source is an opinion in the Talmud B’rachot,60 a well as the Targum Yonathan ben Uzziel [older than the Talmud. Ed.])

ויזכר אלהים את רחל AND GOD REMEMBERED RACHEL — He remembered it to her as a merit that she had transmitted the secret signs to her sister and that she was greatly troubled lest she should fall to Esau’s lot if Jacob were to divorce her because she was childless. Indeed, this had entered Esau’s mind when he heard that she was childless (Genesis Rabbah 73:4). The poet refers to this in his Composition (for the First Day of the New Year) “When the Ruddy One (Esau) perceived that she did not travail with child, he hoped to take her for himself and she became terrified”.

Elokim remembered Rochel. He remembered the efforts she made to produce offspring for Yaakov by giving him her maidservant and acquiring the jasmine flowers.

ויזכר אלוקים את רחל, G'd remembered Rachel, etc. We hear from this verse that although Rachel's plight was on G'd's mind, she also needed to pray in order to conceive and give birth. This is why the Torah added: "G'd heard."

And God remembered: after it appeared as thought she was forgotten, since they had all given birth and she had not given birth. God saw the insults and remembered her.

He remembered that she gave her signs to her sister... Otherwise, what did He remember about her? In Scripture, זכירה always refers to a deed. For example (8:1), “And Hashem remembered Noach and all the beasts...” which Rashi explains there: “That they did not cohabit in the ark.” And so with the זכירה of Lot (19:29), he did not tell [the Egyptians] that Sarah was Avraham’s sister.

ויזכור אלוקים את רחל, G-d attribute of Justiceremembered Rachel. Blessed the righteous who posses the power to turn the attribute of Justice into the attribute of Mercy. (Based on B’reshit Rabbah 72,3 which adds that whenever the expression אלוקים is used in the Torah it refers to G-d’s attribute of Justice)

And Elokim perceived (literally, “heard”). After she made the two efforts mentioned above, she then prayed to Him and He heard her prayers.

וישמע, now He heard all her prayers, i.e. the time had come for her prayers to be answered.

She was concerned lest she fall to Eisov’s lot... [The reward] is measure for measure. Since Rochel acted so that her sister would not be sent away in shame from her husband, it is not fitting that she should be barren and be sent away in shame from her husband. (Gur Aryeh)

This verse also informs us that G'd remembers His pious ones even before they cry out to Him. This is why the Torah first mentions the fact that G'd remembered Rachel.

This is what the poet alluded to: “When the Red One...” האדמון refers to Eisov. כבט means, “When he saw.” שלא חלה means, “That Rochel did not have birth pangs.” צבה means “he desired” to take her as wife, and she was petrified.

אסף [GOD] HATH TAKEN AWAY [MY DISGRACE] — He has laid it up somewhere where it cannot be seen. Similar examples are (Isaiah 4:1) “Take thou away (אסוף) our reproach”; (Exodus 9:19) “and shall not have been taken away (יאסף) into the house “; (Joel 4:13) “withdraw (אספו) their shining”; (Isaiah 60:20) “neither shall thy moon withdraw itself (יאסף) — meaning shall not hide itself.

G-D ‘OSAPH’ (HATH TAKEN AWAY) MY DISGRACE. I.e., “He has laid it up somewhere where it cannot be seen.” Similar examples are: And it shall not ‘yei’aseph’ (have been taken away) into the house;¹⁴⁴Exodus 9:19. And the stars ‘asphu’ (withdraw) their shining;¹⁴⁵Joel 2:10. Neither shall thy moon ‘yei’aseph’ (withdraw itself),¹⁴⁶Isaiah 60:20. meaning it shall not hide itself. This is the language of Rashi. But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that asaph has the same meaning as “vanish,” as in, ‘Vene’esaph’ (And vanish) will joy and gladness.¹⁴⁷Ibid., 16:10.
The correct opinion is that of Onkelos, who made them all expressions of gathering and assembling, as is their plain sense, derived from the verses: ‘Vaya’asphu’ (And they gathered) the quails;¹⁴⁸Numbers 11:32. But ‘me’asphav’ (they who have garnered it) shall eat it.¹⁴⁹Isaiah 62:9. Death is called asiphah¹⁵⁰Above, 25:8. because the dying person is gathered to his dead ancestors. And it shall not ‘yei’aseph’ into the house¹⁴⁴Exodus 9:19. means to be gathered to his household. And the stars ‘asphu’ their shining¹⁴⁵Joel 2:10. means that they will gather the light within them and not give forth their light outside, or that they will be gathered into their tent, which is in the firmament of the heaven.¹⁵¹See Psalms 19:5, mentioned above, Note 127 The word asiphah is used in connection with disgrace, meaning that the disgraced person should be gathered and not spread among people, i.e., to be discussed further in the streets.

אסף אלוקים, the word is to be understood as similar to Deuteronomy 22,20 ואספת אל תוך ביתך, or Jerermiah 16,5 כי אספתי שלומי, the hiding and covering up (inside) of something. In this case, Rachel’s shame at being perceived as being barren could now be hidden.

את חרפתי, that G’d had consistently accepted my sister’s prayers while seemingly ignoring mine.

ותהר..אסף אלוקים את חרפתי, the word אסף is to be understood like the same word in Joel 4,15 אספו נגהם, ”they have withdrawn their brightness.” Rachel’s shame, embarrassment was removed. Alternatively, the word could mean the destruction, termination of something as in Judges 18,25 ואספת נפשך, “you would lose your lives.” Rachel now lost her shame. The root אסף in the transitive sense also occurs in Samuel I 15,6 as פן אוסיפך עמו, “lest I destroy you with them.” Accordingly, the meaning of אסף here would be that it had terminated, ceased to exist.

Elokim has removed my shame. The inability to fulfill one’s purpose is always a source of shame. This is especially true for a barren woman because it means that the reproductive act was one of pure appetite.

He has brought it into a place where it will not be seen... I.e., אסף does not mean that her shame was [previously scattered and now] gathered into one place, as that would be to her detriment — her shame would be seen more.

אסף אלוקים את חרפתי, “G-d has removed my shame.” Rachel referred to her becoming the victim of the same penalty as people guilty of karet, leaving behind no biological issue. The expression אסף occurs in a similar context in Isaiah 16,10: נאספה שמחה וגיל, “rejoicing and gladness are gone;”

חרפתי DISGRACE — because I had become an object of reproach as I was barren for people said about me that I would fall to the lot of Esau, the wicked. A Midrashic explanation is (Genesis Rabbah 73:5): So long as a woman has no child she has no-one to blame for her faults; when, however, she has a child, she puts it on him. “Who broke this vessel?” “Your son!” “Who ate those figs?” “Your son!”

As long as a woman has no child she has no one to blame for her faults... Accordingly, “my shame” means my fault and my sin for breaking my husband’s household utensils.

יסף ה' לי בן אחר THE ETERNAL WILL ADD TO ME ANOTHER SON — She knew prophetically that Jacob would rear only twelve tribes. She therefore prayed: “May it be God’s will that the tribe which he is yet destined to rear may issue from me”. For this reason she prayed only for one other son (Genesis Rabbah 72:6).

ותקרא את שמו יוסף. An allusion to G’d having removed her shame, אסף את חרפתי. If this is correct, she should have called him אסף; why did she add the letter י? This is because she had prayed for another son, saying יוסף ה' לי בו אחר. We find therefore that the name she gave this child symbolises two thoughts of its mother both of which she had already articulated.

יוסף ה' לי בן אחר. On account of having given my handmaid to my husband a second time. G’d has granted my sister also another son on account of that.

ותקרא...בן אחר. Rachel meant that she hoped for at least one more son.

כאשר ילדה רחל את יוסף WHEN RACHEL HAD BORN JOSEPH — after the birth of him who was to become Esau’s adversary (Genesis Rabbah 73:7) — as it is said (Obadiah 1:18) “And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame and the house of Esau for stubble“. Fire (Jacob) that has no flame (Joseph) has no effect at a distance. Therefore, when Joseph was born Jacob put his trust in the Holy One, blessed be He, and wished to return home (Obadiah 1:18).

שלחני, for now that Joseph had been born Yaakov’s second stint of 7 years labour for Lavan had come to an end.

שלחני ואלכה, even though Yaakov did not own any livestock at that time, seeing he had crossed the Yabbok with only his walking staff, he did have enough provisions and cash for himself and his extensive family. Had he not possessed these, it would have been irresponsible in the highest degree to undertake this kind of a journey relying on G’d’s miracles to sustain him. Furthermore, it is inconceivable that Lavan a wealthy and respected individual in his town, would consent to let Yaakov take his wives and children, Lavan’s own family, on a journey in which they would face death from starvation. Lavan’s objection to Yaakov’s departing at this time was based on self-interest. He pleaded with him, seeing he knew that his wealth had been due to Yaakov’s presence and he did not want to lose the source of his financial success.

ויהי כאשר ילדה, Yaakov told Lavan that now that all his wives and handmaids had born children including Rachel who had been barren, there was no further reason for him to detain Yaakov. There is an aggadic commentary quoted by Rashi according to which now that Joseph had been born Yaakov was reassured about his fear of Esau being able to harm him. He considered Joseph the antidote to such a danger. He had been told in a prophetic vision that the descendants of Esau would fall victim to the descendants of Joseph, and this is why he was prepared to go back now to his father’s house

ויהי כאשר ילדה רחל את יוסף, “it was as soon as Rachel had given birth to Joseph, etc.” Yaakov felt certain that now Lavan would permit him to leave, as there was no further reason for him to fear that Yaakov would divorce Rachel seeing that he had a child by her; it is also possible that before this even Rachel might not have been willing to leave her father’s house and town. She herself might have been afraid that Yaakov would divorce her if she failed to bear him any children.

אל מקומי ולארצי. Jithro spricht (4. B. M. 18, 30): אל ארצי ואל מולדתי אלך, und der räumlichen Beziehung nach ist doch auch dies das allein richtige; man kann sich nicht in seinem Wohnort befinden, ohne in seinem Lande zu sein. Nur bei Jakob war es etwas anderes; er hat wohl einen Wohnort, aber kein Land. Das Land war nur ein verheißenes, das Land der Zukunft. Darum heißt es auch wohl nicht ואל ארצי, sondern ולארצי. Das Land in seiner konkreten Gegenwart zieht ihn nicht hin, und er ist ihm durch seine Rückkehr konkret nicht näher als in Aram. Allein durch die in seinem Heimatsorte zu gründende Selbständigkeit lebt er mehr für das Land seiner Zukunft. Er lässt da seine Familie heranwachsen, wo ihre Enkel einmal ihr Heimatsland finden sollen.

ויהי כאשר רחל ילדה יוסף, “it occurred as soon as Rachel had born Joseph,” i.e. when Yaakov’s second term of indenture to Lavan had been completed; now all the 12 sons that were to become the twelve tribes of Israel had been born. [according to Ibn Ezra, who considers Dinah as one of those 12. Ed] Rachel’s giving birth completed this circle, she who had been described as barren in 29,31 finally having overcome her handicap. Yaakov therefore now approached Lavan by announcing that he planned to go home to his parents. A different interpretation: the words “ויאמר שלחני,” Yaakov had not asked Lavan for permission to leave previously because he was afraid that as long as Rachel was still barren, Lavan would suspect him of treating her with disdain on account of this. Now that she too had born him a son, he felt confident that Lavan would permit him to leave. We have found the following text in the book called seder olam: “eleven of the tribes, plus Dinah were born during the seven years of Yaakov serving his second term of seven years. Each one of these was born after a pregnancy of only seven months by his respective mother. The 84 months of these seven years are made up of the mothers being actively pregnant for six months each, and allowing for one week of ritual impurity separating each birth from the next.” [Clearly this is a mystic approach which saw in these 84 months a single preordained sequence, and the mothers all being perceived as if they were only one mother. Ed.] The text in seder olam interprets a statement in the Talmud Rosh hashanah 11 in this sense. [The Talmud there discusses the viability of a fetus that was born after less than 36 weeks’ pregnancy. Ed.]

שלחני, a polite form of asking permission, though in fact none was needed.

תנה את נשי וגו GIVE ME MY WIVES etc. — I have no wish to go away except with your permission.

תנה, seeing that all my belongings are still in your house.

אתה ידעת את עבדתי אשר עבדתיך. Vielleicht hat noch nie ein Mann solche vierzehn Jahre gedient. Er hatte vierzehn Jahre nicht für Weib und Kind, sondern um Weib und Kind gearbeitet, hatte mit vierzehn harten Dienstjahren zwei mitgiftlose Frauen erfreit. Diese vierzehn Dienstjahre, in welchen das ganze künftige Volks- und Familienleben des Hauses Jakob wurzelt, bilden das edelste und weithin leuchtendste Portal zu dem Kleinod der menschheitlichen Errungenschaft, zu dem jüdischen Familienleben. Sie zeigen, was dem jüdischen Manne sein Weib be- deutet, und machen alles verstummen, was man von orientalischer Herab- würdigung in das Verhältnis des jüdischen Weibes hineinzuträumen wagt. Nach vierzehn Jahren stand Jakob genau auf demselben Standpunkte wie zu Anfang, hatte nur größere Sorgen erarbeitet; denn er hatte vier Frauen und zwölf Kinder zu versorgen, und hatte für deren Zukunft, wie vor vierzehn Jahren am Gedenkstein auf der Haide, noch nichts, als den Schatz, den er in Kopf und Herz und in der rüstigen Arbeitskraft des Leibes zählte.

אשר עבדתי אותך, for whom I have served you. Yaakov meant that Lavan had no legal right to detain them seeing Yaakov had served for them, i.e. had paid for them in full. He wanted to take them home with him.

תנה את נשי וגו׳ כי אתה ידעת וגו׳. Du hast mich einmal getäuscht, täusche mich nicht wieder, gib mir Weib und Kind heraus, die ich redlich erworben, denn du weißt, wie ich um sie gedient.

בהן, the word refers to the word נשי earlier in the verse.

נחשתי I HAVE DIVINED — He was a diviner. “I have discovered by my art of divination that through you a blessing has come to me. When you first came here I had no sons” — for it is said (29:6) “And, behold, Rachel his daughter is coming with the flock”: is it possible if he had sons that he would have let his daughter go among the shepherds ? — now, however, he had sons, as it is said (31:1) “And he heard the words of Laban’s sons”.

‘NICHASHTI’ I HAVE OBSERVED THE SIGNS AND THE ETERNAL HATH BLESSED ME FOR THY SAKE. That is, “on account of you and your merit for you are a righteous man.” The word nichashti means “I have tested,” and every form of nichesh connotes testing. And some say¹⁵²Ibn Ezra. that Laban was a diviner with teraphim.¹⁵³See Ramban further, 31:19.
Jacob, however, said, And the Eternal hath blessed thee ‘leragli’ (since my coming),¹⁵⁴Verse 30 here. but, in a humble manner, he did not want to say “for my sake.” Thus, he said leragli, meaning that “from the time I set my foot in your house, you have been blessed.”

אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך, if you love me at all, as would be appropriate for people of the same flesh and blood. It is not proper for you to abandon me at this stage. Why would he term Yaakov’s leaving for his own home as abandoning Lavan? נחשתי, I am absolutely convinced that my good fortune during the last 14 years commenced with your arrival at my doorstep. As the Talmud Berachot 42 puts it:תכף לתלמיד חכם ברכה, attaching oneself to a Torah scholar and playing host to him results in the host receiving Divine blessings. [the Talmud quotes our verse as its source. Ed.]

נחשתי, I have divined, i.e. I have gone to magicians, mediums, etc., to find confirmation that your stay with me was the cause of my good fortune during the last 14 years. As a result, I want that you stay with me some more time.

נחשתי ויברכני, “I have myself come to feel that the Lord has blessed me on your account.” The expression נחש usually implies that the knowledge one has acquired is empirical, the result of experimentation. Lavan had made all kinds of experiments to determine to what he owed his good fortune during the 14 years that Yaakov had been with him. Another explanation is that he used his “teraphim,” his oracles, to determine this, and even those indicated that Lavan’s new found wealth was due to Yaakov’s presence. It is interesting that later on in verse 30 Yaakov does not attribute Lavan’s wealth to his presence but to לרגלי, from the day I came, i.e. not because of anything I did. Yaakov was a model of modesty.

Is it possible that he had sons and would send his daughter...? You might ask: Perhaps he had younger boys [who were too young to be sent]? The answer is: If so, he would have sent Bilhah or Zilpah, who were from a concubine, rather than Rochel who was his daughter from his true wife. If he had no sons, it is understandable to send Rochel, for then she will inherit him. [According to the laws of inheritance] daughters from a true wife come before daughters from a concubine. Consequently, she would surely guard [his flock] well. But if he had sons, she would not inherit any property, as sons come before daughters according to the laws of inheritance. Were that the case, he would not have sent Rochel. Perforce, he had no sons at all. (Mahara’i)

Laban möchte ihn gerne behalten, und am liebsten wie bisher für die bloße Kost. Er spricht daher wie der echte verschmitzte "fromme" Schurke. Er gesteht nicht, dass er ihn nur seiner tüchtigen Leistungen willen behalten möchte; solche konkrete Dinge, fühlt er, muss man bezahlen, und, sobald man sie gar gelobt hat, gut bezahlen. Er spricht daher ungemein"fromm" — (und wie noch heute diejenigen, die alle wahre Frömmigkeit abgestreift, einen abergläubigen Zipfel ergreifen, und meinen, ניחוש, Aberglauben haben, sei "fromm" sein — ): ich lasse dich nicht gerne fort — es hat das eigentlich keinen wirklichen Grund, allein ich habe ein ניחוש daran, es kommt mir fast so vor, als ob "ד׳", der Gott, dem du dienest, mich um deinetwillen, weil du ein so frommer Mann bist, gesegnet hat. Darum möchte ich gar zu gern einen solchen frommen Mann nicht von mir lassen. — Er hatte gehofft, der "fromme" Mann würde sich dadurch geschmeichelt fühlen und sich zum Verbleiben bereit erklären. Da Jakob aber schwieg, sah er die Notwendigkeit ein, doch mit etwas Materiellem herauszurücken. "Bestimme du den Lohn, ich will ihn gerne geben." Darauf Jakob: Du weißt es ganz wohl klar und deutlich, brauchst nicht erst zu einer "Ahnung" deine Zuflucht zu nehmen, was ich dir geleistet und was ich zu "deinem Segen" beigetragen; brauchst nicht zu vermuten, dass Gott dich בגללי, um meinetwillen, sondern weißt es, dass er dich לרגלי, nach meinem Gange, nach dem wie ich Hand und Fuß tüchtig in deinem Dienst gerührt, gesegnet hat. Nicht meine Frömmigkeit, sondern meinen Fleiß hat Gott dir gesegnet — und nun — wann soll ich einmal anfangen mit dieser fleißigen Arbeitskraft auch etwas für mein Haus zu schaffen?

Ad-noy has blessed you with my coming. Lavan attributed his prosperity to Yaakov’s fortune whereas Yaakov insisted it was due to his effort. But one way or another, it was true that Hashem had blessed Lavan with his coming.

נחשתי: siehe Jeschurun VIII. S. 436.

נחשתי, “I have learned by divination;” Lavan owned household idols. Seeing that this was so, he consulted with sorcerers.

נחשתי ויברכני, “I consulted with them and have found that I have been blessed since your having come to me.” Rashi explains this as follows: until you came here I have only had daughters. This is why he had to send out his daughters to tend his flocks. Surely, if he had had sons he would not have sent out daughters to tend the flocks. One could understand the line: כי רועה היא in 29,9 to mean: “instead of them;” the boys. Maybe his sons were too young to be sent out tending sheep.

נקבה— Explain it as the Targum renders it: state plainly thy wage.

נקבה, as rendered by Onkelos, “spell out, determine!” We find this word in a similar sense in Isaiah 62,2 אשר פי ה' יקבנו, “which the Lord Himself will determine.” Lavan meant that he was amenable to any terms Yaakov would demand in order to retain his presence and his services.

נקבה. Der gemeinsame Grundbegriff, nach welchem נקב zugleich: ein Loch machen, und: bestimmen bedeutet, ist mir noch nicht klar. Analog heißt רצה wollen und רצע bohren, רצח morden; ערג sich nach etwas sehnen und הרג totschlagen. Vielleicht, wie in ויקב חר בדלתו, buchstäblich: er löcherte eine Öffnung in die Tür, somit נקב aus einem Ganzen ein entsprechendes Teil trennend herausheben heißt, liegt auch dem נקב בשם ,נקב שֵם ,נקב שכר dieselbe Anschauung, nur in abstrakter Bedeutung übertragen zu Grunde. Ehe der Lohn ausgesprochen, ist der Begriff "Lohn" etwas ganz allgemeines und umfasst alle möglichen Werte und Größen. Wie ein bestimmter Lohn in einer bestimmten Größe angegeben wird, wird dieser Wert in dieser Größe, aus allen den möglichen Werten und Größen, die der unbestimmte Begriff Lohn enthält, getrennt und herausgehoben, so dass alle anderen Möglichkeiten nicht weiter in Betracht kommen. Der Begriff Lohn bleibt fortan auf den Umfang dieses aus dem allgemeinen gleichsam "Herausgebohrten" beschränkt. Ebenso אנשים אשר נקבו בשמות: Männer, die durch die Angebung ihrer Namen aus der Summe aller sonst in dem allgemeinen Begriff "Männer" Enthaltenen ausgesondert und herausgehoben worden sind. Ganz ähnlich bildet sich für unseren Sprachgedanken der Begriff נכר, der Fremdsein und in הכיר, eigentlich fremdmachen, erkennen bedeutet. Denn jedes Erkennen besteht in Vergegenwärtigung derjenigen Merkmale, wodurch ein Gegenstand aus der Summe seiner Gattung oder Art sich ausscheidet, also aus seiner Gesamtheit ausgesondert und herausgehoben, somit "fremd" gemacht wird. Bemerkenswert ist, dass das mit נכר lautverwandte נקר ebenfalls "herausbohren" heißt.

ויאמר נקבה שכרך, “he said: tell me what you wish to receive as compensation for tending my flocks?” This line refers to when Lavan had told Yaakov that he realised that Yaakov’s presence had been especially beneficial for him. He was interested in keeping Yaakov near him as he had been such a source of blessing for him. The repetition of the word ויאמר in two successive verses is not especially unusual.

ואת אשר היה מקנך אתי AND WHAT THY CATTLE HATH BECOME WITH ME — You know the number of your few cattle that were entrusted to me at first — how small their number was.

AND HOW THY CATTLE HAVE FARED WITH ME. “You know the number of your few cattle that were entrusted to me at first.” These are Rashi’s words. That is to say, “You know how few your cattle were when they were entrusted to me.” But according to Rashi’s interpretation, it would have been more proper had he said, “and your cattle which were with me:” you know for it was little which thou hadst before I came, and it hath increased abundantly.¹⁵⁴Verse 30 here. Or, we shall explain: “Thou knowest how I have served thee since I have done it with all my strength, and thou knowest how thy cattle have fared with me, for a long time has passed since then, and thou knowest for it was little which thou hadst before I came, and it hath increased abundantly, in an unnatural way. It is only The blessing of the Eternal [that] maketh rich,¹⁵⁵Proverbs 10:22. which came from the time I set foot in your house.” This is the correct interpretation.

ויאמר..ואת אשר היה, the meaning of the word מעט in verse 30 is that Lavan was well aware that when Yaakov had come to him he had possessed very little, and that his wealth now was due to Yaakov’s faithful labour on his behalf, and that G’d had increased the amount of livestock he owned now on account of Yaakov.

אתה ידעת את אשר עבדתיך, do not attribute your sudden wealth to the power of your teraphim, i.e. to influences connected with your horoscope, but attribute it to the faithful manner in which I tended your flocks, and to my expertise as well as my dedication in maximising the potential connected with the craft of being an expert shepherd.

The meager amount... I.e., it does not mean that Lavan knew his livestock was with Yaakov, rather that he knew of the livestock’s meager amount.

את אשר עבדתיך, “I have served you for the hand of a woman in marriage, not for “wages.”

ואת אשר היה מקנך אתי, the herds had contained defective animals, maimed ones, etc.; I cured those using my expert knowledge in raising sheep, and cattle.

לרגלי SINCE MY COMING — The word is the same as עם רגלי “with my coming” (lit, with my foot)— on account of my coming has the blessing come to you (Genesis Rabbah 73:8). Similar is (Exodus 11:8) “And all the people that come with thee (ברגלך)”, and (Judges 8:5) “and the people that are ברגלי” — ie. that are coming with me.

WHEN SHALL I PROVIDE ‘GAM’ (ALSO) FOR MINE OWN HOUSE? “At present, my sons alone provide for my needs, but I also ought to work together with them and assist them.” This is the force of the word gam (also). These are Rashi’s words. But we do not find that Jacob had his own sheep, nor do we find mentioned anywhere that his young children — the oldest of whom was six years or less — tended them. It was possible that before Jacob came, Laban had children younger than Rachel¹⁵⁶This is a reference to what Rashi explained in Verse 27 that since Jacob’s arrival, a blessing came upon Laban and he begot sons, “for is it possible that if he previously had sons, he would have let his daughter Rachel go among the shepherds?” Yet he had sons, as it is said, And he [Jacob] heard the words of Laban’s sons, (further, 31:1). We must say that these sons were born to him after Jacob came. and now they were fit to tend the flock. [However, Jacob’s children were still very young.] Perhaps Jacob referred to his wives and servants, who he said did his work for him. But all this is not correct. The meaning of, When shall I provide also for mine house? is: “When shall I provide for my house just as I have also done for your house.” Similarly, And he loved also Rachel from Leah,¹⁵⁷Above, 29:30. means “And he loved Rachel also more than he loved Leah.” And similarly, Also thee I would have slain,¹⁵⁸Numbers 22:33. means “Also I would have slain thee.” And there are many other such verses.

לרגלי, “on my behalf.” The word רגל in this connection also occurs in 33,14 לרגל המלאכה אשר לפני, “on account of the livestock before me.”

כי מעט...לרגלי, from the time I walked into your house to work for you, you became blessed, along the lines of the proverb רגל טובה לפלוני, “this person has a blessed foot,” [as in English we speak about someone having “green fingers,” i.e. that plants grow successfully under his care. Ed.]

ויברך ה' אותך לרגלי, still, when you said that the Lord blessed you during my presence here, this is true beyond a doubt;

מתי אעשה גם אנכי לביתי, “when will I also be able to do something for my family?” According to Rashi he meant that up to now only his children had supported him with their work, whereas, i.e, their father had been fully occupied in providing wealth for his father-in-law. According to Nachmanides there is no evidence that Yaakov owned any flocks which his sons could have tended. Besides, Reuven, his oldest son was only 6 years old at this time, so that his efforts could not have amounted to much. Therefore, what Yaakov meant was: ”when can I start doing for my family what I have been doing for your family?”

כי מעט אשר היה לך לפני ויפרוץ לרוב ויברך ה' אותך לרגלי, ”for the little that you owned before I came has expanded into a multitude as G’d has blessed you with my coming.” Yaakov simply told Lavan that from the moment he set foot in his house G’d had showered Lavan with His blessing. Even Lavan himself acknowledged this when he said: in verse 27 נחשתי ויברכני ה' בגללך, “I have been divinely inspired to realise that G’d has blessed me on your account.” According to Bereshit Rabbah 73,8, originally Lavan had handed Yaakov only 70 animals to tend and these had increased by that time to 600.000. Another opinion claims that Lavan’s flocks now amounted to 1,2 million sheep. The number 70 is arrived at by comparing the expression מעט “a few,” in this verse with Deut 26,5 where the meaning of the word is a reference to the 70 people who descended to Egypt with Yaakov at the time the Israelites had left the land of Canaan (Genesis 46,8).

For the needs of my household... Rashi is explaining that לביתי does not mean as it seems to, that Yaakov is saying he will go “to my home,” i.e., return to his father’s house and stay there. For Lavan said afterwards, “What shall I give you? ...” [And Yaakov replied], “I will continue to tend....” This shows that he did not intend to leave Lavan, but to [stay and] guard his flock. Perforce, לביתי means “for the needs of my household.”

לרגלי heißt wohl nicht: nach meinem Eintritt, sondern: nach meinem Gang und Schritt. So ׳לרגל המלאכה וגו. Nach dem Gange des Guts und der Kinder, denen ich folgen muss (1. B. M. 33. 14). Ebenso ההלכת לרגלה, die ihrem Schritte folgen (Sam. 1. 25, 42). Also hier: Gott hat dich nach meinem Gange, d. h. nachdem ich mich in deinem Dienste bewegte, gesegnet.

גם אנכי לביתי WHEN SHALL I PROVIDE FOR MINE OWN HOUSE ALSO? — לביתי means for the needs of my household. At present my sons alone provide for my needs, but I, also, ought to work together with them, to assist them. This is the force of the word גם also.

?גם אנכי לביתי. When will I start providing for the needs of my own family as I have been doing for your family for 14 years?Rabbeinu Shlomoh (Rashi) explains “thus far only my children have worked for me. When will I finally help them?” (This explains the word גם in the verse).

When will I also do. When will I have the opportunity to bring blessing to my own house the way you have brought it to yours through my presence

מתי אעשה גם אנכי לביתי, “when will I also do something for my own family?” Up until now all my efforts were concentrated on enriching you. The time has come to do something to enrich myself. This was the meaning of (verse 31) “I will guard your sheep against payment.”

Now only my sons provide my needs... Rashi explains this since גם אנכי implies that previously, some else was doing for the needs of his household. Thus Rashi explains: “Now only my sons...”

מתי אעשה גם אנכי when will it be my turn to do something blessed by the Lord for my own household? The kind of wages paid to shepherds are not adequate to enable me to accumulate some wealth for my family as you have succeeded in doing for your family.

לא תתן לי מאומה, of all the sheep and goats you have now, seeing that I have served you for your two daughters during the period you acquired them. However, from the flocks which I will tend for you from this day on, you will give me the ones which will be born spotted or speckled, after you have first removed all those that are spotted and speckled now, and given them to your sons to look after. I want you to completely separate them from the flocks I look after. Those animals which will be born with the skin pattern I have selected, genetically not related to former generations of your animals with the same skin pattern, will be my wages.

?מה אתן לך, so that you will achieve what you hope to achieve?

ויאמר, Lavan said that he wanted him, Yaakov, to stay with him, asking: ?מה אתן לך, as your wages?

Geben sollst du mir nichts. Jakob hatte schon erfahren, wie Laban im Geben nach geleistetem Dienste zu betrügen wußte. Leisten, eine Einrichtung sollte er treffen, dass das, was Jakobs Lohn sein soll, von vornherein als Jakobs Eigentum ge- boren werde, denn, was einmal Labans Eigentum geworden war, das war so leicht nicht selbst durch den gerechtesten Anspruch von ihm zu erlangen.

?ויאמר מה אתן לך, He said: “what shall I give you for the work you have performed for me?”

לא תתן לי מאומה, if the Lord will see fit to bless me, He will certainly not deny you what you are entitled to. Our sages have a rule that a person cannot negatively influence what his fellow human is entitled to. (Yuma 38)

לא תתן לי מאומה, do not give me anything as fixed salary as my reward; my wages shall be in the nature of something that accrues to me coincidentally as an act of kindness by G’d, not as a sign of goodwill from you, diminishing what was yours. If you agree to these terms, אשובה ארעה צאנך שמור, I will once again tend your flocks as I used to do.

ויאמר יעקב לא תתן לי מאומה, Yaakov said: “you do not have to give me anything;” he referred to the last seven years; he had worked for the hand of Rachel in marriage. She was his now. However, he added, “if you wish me to stay with you longer and to continue to look after your flocks, do the following for me and I will agree and continue to tend your flocks;”

נקוד SPECKLED — marked with small specks like dots old French pointure; English points.

SPECKLED AND SPOTTED. This means speckled or spotted. And every ‘chum’ among the sheep — commentators have explained¹⁵⁹Ibn Ezra and R’dak. chum as meaning “black,” since blackness comes from heat (cham). But this does not appear to me to be correct since most sheep are black, particularly in the eastern countries where it is warm, and if so, all sheep would then belong to Jacob.
The correct interpretation is the rendition of Onkelos, namely, that chum is reddish or brownish, called rouge in Old French, and so did Rashi explain it. Chum would then be from the root; the light of ‘hachamah’ (the sun),¹⁶⁰Isaiah 30:26. since it is like the sun which is somewhat red.

נקוד, I believe that this describes these spots in the region of the neck and head, as the word ויקוד means bending down with one’s head and neck. (Exodus 34,8) The word ויקוד has a dagesh in the letter ק, as on that occasion Moses’ bowing down was equivalent to his prostrating himself, i.e. more than just bowing down. The word is of the category of נפל, which in a similar construction would also be ויפול with the dagesh inn the letter פ. The קדקד is the head, but is also connected to the foot, as the line ויעקוד את יצחק means that he bound Yitzchok’s feet. (Genesis 22,9).

הסר משם כל שה, the young ones, not the adult ones; so that some of them would give birth to young ones with the same skin patterns as the younger ones and will be part of my share.

הסר משם, "Remove from there, etc." It is evident from Laban's words that Jacob would own only the speckled and spotted sheep and goats as well as the brown ones amongst the sheep; the ankle-striped ones would not be part of his share. From the following verse it appears, however, that Laban also took the ankle-striped ones for himself. Why did he do this?

אעבור, I will check in passing together with you.

אעבור בכל צאנך היום הסר משם כל שה נקוד וטלוא, “I will go through all your flocks today. Remove from these every dappled or blotched lamb, etc.” The word וטלוא means או טלוא, “or blotched,” not that the same sheep displays both dappled and blotched skin patterns. The males are the subject of discussion here.

אעבור בכל צאנך היום הסר משם כל שה נקוד וטלוא...והיה שכרי. “Let me pass through your whole flock today. Remove from there every spotted or speckled lamb, every brownish lamb,.....that will be my wage.” Any lambs which would be born amongst Lavan’s flocks from this day on which displayed these skin patterns although they did not have paternal or maternal animals with that skin pattern would be Yaakov’s. The other lambs would be Lavan’s. Yaakov added that if Lavan would be able to find amongst the flocks Yaakov would segregate any with skin patterns other than agreed upon between them, he would be guilty as having stolen them. Lavan replied: “yes, let it be as you have said.” From the above we learn that Lavan kept the goats which were predominantly black. This is why he said in verse 35 ”everyone that contains some white.” He meant that as long as the predominant colour was black such goats were his. He applied a similar yardstick to sheep who had some brown in it. If the predominant colour of the sheep, כבשים, was black but they had some brown in it they would be Lavan’s. Seeing that Yaakov separated the spotted and the speckled amongst the he-goats not including the dotted ones, whereas amongst the she-goats he separated the dotted and speckled ones, it was necessary for the Torah to mention: “every animal with some white in its skin pattern.”

Dark brown, similar to red... I.e., Onkelos translates חום as שחום, which means red.

נקד וטלוא. Aus der Bedeutung נקודה, Punkt, und נעלות מטֻלאות geflickte Schuhe (Josua 9) sowie טלאי rabbinisch für Flicken, ist wohl die Bedeutung des נקוד וטלוא als punktiert und gefleckt sicher. Sehr bemerkenswert und wohl der Untersuchung bedürftig ist der Umstand, dass beide Wurzeln sich aber überhaupt in dem Kreise des Herdenbegriffes bewegen, und נוקֵד ein Viehzüchter, Amos 1, und טָלֶה: טָלֶא geradezu Lamm heißt! Fast wäre man versucht zu meinen, die tiefe Einsicht und spezielle Sorgfalt, die Jakob bei dieser Gelegenheit in der Kunst der Schafzüchtung an den Tag gelegt, habe נוקד, eigentlich ja: Punktierer, zum Ausdruck für einen geübten und sorgfältigen Viehzüchter und טָלֶה, eigentlich das Gefleckte, für ein noch der besonderen Wartung bedürfendes Tier, erhoben. Allein es lassen sich diese Begriffe auch nach allgemeinen sprachlichen Beziehungen erklären. Wir finden nämlich rabbinisch נקדנים (Berachoth 50 a.) als Bezeichnung von Leuten, die alles genau nehmen, auf das Kleinste achten: נוקד in der Mischna (1,1 פרה) gleichbedeutend mit פלגס, als Bezeichnung eines alleinstehenden Tiers, das einer Kategorie entwachsen ist und die andere noch nicht erreicht hat, überhaupt נקד (Peßachim 111b. und sonst) in der Bedeutung: Sauberhalten, שרא דמזוני נקיד שמיה, siehe Raschi daselbst (in anderen Stellen schwankt die Lesart zwischen נקד und נקר, siehe Aruch נקד). Aus allem diesen sind wir berechtigt, נקד in Verwandtschaft mit נגד zu betrachten und als Grundbedeutung: eine besondere Aufmerksamkeit auf sich ziehen oder auf etwas richten, anzunehmen. Das ist aber Charakter jedes Isolierten, dass es die besondere Aufmerksamkeit für sich in Anspruch nimmt. Daher auch: ein Punkt, als eine von der ganzen umgebenden Fläche gesonderte kleinste Ungleichheit. Ebenso wie נגיד der über einen Kreis hervorragende einzelne ist, auf den sich die besondere Aufmerksamkeit richtet. שמעו כי נגידים אדבר, höret, denn was ich spreche verdient die vollste Aufmerksamkeit aller. נוקד hieße daher einer, der jedem einzelnen ganz besondere Fürsorge zuwendet, speziell ein sorgfältiger Züchter, welche spezielle Bedeutung allerdings von Jakob erwachsen sein kann. (Vergl. das deutsche "Pünktlichkeit") טלה findet sich nicht nur als junges Schaf, Lamm, sondern auch als junger Mensch, Kind: טליא, chaldäisch und scheint daher seiner Grundbedeutung nach mit תלה, (auch vielleicht דלה): an einem Halte schweben, verwandt zu sein: daher טלה: das noch schwankende, noch des Haltes bedürftige Wesen, das nur durch den Halt nicht fällt. Davon dann טלאי das nicht zur vollendeten Einheit mit einem anderen Verbundene, nur Angeheftete: Flicken, und dann Flecken. — חום kommt als Farbe nicht wieder vor. Jedenfalls heißt es dunkel, ob, weil dunkle Farben wärmer halten, oder durch Hitze das Weiße dunkel wird, steht dahin. Kleine oder große Flecken galten als Auszeichnung sowohl bei Schafen als Ziegen; חום, dunkel, wahrscheinlich schwarz, nur bei Schafen. Die normale Farbe der Wolle ist weiß: כצמר יהיו (Jesaias 18). Im Hohenlied 4, 1.2 wird das herabwallende Haar mit einer vom Gebirge herabeilenden Ziegenherde verglichen und die Zähne mit einer aus dem Bade heraufsteigenden Herde Schafe. Daraus ergiebt sich wohl (im Gegensatze zu רמב״ן) dass die normale Farbe der Schafe weiß und der Ziegen schwarz gewesen sein müsse.

כל שה נקוד וטלוא, “every lamb whose skin pattern is characterised by being either dappled or blotched, etc., he referred not to fully grown animals but to the ones under one year old. Neither did he single out the animals whose skin had a pattern known as עקודים; any animals that would be borne henceforth and whose skin reflected the patterns described by Yaakov would be his. Lavan commenced immediately with his treachery by removing any animals which according to accepted standards were likely to either sire or give birth to young ones having the skin patterns that Yaakov had stipulated as becoming his. This treachery forced Yaakov to devise a different means to encourage the remaining animals under his care to produce some young that reflected the skin patterns he had chosen.

וטלוא AND SPOTTED — The word has the same meaning as טלאים “patches” — wide spots.

AND OF SUCH SHALL BE MY HIRE. Rashi comments: “Those which from now on will be born speckled and spotted among the goats, and the brownish ones amongst the sheep shall belong to me.” And so also is the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra. The meaning of the expression, every one among the flock speckled and spotted, is that it refers to the he-goats; and the spotted and speckled among the goats refers to the she-goats, just as Scripture said, And he removed that day the he-goats … and all the she-goats.¹⁶¹Verse 35 here. And the meaning of the expression, every one that had white in it,¹⁶¹Verse 35 here. is that it refers to those mentioned, [namely, the spotted and the speckled among the he-goats and the she-goats], and all the brownish among the sheep.¹⁶¹Verse 35 here. [Thus, according to Rashi and Ibn Ezra, Jacob’s hire was to be all spotted and speckled he-goats and she-goats that will henceforth be born, and also the reddish ones among the sheep, but not the spotted and speckled among the sheep.]
In my opinion, all the spotted and speckled among the sheep, as well as all brownish ones, were to be Jacob’s hire since he did not make among his sticks any with a brownish color, in which case he caused himself the loss of his hire from among the sheep, which are the best of the flock. Similarly, in his dream, he was shown the rams which went up on the flocks were ringstraked, speckled,¹⁶²Further, 31:10. there being no brownish ones among them. And the meaning of the verse before us is: removing from there every one of the flock speckled and spotted and all brownish ones among the sheep, and removing the spotted and the speckled among the goats, and they shall be my hire, namely, the three colors among the sheep — speckled, spotted, and brownish — and two among the goats — spotted and speckled. And he further said, So shall my righteousness answer for me in time to come, that everyone that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and all brownish among the sheep, that shall be accounted stolen with me.¹⁶³Verse 33 here.

הסר משם, in your own interest.

הסר, the word is either in the infinitive, or an instruction by Yaakov to Lavan to remove these animals so that he would not be able to say at a later stage that they had been part of his flock which had been overlooked in their joint count of them, and that it was these mother sheep which had given birth to the lambs with the skin patterns Yaakov had chosen to be his wages.

וטלוא ונקוד בעיזים, “or the blotched or dappled among the kids.” These are the female goats. This is spelled out again when in verse 35 Lavan carries out the suggestion Yaakov had made.

Speckled and spotted among the goats and dark brown among the sheep... Re’m asks: If so, speckled and spotted was the sign for goats, but not for sheep. Yet, does not the verse say, “I will remove from them every שה that is speckled or spotted,” [ostensibly referring to sheep]? He answers: The word שה in our verse refers to goats. For it is written (Devarim 14:4): שה כבשים ושה עזים, showing that goats too, can be called שה. Maharshal objects: On the contrary, since Scripture needed to specify (in Devarim 14:4) that שה also refers to goats, this indicates that wherever שה appears without specification, it refers to sheep and not goats! Furthermore, our verse should have combined the phrases and said only, “And every goat that is spotted and speckled.” Also, why does the verse speak first of goats and then switch to sheep? Furthermore, it is written in v. 35, “That day he removed the תישים.” Why when referring to goats does Scripture sometimes say שה and other times תיש? Maharshal answers: It seems to me that שה means sheep, not goats. Nevertheless, the sign [of Yaakov’s wages] was speckled or spotted for goats, and dark brown for sheep, [as Rashi says]. And when Yaakov said, “Remove from them every שה that is speckled or spotted,” he meant as follows: You surely should take away the speckled and spotted goats, and the dark brown sheep, [as those kinds will be my wages]. And take away even the speckled or spotted sheep, [kinds] which should have been mine [but in fact are not]. This way I will not have any of the speckled or spotted goats, or any of the speckled, ringed or spotted sheep. Only those that will be born from now on, i.e., the speckled or spotted goats, and the dark brown sheep, will be mine. But Yaakov did not say to take away the dark brown goats because there were none to be found. This answers all the questions.

It appears that according to the agreement Jacob made he did not want Laban to take the ankle-striped animals. If Laban were to take those Jacob would also have to separate them from the white sheep and he, Jacob, would not be left with white animals which could respond to the stratagem he employed later when the animals were in heat. All his efforts would then have been in vain. It had not occurred to Jacob to deceive Laban in any way whatsoever. He thought that the sight of ankle-striped ones would cause the flocks to become heated and to cause also the speckled and spotted animals to give birth. When you read verse 40 you will find confirmation of what I have said. Crafty Laban was aware of all these implications and took every type, i.e. the עקוד, נקוד וטלוא. In addition he removed every animal that had some white on its pelt. In this way Jacob's potential wages were reduced to almost nothing. This is why Jacob had to resort to the stratagem with the rods; he therefore also took some of the ankle-striped ones for himself. When Laban removed the mother animals he had thereby proved that he considered them as basically Jacob's (the new generation). Proverbs 5,22: "he will be caught in the ropes of his sin" is applicable to what Laban tried to do in this paragraph.

חום בכבשים, brown skin patterns among the sheep; this is emphasised as he did not do so with the goats, as the majority of them displayed such brown skin blotches.

חום BROWN — dark, somewhat reddish, old French rouge. In the language of the Mishna (Bava Batra 5:6): “If he sells it as reddish-dark coloured (שחמתית) and it is found to be white”—a statement made in reference to grain.

והיה שכרי, it will become my wages, from now on.

כל שה נקוד וטלוא , of the תישים, i.e. the males, whereas of the goats the female are meant. As the Torah says וטלוד ונקוד בעזים. The reason why the תישים have not been spelled out by name is that both had understood that they were meant without their having to spell this out. In the story narrative (verse 35) they have been mentioned specifically. The reason Yaakov used the term שה was that this term includes both the males and the females of the species. (compare Ezekiel 34,20 בין שה בריה ובין שה רזה) Another verse referring to the word שה as clearly both male and female is found in Leviticus 22,27 ושור או שה אותו ואת בנו.

וכל שה חום בכבשים, “and all the brown sheep.” Lavan set aside (for himself) all the male sheep which had any brown coloured spots on their pelts, and all the female sheep which had any white spots on their skins. Lavan gave those animals to his sons to tend, and henceforth any of the remaining flocks that would give birth to animals with such markings would be Yaakov’s wages. [He thought that he had made certain there would be only a minute number of such births, seeing that the animals that were likely to provide such genetic input had already been removed. Ed.] I find it difficult to understand to what end sheep are suddenly introduced in a context that dealt with different kinds of skin patterns of goats, both of males and females of the species.(verse 35) We would have expected the Torah to write: sequentially, התישים והעזים, just as the Torah describes this when writing את התישים העקודים...ואת כל העיזים וכו'. Nachmanides writes that the males of the goats were generally dappled and blotched, whereas the male sheep were generally brown. He proceeds to explain our verses as follows: [starting with verse 32. Ed] “remove from there all the lambs that are dappled or blotched, and from the sheep also the brown ones place with the dappled and blotched ones, so that my wages will consist of animals born having these markings on their skin. He wanted the same to apply to the dappled and blotched goats.” He did not mention male goats at all, just as he had not mentioned the male sheep separately. Nachmanides quotes as proof that his interpretation is correct that when Yaakov peeled off some bark from the staves near the water troughs so that they resembled the desired skin patterns, no mention is made of the colour “brown” at all. (compare verses 37-38). If Yaakov had among his flocks of prime sheep only brown ones, i.e. the choicest animals of the flocks, it would follow that he made no attempt at all to increase the number of brown patterned lambs that would be born and would be part of his wages. We must also note that in Yaakov’s dream (31,10) which he relates to his wives, not a word is mentioned about any brown-coloured animals. From the animals and their behaviour which appeared in Yaakov’s, dream it is evident that his wages, or rather the wages that he and Lavan had agreed upon, had been the עקודים, נקודים, and ברודים, not the brown ones. If he had mentioned brown ones in verse 33 it was because among the brown sheep or goats for that matter, these never reproduced in a variety of skin colours other that their original brown. If he had attempted to increase the number of animals with illegal machinations, why did he not try to increase the number of brown sheep that would be born? He did not do so because only brown sheep reproduce brown skinned lambs.

Furthermore, that you may not say... because of the speckled and spotted males... According to the first explanation, they could simply count how many there are now, and know that all above this number were born later. Thus Rashi says: “Furthermore, that you may not say...” (Re’m)

והיה שכרי AND THEY SHALL BE MY HIRE — those which from now on will be born speckled and spotted among the goats and the brownish ones amongst the sheep shall belong to me. Those that are at present such set them apart and place them in charge of your sons, so that you may not be able to say to me about those that will be born in the future spotted and speckled and brownish. “These were there originally”. And a further reason why these should be set apart is, in order that you may not be able to say to me, “Because of the male animals that are speckled and spotted the females will give birth from now onwards to offspring of their own kind” (i.e., speckled etc.).

נקד, displaying white spots among the black or yellowish ones.

וטלוא, a reference to larger patches, as per Joshua 9,5. We encounter this expression in this sense also in Shabbat 114, i.e. טלאי על גבי טלאי.

חום, black The word has this meaning in Arabic when one refers to the colour of the head and throat of the sheep.

והיה שכרי, any animals born in the flock henceforth displaying these skin patterns will be my wages.

'וענתה בי וגו AND MY RIGHTEOUSNESS SHALL ANSWER FOR ME etc. — Should you suspect me of taking any animals that are yours my righteousness will answer for me, — for my righteousness will come and bear witness before thee as to my hire that you will find in my herd only speckled and spotted ones. Whatever, however, you find amongst them (amongst the animals) that is not speckled or spotted or brownish it will be certain that I have stolen it from your flocks and that it is in my possession by way of theft.

וענתה בי צדקתי, both today and in the future.

My righteousness … when it comes before you. Or, “When my righteousness shall go to show my wage, it will testify before you” — i.e., Hashem will reveal what Yaakov deserves for his faithful service by altering the coloration of the lambs.

וענתה בי צדקתי, this will prove that I dealt fairly with you, and will continue to deal fairly with you. My righteousness will be proved by the fact that animals with such skin patterns will be born though their mother animals or their fathers did not possess these skin patterns, so that I did not benefit by genetic factors contributed by your animals. Not only had Lavan removed all animals with traces of such skin patterns from the flocks entrusted to Yaakov for tending, but even animals which had displayed such skin patterns only on their legs had been removed by him, not to speak of animals which had displayed such spots on other parts of their bodies.

For my righteousness will come and testify before you... [Rashi is saying that] תבוא is third person feminine, not [masculine] second person. The proof is: it is written the righteousness will come “before you,” as if Yaakov said: “For my righteousness will come before you and testify concerning my wages.”

וענתה בי צרקתי, die von mir zu erwartende Pflichttreue mag wider mich zeugen, wenn ich ihr nicht genügt.

וענתה בי צדקתי, an abbreviated verse; the meaning is: “my truthfulness will be demonstrated on the following day i.e. in the future, (when these animals will produce young) when you have a chance to check on what I have selected as the basis for my wages.

לפניך, when you will come to check my wages, that it will not contain animals with a different skin pattern from what we agreed.

And it is through theft that it is in my possession. On the phrase, “Is stolen if it is in my possession,” why did Rashi need to offer an explanation: “It will be obvious that I have stolen it from you”? [The answer is:] So we will not think it means, “I bought it properly, but it turned out to be stolen merchandise, which I did not know.” Thus Rashi explains as he does.

ביום, the letter ב does not have the vowel patach, as Yaakov cannot predict the exact day when this will be proven several months later.

חום בכבשים, but not among the goats, seeing most goats are brown.

הן WELL! — an expression denoting agreement with a statement.

לו יהי כדברך, so that you will be satisfied with the results of your own proposal. [Lavan assumed that Yaakov had shot himself in the leg with his proposal. Ed.]

A term indicating acceptance of terms. [Rashi is explaining that here it is] not like הן לי לא נתת זרע (15:3), which means הנה (behold).

Laban geht darauf gerne ein — um es sofort illusorisch zu machen.

לו יהי כדברך I WOULD IT MIGHT BE ACCORDING TO THY WORD — Would that you will remain satisfied with this!

If only you remain satisfied with this. I.e., although Yaakov said it verbally, Lavan thought: perhaps he does not mean it in his heart, or he will change his mind.

ויסר AND HE REMOVED i.e., Laban removed ביום ההוא ON THAT DAY

AND HE REMOVED THAT DAY THE HE-GOATS. The meaning thereof is that Scripture relates that Jacob had said in a general way, removing from there … the spotted and the speckled among the goats,¹⁶⁴Verse 32 here. [which, according to Ramban’s opinion explained above, refers only to the she-goats], but Laban was afraid of the influence of the male seed, and so he removed the he-goats that were even ringstraked, having a little white on their feet at the spot where they are bound, and he removed from the sheep every one that had white in it together with all the brownish ones. Now if every one that had white in it means that he removed from among the he-goats and she-goats all that had any white color in them, whether ringstraked or grizzled, in that case, and all brownish among the sheep is in addition to the colors mentioned [for, as we have seen, Ramban is of the opinion that Jacob’s hire from the sheep was from all three colors]. The reason why they added the brownish color to the hire from the sheep is that it is not in their nature to be born with the same colors as he-goats and she-goats, and it is not in the nature of goats to be brownish.

ויתן ביד בניו, of Lavan.

ויסר ביום ההוא את התישים, after Lavan had agreed to Yaakov’s proposal he removed not only the females with such skin patterns as Yaakov had mentioned, etc., but also the males both young an mature ones. [His objective was to make it almost impossible for Yaakov to prosper by relying on genetic factors. Ed.]

ויסר ביום ההוא את התישים, “On that day Lavan removed the he-goats (of special skin patterns).” Nachmanides writes that Yaakov had been imprecise and had spoken only about טלוא ונקוד בעזים, the dappled and blotched she goats, whereas Lavan was aware that the male genetics are paramount in determining the skin pattern of the young; this is why by removing the male goats he hoped to effectively prevent goats being born which bore the skin markings which would have made them Yaakov’s. Lavan had even removed the עתודים, animals with just a little white around their ankles. (According to many commentators what is described here as חום, brown, refers to generalized spotting of a brownish colour, the basic colour of sheep being white). According to the way we explained matters this is all logical, as Yaakov also did mention the male animals since it is written הסר משם כל שה וגו', “remove from there every lamb, etc.” The word כל included the males, the billy-goats. Alternately, one may explain that the words כל אשר לבן בו in verse 35, refer back to the goats from which he had separated all those that had any white stripes or spots. The meaning of the words וכל חום בכבשים in the same line, would mean “every sheep displaying the skin pattern mentioned earlier,” i.e. נקוד וטלוא, referring to brownish dapples and blotches.

Lavan, on that day... [Rashi knows that our verse speaks of Lavan and] not Yaakov, for it is written afterwards, “And he gave them to his sons and he placed a three days’ journey between himself and Yaakov.”

Jakob hatte nur die Ausscheidung der jungen Lämmer und zwar nur der klein- oder großgefleckten bestimmt; Laban sondert sofort auch die Böcke und die Muttertiere aus, von denen zu erwarten gewesen wäre, dass sie buntscheckige werfen würden, und zwar auch die nur am Fuße gezeichneten, alles unter den Ziegen, woran nur irgend etwas Weißes, sowie unter den Schafen alles, woran nur irgend etwas Dunkles war, so dass nur eine Herde von ganz weißen und von ganz schwarzen Ziegen übrig blieb, von denen es ein Wunder gewesen wäre, auch nur im geringsten buntscheckige Junge zu erwarten.

את התישים i.e. THE HE-GOATS.

כל אשר לבן בו EVERY ONE THAT HAD WHITE IN IT — all that had a white spot.

ויתן AND HE i.e. Laban, GAVE THEM ביד בניו INTO THE HAND OF HIS SONS.

הנותרות [THE FLOCK OF LABAN] THAT WAS LEFT — The defective animals amongst them, the sickly and the barren, which were nothing but the leavings — these he (Laban) handed over to him (Genesis Rabbah 73:9).

ובין יעקב, Lavan’s flocks which Yaakov tended were 3 days distant from the spotted and speckled ones which Lavan had first removed from the original flocks.

וישם, Lavan instructed his sons to make the spotted and speckled sheep in his flocks graze 3 days away from the animals Yaakov was tending. Yaakov let the remainder of the flock graze in the areas he had been used to. Lavan was so concerned that some of the striped and spotted animals under his sons’ care might wander back to the meadows in which they had grazed previously, and become mixed with the animals Yaakov was now tending. Yaakov might then claim that these animals were his.

מקל לבנה STICKS OF לבנה — a tree that is called לבנה — just as you say (Hosea 4:13) “Under oaks and poplars (ולבנה)” I think it is what is called in old French tremble; English trembling-poplar, which is white.

AND JACOB TOOK HIM STICKS OF POPLAR. As soon as they agreed that his hire would be these colors it was permissible for Jacob to do whatever he could to cause them to give birth in this manner. Perhaps Jacob had made a condition that he may do with them whatever he wants since Laban did not know of the ramifications of this measure, nor did Laban’s shepherds sense anything when they saw the sticks in the gutters once a year during the days of Nisan. For When the flocks were feeble¹⁶⁵Verse 42 here. in the days of Tishri, he did not put them in, otherwise not a hoof would have remained for Laban.
Now some commentators¹⁶⁶R’dak. say that the first year [Jacob did not make use of these sticks, but] there were born to him many speckled and spotted ones by virtue of G-d’s blessing which the angel showed him.¹⁶⁷Further, 31:12. And then he put the sticks in front of those which were his so that they should give birth in their form. This would prevent Laban from saying that their offspring was stolen by Jacob, [as he would have claimed had they given birth to other colored offspring].
This is the meaning of whensoever the stronger flocks became heated,¹⁶⁸Verse 41 here. referring to those that had been born to Jacob by way of G-d’s blessing; but when the flocks of Laban were feeble, he put them not in; so that the feebler were Laban’s, for they did not give birth to speckled ones, and the stronger were all Jacob’s,¹⁶⁵Verse 42 here. including their offspring, for they gave birth to speckled ones.

מקל לבנה, the reason why the letter ק in the word מקל has the vowel patach instead of the vowel tzeyreh, as we might have expected, is because it is in a construct form to the word לבנה, the tree that this staff was cut from. We encounter a similar construction for the same reason in Leviticus 27,32 where the Torah speaks of Ma-assar bakar instead of ma-asser bakar, “tithe of the cattle.” The word מעשר is in a construct form to the word בקר. We find a similar construction in Jeremiah 6,26 with the expressionמספד תמרורים, as well as in Amos 5,16 and Numbers 18,26 and Numbers 22,27.

ויקח, Yaakov did not do this in the first year, but only from the second year on. He did not place the sticks in front of the animals belonging to Lavan, but only in front of those animals which were now his as a result of the young ones born with the agreed upon skin patterns during that year. When he placed the sticks in front of those animals which were his, he did not intend for them to have young ones of a different skin pattern from the one they already had, but only to ensure that all his animals would give birth to young ones bearing the same skin patterns as did their mothers. In other words, he did not deprive Lavan of anything, either directly or indirectly. He acted in a manner which would not allow Lavan even to suspect him of stealing from him. This is the way my father of blessed memory explained these verses in light of the fact that numerous people, reading the story superficially, had expressed surprise that our patriarch Yaakov had been as devious as a superficial reading of the text makes it appear.

ויקח לו יעקב מקל לבנה,”Yaakov took for his use an aspen stick, etc.” Some people are amazed at why Yaakov the righteous person could resort to such a device. Nachmanides counters that seeing that they had made an agreement that the animals born with such skin patterns would be his wages, Yaakov was well within his rights to do everything to ensure that as many animals showing such skin patterns would be born. Perhaps Yaakov had even conditioned his acceptance on his being allowed to do what he could to encourage the birth of animals with the skin patterns that were to remain his. Seeing that Lavan did not have the expertise in genetics which Yaakov possessed, [or the angel taught him in the dream, Ed.] he did not object to such a request. The other shepherds did not become aware of Yaakov’s stratagem as he used it only twice each year in the spring and fall when the animals are in heat. If Yaakov had used the stratagem every time before the animals were at the troughs, Lavan would not have had any lambs born to him at all. Some commentators say that in the first year many lambs were born to the flocks by the grace of G’d, the angel having revealed to him that by the use of the aspen sticks whose bark was peeled in the right way, the sheep while in heat would exercise their imagination and their young would reflect this in their skin pattern. Yaakov made no use of this information until the second year, so as to avoid being accused of having stolen some of Lavan’s sheep. Once he had sheep with such skin patterns of his own, he was no longer suspect.

מקל לבנה, “poplar rods;” fresh, moist rods from the cedars of Lebanon as explained by Rashi.

It is a tree called לבנה... Otherwise, [if לבנה meant white], it should be writtenלְבָנָה . Re’m explains that if [it meant] the tree was white, why did Yaakov need to peel it to make it white? It already was white!

Dem gegenüber wäre das, was Jakob mit den Stäben versuchte, selbst dann eine völlig berechtigte Selbsthülfe gewesen, wenn es auch als ein völlig erprobtes Mittel betrachtet werden könnte, das sich doch schwerlich durch den Versuch bewähren dürfte. Allein, aus der späteren Erzählung wissen wir, wie Laban den Vertrag zehnmal änderte und in Gestalt und Stellung der Flecken und Streifen andere Bestimmungen traf, die durch eine solche allgemeine Einwirkung wie der Anblick der Stäbe doch wohl unmöglich zu erreichen gewesen waren, dass diesmal Gesprenkelte, dann Gescheckte, dann Fußgezeichnete usw. geworfen wurden, so dass der Erfolg rein nur als besondere göttliche Fügung betrachtet werden muss, wie sich ja auch Jakob selbst darüber aussprach. und das Mittel mit den Stäben nur ein äußerst schwacher Ersatz für die widerrechtlich von Laban entfernten Zuchttiere gewesen sein kann, das Jakob gleichwohl nicht unangewandt ließ, um auch hier, nach dem jüdischen Grundsatz אין סומכין על הנס, wenigstens das Seine gethan zu haben.

ויקח לו יעקב מקל לבנה לח, “Yaakov took for himself rods of fresh poplar;” if you were to ask how a righteous person such as Yaakov could play such a trick, the answer this that according to the agreement between him and Lavan the answer is that when the agreement was made Yaakov had told his father-in-law to remove all the sheep of his that had speckled and spotted skin patterns, etc., meaning the young animals, so that he could not be accused later on as these having been stolen by him. This did not include mature animals with those skin patters. Lavan removed all such animals regardless of their age, making it almost impossible for animals that had never shown such skin patterns to bear young ones that did. He was therefore perfectly fair in looking after his own interests, seeing Lavan had made it almost impossible for him to own flocks of his own without resorting to ingenuity; as a matter of fact he did so, with the help of advice from an angel in a dream, as we read in 31,10. In addition, the sage Rabbi Chayim added that careful reading of the text will show that Lavan changed unilaterally the terms of their contract, which had referred only to animals with the skin pattern known as נקודים, whereas he now had added those with skin patterns known as עקודים. This is why Yaakov on his part saw free to do what he did, fulfilling what is written in Samuel II 22,27: עם עקש תתפל, (David speaking) “and with the deceitful people You will find ways to make them cause their own downfall.”

מקל, “rod;” the letter ק has the vowel patach under it (instead of tzeyreh). This is not unusual for the construct mode; we find it also in the word מעשר, Leviticus 27,32, as well as in the word מספד in Jeremiah 6,26 which has the vowel patach under the letter .פ

לח FRESH — He took it when it was moist.

לח, not literally, wet, but not dried out.

לבנה, a tree (poplar) with a white trunk. (before peeling off its bark) He used such a tree in order to produce the desired colour contrasts after peeling the bark partially into the respective shapes to resemble עקוד ונקוד. This could be done only while the saplings were still moist. He also took branches, or sticks that were moist, fresh, as when peeled they would look more whitish. The trees called here לוז and ערמון respectively, are both well known, (plane-tree ad almond tree.)

ולוז וערמון, “and hazel and chestnut.” According to some commentators these were rods from almond trees and from chestnut trees.

He also took a stick from לוז... Rashi is answering the question: לבנה is not לוז; [so why does the verse describe it as such?] Thus Rashi explains, “He also took a stick from לוז. Re’m explains that “were fresh” interrupts between “poplar” and “hazel”, thus [Rashi explains that the phrase] “hazel and chestnut” is a separate point.

לבנה לח, “moist aspen wood;” the wood of this tree is white only when exposed after peeling the bark and still moist. This distinguishes it from the luz and armon trees the wood of which are white regardless of moist or dry. This is why they are described as לבנה, “white.”

לוז ALMOND — He also took rods of לוז, a tree upon which small nuts growold French coudre; English hazel.

מחשוף, exposed, visible. Compare the same expression in Ezekiel 4,7, or in Isaiah 52,10 חשף ה' את זרןע קדשו, “the Lord bared His holy arm.”

ולוז, and almond trees. We know this from the Talmud Bechorot 8, where the time needed for a hen to lay an egg after copulating is given as 21 days, identical to the development of the almond in the almond tree after pollination. It is not to be confused with the hazelnut tree which produces small nuts, and which requires more than 21 days between pollination and blossoming.

וערמון is old French chastenier, English chestnut.

ויפצל, “he peeled;” this word does not appear elsewhere in the Bible. In the Talmud it means to split something into separate parts by peeling or skimming. Examples are enclosures where female sheep or goats are prevented from escaping so that the males introduced will copulate promptly and impregnate them. This is the meaning of the phrase: והיו הקשורים ליעקב, “and the ones that had been tied up would belong to Yaakov.”

פצלות STREAKS — many peelings so that he gave it the appearence of being striped.

מחשוף הלבן MAKING BARE THE WHITE — there was thus an uncovering of the white part of the rod: when he peeled it the white in it became uncovered and visible in the places where it was peeled.

ויצג AND HE SET — In the Targum it is rendered by ודעיץ which signifies in the Aramaic language sticking in and inserting. It occurs many times in the Talmud: (Shabbat 50b) “if he stuck it in (דצה) and pulled it out”; (Chullin 93b) “he stuck (דץ) something into it”, where דצה is the same as דעצה, being really a contracted form of it.

ויחמנה, the word has a similar construction as Samuel I 6,12 וישרנה הפרות, “the cows went straight ahead,” where a feminine mode and a masculine mode is combined. [the letter י at the beginning of the word signaling a masculine mode, and the letters נה at the end signaling a feminine mode. Ed.] Similar unusual constructions are found in Daniel 8,22 ארבע מלכיות מגוי יעמדנה, or Ezekiel 37,7 ותקרבו העצמות עצם אל עצמו. In all of these examples the verb is in a partially masculine and partially feminine mode.

לנכח הצאן, he positioned the staves before the line of vision of the sheep in order to make them look when this work was performed, and this experience would be anchored in their imagination at the time they conceived and were pregnant. Visual impressions formed during such periods are of lasting value and usually produce some effect in the young animals born as a result of that pregnancy.

ויצג את המקלות, he positioned them at the water troughs. This is the meaning of the words

Where the water was running... [Rashi knows that רהטים means running] because the Targum of [(Bereishis 18:2)] וירץ (he ran) is ורהט.

ויחמנה eine gleichzeitig männlich und weiblich gebildete Form, vermutlich um die beabsichtigte Wirkung auf beide Geschlechter zu beziehen, ganz so wie Laban nicht nur die weiblichen, sondern auch die männlichen Zuchttiere, die nicht ganz einfarbig gewesen, widerrechtlich entfernt hatte.

ויחמנה, “they grew heated;” the construction of this word is a combination of two conjugations. It is similar in this respect to Samuel I 6,12: וישרנה הפרות, “the cows went straight, and to ארבע מלכיות מגוי יעמודנה, “four kingdoms will arise out of a nation,” and in Daniel 8,2, and in ותקרבו העצמות עצם אל עצם, “the bones came together,” in Ezekiel 37,7.

ברהטים IN THE GUTTERS — in the currents (מרוצות) of water running in the trenches made in the ground to water the sheep there (רהט is the Aramaic of רוץ).

אשר תבאן, meaning: “as they would come there.” In Exodus 14,13 the word אשר in the line אשר ראיתם את מצרים היום also means “when, as,” i.e. “as you have seen Egypt to day.” The word אשר in the line תאכל מצות אשר צויתיך in Exodus 34,18 also means “as,” i.e. “you shall eat unleavened bread as I commanded you.”

In the ducts where the flock came to drink... אשר תבאן הצאן forms one phrase with שקתות המים, so that נוכח הצאן refers back to ויצג המקלות. Rashi is saying that Yaakov stuck the rods into the ducts and watering troughs so the rods would be in front of the flock when it drank, so the animals will become heated.

אשר תבאנה WHERE THE FLOCKS COME TO DRINK etc. — In the currents whither the sheep come to drink, there did he set the rods in front of the sheep.

לנכח הצאן, he had made them face the sheep.

The female animal would see the sticks... Otherwise, [if they were not startled backwards,] why does it say, “They became heated”? Water does not usually cause animals to become heated. And according to R. Hoshaya, “heated” means “pregnant.”

ויחמנה AND THEY CONCEIVED — The female animal saw the rods, it was startled at the sight of them and recoiled; its mate then pairing with it, it afterwards gave birth to young marked similar to the rods (Genesis Rabbah 73:10).

ויחמנה, it is in the nature of the sheep to become heated, excited, and to mount the females when they are about to drink from the troughs.

ברהטים, Onkelos translates the word ותרץ in 29,12 as “she ran.” The word here means that this was a place where the water ran into pools which had been dug in the ground in order to facilitate the watering of the sheep. The word ויחמנה contains both masculine and feminine components, perhaps to hint at the mating of the two sexes. A similar construction occurs in Samuel I 6,12.

אל המקלות means at the sight of the rods.

ויחמו הצאן, this is a masculine construction.

ויחמו, a reference to the males. However, as we learned earlier, the females would be in heat simultaneously.

To the appearance of the sticks. [Rashi explains this] because the sticks did not make the animals have ringed, speckled and spotted offspring. It was the sticks’ appearance that did this, i.e., the uncovered white. You might ask: How could Yaakov commit this trickery? There are many explanations, but it seems to me that Yaakov did it with his own flock, [not with Lavan’s.] The offspring of Yaakov’s flock rightfully belonged to Yaakov even without these signs, but Lavan wanted to take even those offspring from him. Yaakov thought: I will make sticks so that the offspring of my flock will all be speckled and spotted, to gain what is rightfully mine. (Maharshal)

ויחמו הצאן, “the flocks grew heated;” the Torah did not mind in this case to use the singular mode when speaking of numerous animals; we know of other examples of a similar construction such as Judges 21,21: אם יצאו בנות שילה, “as soon as the daughters of Shiloh will come forth,” where the masculine mode is applied to the girls of Shiloh.

עקודים RING-STRAKED — the word is connected with the root עקד “to bind” — differently coloured at that place where they are bound, viz., the ankles of the forelegs and hindlegs.

אל המקלות, toward the sticks.

אל המקלות, “in response to the sticks;” the word אל does not mean to approach physically;” similar to Genesis 41,57: לשבור אל יוסף, “to buy grain from Joseph,” where it also has not been used in a physical sense. Another interpretation: “on account of the sticks.” This would be similar to Yaakov saying in Genesis 37,35: כי ארד אל בני שאולה, “for I will join my son on the way down to hades” (a grave in the nether regions of the earth).

ותלדן הצאן, the sheep would give birth to young with the skin patterns Yaakov desired, as their imagination had been fired at a time when they were more than usually impressionable.

ותלדנה הצאן עקודים, “the flocks gave birth to young with striped birth patterns on the skins of their feet.” From then on Yaakov did not again bother to erect the sticks near the troughs, but he simply separated the animals that had displayed the skin patterns in accordance with his agreement Lavan from the brownskinned ones that were Lavan’s.

והכשבים הפריד יעקב AND JACOB PARTED THE LAMBS — Those sheep that were thus born spotted on the ankles and speckled he separated and set apart by themselves, thus forming them into a separate flock. He led that spotted flock in front of ordinary sheep so that the faces of the sheep that followed behind them were gazing at them. This is what Scripture means in saying, “He set the faces of the flocks towards the spotted” — that the faces of the sheep were directed towards the spotted animals and towards all that were brownish which he found amongst Laban’s sheep (i. e., amongst the sickly sheep which Laban had left him; cf. Genesis 5:36).

AND JACOB SEPARATED THE LAMBS. Rashi comments: “Those sheep that were thus born spotted on the ankles and speckled, he separated and set apart by themselves, thus forming them into a separate flock. The spotted flock he led in front of the ordinary sheep so that the faces of the sheep that followed behind them were gazing at them. This is what Scripture means in saying, And he set the faces of the flocks towards the spotted; the faces of the sheep were directed towards the spotted animals and towards all that were brownish which were found amongst Laban’s sheep. And he put his own droves by themselves, and set them not with Laban’s flocks, as I have already explained.” This is the Rabbi’s [Rashi’s] language. But his words here are not correct. For why did Jacob separate the spotted lambs so that there did not remain in Laban’s flock any speckled or brownish ones, neither in the sheep nor in the goats? And if those that he separated were the ringstraked, speckled and spotted which the sheep had given birth to and which belonged to him, and it was from them that he made this spotted flock, why did he separate only the lambs and did not take also the he-goats and she-goats which were born spotted and make from all of them this spotted flock which he led before the sheep? Moreover, Scripture makes no mention of the fact that brownish ones were born. And again, according to the opinion of the Rabbi [Rashi], there were no ringstraked and spotted among the lambs for these were not his hire. Only the brownish were, and for the brownish he had made no sticks.
But the explanation of the verse is that Jacob separated the lambs from the goats and made from them a separate flock. Now he had a flock of brownish lambs and a flock of spotted and speckled goats. He then had the faces of all the flocks — of the lambs and of the goats — directed towards the ringstraked and towards all the brownish which were in the flock of Laban, since he put the ringstraked before the goats and all the brownish before the lambs, this being in accordance with the opinion of the earlier Rabbis, [Rashi and Ibn Ezra, as explained above], or, according to [Ramban’s] opinion, the ringstraked and all the brownish before the lamb. For the purpose of the separation of the lambs from the goats was on account of the brownish which were his hire from the lambs alone.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that Scripture is saying, Jacob separated [only] the lambs and set the faces of the flocks, which refer to the above mentioned lambs, to the ringstraked and all the brownish in the flock of Laban, and he put his own droves of the ringstraked and the brownish by themselves, and he set them not with Laban’s flocks, for these, [the ringstraked and the brownish], were his hire. And the meaning of the expression, in the flock of Laban, is that he did so with all of Laban’s flocks but not that they belonged to Laban since the ringstraked among the lambs were Jacob’s.
Now do not ask why Scripture at first says “lambs” and then says “the faces of the flocks” rather than “the faces of the lambs”, for it is normal for Scripture to express itself this way. In this section there is a similar case in connection with the mountain of Gilead.¹⁶⁹Further, 31:25. Now Jacob had pitched his tent in the mountain, and Laban with his brethren pitched in the mountain of Gilead. “The mountain” mentioned at the beginning of the verse is the “mountain of Gilead” mentioned at the end. And the reason Jacob did this with the lambs more than with the goats is that there were no brownish ones among the sticks he put up. It is possible that he knew that because of their heaviness, it is natural for lambs to require many signs to arouse them — more than the light-weight he-goats require.

והכבשים הפריד יעקב, the spotted and striped ones Yaakov had already previously removed from Lavan’s flocks during the first and second year. He now let Lavan’s spotted and striped sheep see the females of the young ones to encourage them to become pregnant with newly born lambs of the skin pattern which they had recently seen while in a state of stimulation. In order to reinforce the imagination of the sheep to be impregnated, he planted the sticks with the peeled parts near the troughs to enhance the chances of the next crop of lambs to display the skin patterns he hoped for.

אל עקוד וכל חום בצאן לבן, this was after Lavan had already reneged and changed the rules of the contract by allocating to Yaakov newly born lambs with different skin patterns than had been agreed to originally.

פני הצאן אל עקוד, the flocks facing the ankle-striped, etc. Perhaps the reason that only the ankle-striped ones are mentioned here is that the sheep would react more rapidly at the sight of that colour pattern than towards the striped or speckled ones.

והכבשים הפריד יעקב, he separated the females from the goats whether male or female, not watering the two species at the same time, in order to prevent goats with undesirable skin patterns being born. None of the goats that were not black belonged to Yaakov [according to Joseph Kimichi’s commentary, there was nothing wrong in what Yaakov did or failed to do, since these goats never had displayed such skin patterns, so why should Yaakov encourage their being born with new skin patterns. Ed.] Yaakov watered the goats elsewhere where they did not observe any sticks or branches that could arouse their imagination. Yaakov did not have any black paint which would have enabled him to paint sticks black. Even if he had possessed such paint, his stratagem would have become public knowledge as naturally black sticks or branches did not exist in that region. He therefore had to content himself with increasing his share of the births of the sheep, foregoing any artificial measures to make the goats throw young ones that were black-skinned. [the interested reader will find that different commentators arrive at different conclusions regarding exactly what was agreed between Yaakov and Lavan, and they each explain his procedures according to their understanding of the agreement. Ed.]

והכבשים הפריד יעקב, “Yaakov had already separated the sheep, etc.” According to Rashi this means that he set aside as his own flocks all those that had been born with the skin patterns agreed upon as his wages. He made separate herds of them and made them walk in front of the mature flocks in a manner that caused them to face those flocks. This is the meaning of the line ויתן פני הצאן אל עקוד וכל חום בצאן לבן, “he made them face all the ankle-striped and the brown ones among the sheep.” The problem with this commentary, writes Nachmanides, is that it does not explain why he had separated the sheep only and not the goats, both male and female, so that they too would reproduce young ones of the desired skin pattern. Why did he not make a separate herd of the goats also? Furthermore, seeing that according to Rashi’s opinion the sheep do not produce the skin pattern called עקוד as we surmise by the fact that Yaakov was not given such as part of his wages, as opposed to brown (speckled) ones, there was no point in his peeling aspen sticks when these sheep came to the water troughs. It therefore made perfect sense that Yaakov kept the sheep completely apart from the goats. He had a flock of goats, both male and female, which were נקוד וטלוא; these he made walk in front of the senior generation of sheep. All this makes sense according to those who hold that any נקוד וטלוא among the sheep would not belong to Yaakov in any event. According to Rashi’s own opinion that all the skin patterns mentioned applied to both goats and sheep, the reason he separated the herds of sheep from those of the goats was that among the goats there were not (as yet) any which showed brown patches of skin.

So that the flock faced the... the brown ones that he found among Lavan’s flock. The [second] flock mentioned here means the goats, as Lavan had taken away all the brown sheep, as it says in v. 35. But Lavan did not separate the brown goats since this [kind] was not Yaakov’s wages. Similarly, he did not separate the speckled and spotted from the sheep, only from the goats, as I [Re’em] wrote above. This is because these [kinds of sheep] were not Yaakov’s wages. (See the Re’m’s elaboration here.) Re’m writes further that [when Rashi says, “Those that were born spotted and speckled,”] the phrase “those that were born” is likely a misprint [and should be omitted], unless we say it refers to those already born before Lavan took away [part of his flock]. Then, Rashi would be saying: Those speckled and spotted [sheep] already born to Lavan’s flock, which Lavan did not take away because these [kinds] were not Yaakov’s wages.

ולא שתם על צאו לבן, and he did not keep them near the flocks that belonged to Lavan. He did not want Lavan to be able to say that he had mixed them among Lavan’s flocks in order that Lavan’s sheep would produce young looking like those of Yaakov.

וישת לו עדרים means he formed them into a separate flock as I have already explained.

וישת לו עדרים לבדו, from the lambs that were born as his share, year after year, Yaakov formed separate flocks which he kept apart seeing that they amounted to a formidable number of animals. He did not let them graze anywhere near where Lavan’s flocks were grazing. Lavan had displayed envy of Yaakov, and therefore Yaakov did not want to inflame his envy by letting him see his flocks all the time, knowing that Yaakov’s share of the newly born sheep had outnumbered those born as his own share

וישת לו עדרים, he set aside droves for himself. This was designed so that these flocks should never look at any other varieties than the ones with the skin pattern Jacob had chosen. In this way they would automatically give birth to young ones of that same skin pattern. If that were not so Jacob would have to give to Laban all those young sheep or goats which were not speckled or striped.

The construction: על צאן לבן, must be understood as similar to Leviticus 25,31: על שדה הארץ יחשב, “shall be considered as open country.”

And it is appropriate to know that, although Yaakov performed intensive actions, nevertheless without Hashgacha Pratis (Specific Divine Providence) it would have been impossible for the technique to be so effective. Rather, the main (effect was caused by) Hashgacha (Providence) combined with an action- as in a hidden miracle. (This is just) like a curse at an inopportune time (Heaven forfend). The Midrash states in Eicha Rabba that (when) one hits with a stick between the 17th of Tammuz and the 9th of Av, a destroying angel hits with an iron stick and kills (the victim). So too with blessing, a small action on the part of a person causes a great impact (from) above. The actions of our fathers are a sign for the children in their exile amongst many nations, that their success is based on diligence and knowledge and preparation, and the assistance of Heaven completes them.

על צאן, as if the Torah had written עם צאן, “with the sheep.” A similar construction is found in Exodus 35,22 ויבאו האנשים על הנשים, “the men came together with the women.”

המקשרות THE STRONGER—Explain it as the Targum renders it: הבכירות the early-bearing sheep; but I have no evidence in the Scripture (i.e. I have no other example of the use of this word) to prove that this is its meaning. Menachem classifies it under the same root as (2 Samuel 15:31) “Ahitophel is among the conspirators (בקשרים)”, and as (2 Samuel 15:12) “And the conspiracy (הקשר) was strong” — so that the meaning would be those sheep that banded themselves together (mated) in order to accelerate their pregnancy (i.e. in order that they might become בכירות, early-bearing sheep).

THE FLOCKS ‘HAMEKUSHAROTH.’ The correct interpretation of this expression appears to me to be that they are the flocks in which the males follow the females at all times, never leaving them due to their abundant desire, as in the expression, Seeing that his soul is ‘keshurah’ (bound up) with the lad’s soul.¹⁷⁰Further, 44:30. This is also found in the language of our Sages: “a swine karuch (clinging) to a ewe;”¹⁷¹Bechoroth 24a. “clinging to her.”¹⁷²Kiddushin 79b. And the offspring born at that time are called hakeshurim after the name of their father.
But many authorities say¹⁷³P’sikta Zutrata on this verse. that keshurim are “the strong ones” whose limbs are firmly attached to each other with a strong tie, as this is the basis of health, while atuphim¹⁶⁵Verse 42 here. are “the weak ones” whose soul ‘tithataph’ (fainted) in them,¹⁷⁴Psalms 107:5. and who have no desire, as in the expression, ‘ha’atuphim’ (that faint) for hunger.¹⁷⁵Lamentations 2:19. Onkelos translated hamekusharoth as the early-bearing sheep, and atuphim as the late-bearing ones, for such is the fact: [the early-bearing sheep are the stronger ones, and the late-bearing ones are weaker].

המקושרות, during the month of Tishrey.

והיה בכל יחם הצאן, it would be that every time the flocks were in heat, etc..We must understand why Jacob did all this. Granted that originally when he placed those partially peeled rods he was forced to resort to this stratagem out of a feeling of self-preservation, this was no longer the case after he established his own flocks. His continuing to resort to these stratagems would appear to have resulted in his acquiring more than half the total profit whereas under normal circumstances the shepherd is supposed to take one third of the profits as we have explained on 29,15 on the verse הכי אחי אתה.

והיה בכל יחם, during all the periods when the animals were in heat, i.e. at the time when they mated; this is in accordance with Onkelos’ rendering of these words. This is the standard translation every time the word occurs.

המקושרות, “the early-bearing ones,” some commentators understand the word as “the strong ones.” They believe that it refers to those whose limbs were firmly attached to each other. Such firm attachment between the various limbs is considered a sign of good health. By contrast, the עטופים (verse 42) are the ones whose health was more precarious. They were the weak ones. The word occurs in this context in Lamentations 2,19 העטופים ברעב, “the ones weakened by famine.” Nachmanides writes that הקשורים are the male animals which follow the females very close on their heels and never stay far away from them as they are usually in heat. A parallel expression in the Torah would be ונפשו קשורה בנפשו, the manner in which Yehudah describes the spiritual bond between his father and Binyamin. (Genesis 44,30). Ibn Ezra explains that in the month of Nissan, all the young lambs born to the sheep were strong and healthy, to wit מקושרות. Seeing they are so healthy and strong, they have a strong sex drive, always staying close behind the females. On the other hand, the ones born in fall, in Tishrey, are by nature weak, and Yaakov was not particularly interested in them, hence he did not bother with the aspen sticks at that time of year. At least, he refrained from doing so in order to minimize the chance of Lavan learning of his stratagem.

(41-42) ובהעטיף ,המקשרות. Für die gewöhnliche Erklärung מקשרות frühwerfende, starke, העטיף, spätwerfende, schwache, gibt es kaum eine Analogie. Die Auffassung des מקשרות wäre ganz ohne Stütze, und für העטיף reichte auch schwerlich die Analogie von התעטף und עני כי יעטף aus, da dies immer zeitlich eingetretene Schwächezustände bezeichnet, nicht aber eine konstitutionelle Schwäche. Dazu kommt, dass מקשרות ja ganz entschieden nicht auf einen Zustand, sondern auf eine Tätigkeit hinweist, die an den Tieren vorgenommen worden. Sabbat 52b. lesen wir in der Mischna: רחלות יוצאות שחוזות כבולות וכבונות und folgt 52b. die Erläuterung: מאי שחוזות שאוחזין באליה שלהן למעלה כדי שיעלו עליהן זכרים. Demnach liegt es nicht fern, in מקשרות die Aufgebundenen zu erkennen und ובהעטיף: "wenn man aber die Tiere bedeckt ließ" wie sie im natürlichen Zustande sind. Wenn also die Tiere künstlich zum Wurf gebracht wurden — was man allerdings wohl vorzüglich mit den besseren tat, von welchen man Junge wünschte — stellte er die Stäbe hin; wenn man sie aber sich selbst und dem natürlichen Wege überließ, nicht.

המקושרות, “the sturdier ones;” According to Rashi the meaning of the word is: מבכירות, “the ones liable to give birth early in the season because they conceived without difficulties.” Although he attributes this interpretation to Targum Onkelos, he was unable to quote proof, and neither did Onkelos quote proof. I believe that the word is connected to the root: קשר, “knot.” It was the custom in those days to tie a knot to the firstborn animal of each mother, in order to be able to identify these animals later on as they were presumed to be stronger, or at any rate preferred by their owners to those born later. This would prevent them from being confused with animals born by the same mother animal in subsequent years. We know from Genesis 38,28, that the midwife of Tamar also tied a knot to the twin that appeared to be born first from its mother’s womb. The author quotes the Maharam from Rotenburg as saying that in his time fathers also displayed preferences for firstborn sons.

ויחם, the reason the infinitive mode is used for the word is in order for it to be connected to the preceding word בכל, which is used in lieu of the word שם, “there, wherever.” When the word does not signify any specific time, i.e. either past, present of future, which would limit its application, then the word בכל is appropriate as it also is a totally inclusive word, not allowing for exceptions. The infinitive is therefore absolutely in place. The sheep give birth twice a year, and the Torah now tells us before which of the cycle of births Yaakov positioned the sticks by the troughs. Yaakov positioned the sticks before the first cycle of births which was numerically much smaller, because Lavan did not bother to check on what was going on during that period. Before the second birthing during that year Yaakov did not position the sticks in order to arouse the imagination of the animals because at that time Lavan would come to inspect his sheep and if he had discovered that Yaakov was using these sticks this would have resulted in a quarrel between them, and Lavan would have stolen from him whatever he thought should be his. Even though Yaakov had never positioned the sticks in front of any animals that were Lavan’s, as I explained on verse 37, in the name of my late father, Lavan would have argued that just as Yaakov placed this sticks before his own animals so he would presumably do also when watering Lavan’s flocks.

Perhaps the flocks described as המקושרות did not give birth only to ankle-striped lambs etc.; in that event Jacob would not have benefited excessively. He probably did not benefit to the extent of two thirds, the amount permissible when dealing with growing animals. Perhaps Jacob only tried to reimburse himself for what Laban had already robbed him of.

The meaning of the words המקושרות, הקשורים and העטופים, as well as the word ובהעטיף, is in accordance with the way Onkelos translates them, descriptions of the time cycle during which certain animals would give birth. My late father of blessed memory, explained that the agreement for the first year called for the result of the first birthing to be Yaakov’s, whereas the result of the second birthing would be Lavan’s.

ליחמנה במקלות, to bring them to heat through their viewing the sticks, as I already explained. The letter ה at the end of the word ליחמנה is appended just as we find this letter appended in such words as אותנה (Exodus 35,26), where we do not know any reason for this addition. The word really should have been ליחמן without the letter ה at the end but with a dagesh in the final ן. Still we do have a similar construction to ours here in Micah 7,7 עיני תיראנה בה as well as in Ezekiel 4,12 תעגנה לעיניהם where the letter נ in תעגנה is “weak,” i.e. without the dagesh we would have expected. Even though, as we explained, the places where these constructions occur are not quite analogous to one another, the fact remains that the entire story is told by the Torah in such detail in order to show the reader to what extent G’d’s providence intervened in order to make sure that Yaakov did not lose out to the crooked Lavan. This once again confirms what we read in Psalms 37,12 and 33 that זומם רשע לצדיק....ה' לא יעזבנו בידו, “when the wicked tries to set a trap the righteous G’d will not abandon the righteous to the devices of the wicked.”

ובהעטיף WHEN THE FLOCKS WERE FEEBLE — the word has the meaning of “being late”, as the Targum renders it בלקישות the late-bearing ones (cf. מלקוש the “latter” rain). Menachem classifies it under the same root as (Isaiah 3:22) “the aprons and the mantelets (המעטפות)”, so that it has the meaning of wrapping oneself in a garment, and the word denotes those animals that are well wrapped up in their skin and fur so that they do not desire to be warmed by the males.

ובהעטיף, during the interval between giving birth for the first time and the ability to conceive again had begun, Yaakov did not bother using the stratagem of the peeled sticks when the sheep would be watered.

ובהעטיף הצאן לא ישים, in order that Lavan should not think that the results which so clearly favoured Yaakov could have been achieved only through deceitful activities on his part.

ובהעטיף הצאן לא ישים, והיה העטופים ללבן. “When the ewes and she-goats were late he would not place the aspen sticks in their path to the troughs.” This was because at that time they did not give birth to lambs or kids with the desired skin pattern. As a result, all the blotched ones would belong to Yaakov, being strong animals born in spring. Some commentators understand that the fact that these skin patterns appeared was not even due to Yaakov’s stratagem, but was a divine assistance Yaakov experienced, a minor miracle. This explains why Lavan did not check regularly on what Yaakov was up to, as he had been unaware of what had been happening. He did not even view the use of the aspen sticks as responsible for the fact that the young sheep and goats born under Yaakov’s supervision mostly had the skin patterns favouring him. Most miracles are not of the type of splitting the sea, or water turning into blood, but they are “additives” to initiatives undertaken by man. [According to that view, had Yaakov not used this stratagem the miracle could not have occurred, just as if the woman whose oil the prophet Elisha increased manifold could not have experienced this miracle if her jar had been totally empty of oil. Ed.] (compare Kings II 4,1-6) This commentary, is not valid in our situation, as without question the stratagem used by Yaakov can be successfully applied by other shepherds whom G’d does not favour with miraculous intervention.

צאן רבות MANY SHEEP — sheep that multiplied and were fruitful more than other sheep (Genesis Rabbah 73:11).

ויפרץ האיש, he surpassed all the boundaries of what is considered possible in amassing a tremendous fortune in a short time all through shepherding flocks of sheep and goats.

ויפרץ, this refers to financial success, not to the number of offspring. This is also what G’d had promised Yaakov in 28,14 when He said: ופרצת ימה וקדמה וגו'. Yaakov’s wealth is symbolically described as bursting through its fences. There is not enough space to accommodate it. Clearly, this is one of the instances in which the Torah deliberately indulges in exaggeration in order to illustrate its point.

Fruitful and multiply more than other flock. צאן רבות cannot mean what it sounds like, that he had many flocks, for it is already written, “The man became tremendously prosperous” — which surely refers to the flocks mentioned before. Rather it means, “That are fruitful...” (Re’m)

ויפרץ האיש siehe oben Kap.26, 13.

ושפחות ועבדים AND HANDMAIDS, AND MEN-SERVANTS — he used to sell his sheep at a high price and he bought for himself all these (Tanchuma Yashan 1:7:24).

מאד מאד, to emphasise further the quantitative element the Torah speaks of.

He would sell his flock at a high price and buy for himself all these. [Rashi knows it means this] because otherwise, why does Scripture mention slaves while recounting [how the rods increased] the flock? R. Meir Stern writes: [Rashi knows it means this] because otherwise, it should have mentioned people before animals. Moreover, why does Scripture go back and speak of animals, saying: “Camels and donkeys”? Thus Rashi says, “He would sell...” to explain that the flock was mentioned first because he owned it first. Then Scripture mentions what he bought by selling the flock, placing people before animals. And since everything is now in proper order, we need not say, [to explain the order in which they are listed,] that he sold the slaves to buy camels and donkeys, as he did with the flock [to buy the slaves]. Therefore Rashi says, “And buy for himself all these” — all was bought with the money he received from selling the flock.

ויהי לו צאן רבות, the feminine ending in רבות refers to the females of the sheep, the ones producing the lambs. One single ram would service many ewes. Cattle are not mentioned here at all as Yaakov’s work was restricted to raising sheep and goats. He did possess cattle, however.