Comentário sobre Gênesis 31:58

עשה HE HATH MADE — i.e. gathered, as (1 Samuel 14:48) “And he gathered (ויעש) troops and smote the Amalekites”.

הכבוד, the weight and power of the money. We have already encountered the word כבד as an adjective describing the wealth in Genesis 13,2.

He heard the words. He heard that Lavan’s sons were slandering him out of jealousy.

וישמע...לאמור. Lavan’s sons were saying all this to one another as well as to their father. This was the reason why Lavan’s attitude toward Yaakov had changed.

Warum hier erst von den Söhnen und dann vom Vater gesprochen wird? Möglich, dass Labans einstiges Betragen gegen seinen Vater durch seiner Söhne Betragen gegen ihn sich rächte, und seine Söhne so das Regiment in seinem Hause führten, wie er einst in Bethuels Hause.

Yaakov saw Lavan’s face. He saw that he had accepted his sons’ slander.

וירא יעקב…ויאמר ה׳ אל יעקב. Jacob saw, etc….G'd said to Jacob. We need to analyse how these two verses are connected to one another.

וירא את פני לבן, he could see it in his face, for he was not hiding his feelings While Yaakov was still debating with himself about what he kept hearing and seeing, G’d addressed him in a dream.

The intent of the verse is to explain the two separate considerations which preceded Jacob's flight from Laban. Unless both considerations had prompted him Jacob would not have departed without informing Laban about this first. Or, he might have waited a few days to see if Laban's attitude towards him would undergo a change for the better. After all, Jacob was a free man, he was not Laban's slave and the latter could not have prevented his departure by legal means. In view of what he heard Laban's sons say Jacob was afraid that Laban would steal all his wealth. Jacob himself said in 31,31 that he had feared that Laban would steal his daughters back from him. Had he not received a prophetic vision to leave he would not have been in a hurry to take such a step. He would have attempted to secure Laban's goodwill. We therefore need both these verses to explain Jacob's behaviour.

שוב אל ארץ אבותיך RETURN UNTO THE LAND OF THY FATHERS — and there I will be with thee; but as long as you are associated with the unclean Laban it is impossible to make my Divine Presence (Shechina) rest upon you (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayetzei 10).

!ויאמר אלוקים אל יעקב שוב, The Torah informs us that as a result of the meeting between Yaakov and his wives he fled from Charan without taking formal leave of Lavan as ordinary courtesy would have required him to do. He was convinced that in view of the fact that Lavan had accepted the badmouthing of him by his sons, he would steal some or most of his belongings before allowing him to leave. He said so himself during the confrontation in verse 31 when he expressed concern that Lavan would even have robbed him of his wives, claiming them as his seeing that they were his daughters.

'ויאמר ה, the angel is called by the name of his Master, i.e. G’d. The reason is that he delivers his message in the name of his Sender, i.e. in the name of G’d.

And there I will be with you... This was not a stipulation: “If you return, I will be with you. And if not, I will not be with you.” Rather, Hashem was telling him the reason: Because here it is not possible [to rest My Divine Presence upon you].

ויאמר ה' אל יעקב, “the Lord said to Yaakov;” what follows is the dream that he told his wives.

ואהיה עמך. So that you will not be harmed on the way.

It is not possible to rest My Divine Presence upon youI will be with you” cannot mean, “To guard you on the way,” because Yaakov had already been promised this (28:15): “I am with you, and I will guard you wherever you go.” Rather it means, “There I will rest My Divine Presence upon you,” which necessarily includes the promise that he will not be killed on the way. This explains Rashi’s comment in Parshas Vayishlach (32:10): “You made two promises to me...” implying that when it says here, “I will be with you,” it means, “I will guard you on the way.”

ויקרא לרחל וללאה AND HE CALLED RACHEL AND LEAH — First Rachel and afterwards Leah for she was the chief wife of the house for whose sake Jacob had entered into relations with Laban. Even the descendants of Leah admitted this (that Rachel was the principal wife), for Boaz and his Law-Court who were of the Tribe of Judah (Leah’s son) said (Ruth 4:11) “like Rachel and like Leah which two did build etc.”, mentioning Rachel before Leah (Genesis Rabbah 71:2).

'וישלח יעקב וגו, he requested that his wives join him in the field where he was busy tending the flocks.

ויקרא לרחל וללאה, “he sent word to Rachel and Leah to come to him;” the Torah mentions the names of these wives by name as they were the senior wives; he did not have to send messages to Zilpah and Bilhah and their respective children as they were in his proximity all the time, helping him tend the flocks.

ואלוקי אבי היה עמדי, even though Lavan’s attitude to me was hostile. I did not steal anything from him, but G’d was with me and He gave it to me.

ויאמר להן ראה אני פני אביכם, He said to them: "I look upon the face of your father, etc." Jacob invited his wives to give him a reasonable sounding explanation for their father's recent hostility topwards him. In the event that his wives would justify their father's attitude by the fact that Jacob had become wealthier than their father, Jacob added "G'd was with me." He told them that his new wealth was a blessing by G'd not the result of competing with their father.

ואלוקי אבי היה עמדי, he, Lavan, hates me on account of my having become wealthier than he is. This is not because I aimed to be so wealthy but because the G’d of my father was with me and made me so successful in my endeavours.

An dem Gesichte eures Vaters sehe ich, wie Gott mir beigestanden, indem ich nur seinem Beistande es verdanke, dass es mir nicht bereits ärger ergangen.

THAT WITH ALL MY POWER I HAVE SERVED YOUR FATHER. That is, “from the outset, and he has been blessed since my coming.” It is possible that Laban’s flocks had been many, but that even the feebler ones were blessed since Jacob came, for Laban’s sons complained only out of jealousy of Jacob that he had gotten all this wealth.¹⁷⁶Verse 1 here.

ואתנה..., I have served him faithfully whereas he related to me with deceit.

בכל כחי, as Yaakov tells Lavan to his face in verse 40 when he relates the harshness of the conditions he worked under.

עשרת מנים TEN TIMES — The word מנים never means less than ten (Ruth 4:11).

AND YOUR FATHER HATH MOCKED ME, AND CHANGED MY WAGES TEN TIMES. This was true, even though Scripture did not previously relate it. And so too did Jacob tell Laban: And thou hast changed my wages ten times.¹⁷⁷Further, Verse 41. There are many similar places in the Torah. For example, in this earlier section, Scripture did not relate that Leah gave the mandrakes to Rachel [although the event is referred to later in Verse 16: for I have hired thee with my son’s mandrakes].

מונים, as if the Torah had written מנינים, ten times.

ואביכן התל בי, "and your father deceived me, etc." What precisely was the deception which Laban was guilty of? If it was עברת הדרך, this should be called robbery.

ואביכן התל בי, this is a variation of the root with the same letters but with the dagesh in the letter ת, as we find in Kings 1 18,27 where it describes the prophet Elijah ridiculing the god of the priests of the Baal. Here the root is not used transitively but intransitively in the conjugation kal, hence there is not dagesh.

מונים is no less than ten. מונים is a term of counting, which is [done in sets of] ten. It is written, “Ten מונים,” i.e., 10 x 10 =100. But מונים does not mean “times.”

החל, rad. תלל , wovon תֵל: ein Trümmerhaufen, daher wahrscheinlich ותוללינו שמחה: unsere Zertrümmerer. Verwandt mit טַל .דלל ,טלל :תלל: der Niederschlag, Tau, der erst in die Höhe steigt und dann niederfällt. דַל, der Herab- gekommene, der früher reich gewesen. הָתֵל: jemanden erst hohe Erwartungen bauen lassen und sie dann in Trümmer werfen: täuschen, jemandem sein Versprechen nicht halten.

עשרת מנים, “ten times a minyan”, i.e. ten times ten,=100 times.

מנים signifies sum — the total of enumeration — these are tens: we may infer, therefore, that he changed the conditions of his hire one hundred times (Genesis Rabbah 74:3).

עשרת, the number is not to be taken literally, just as in Leviticus 26,26 the line עשר נשים לחמכם, ואפוdoes not literally mean that ten women would bake their bread in a single oven; rather, seeing that they have so little flour it is a symbol for “many.” The same word “ten” is used as an exaggeration in Job 19,3.

עשרת מונים, ten times. The reason the word עשרת is in the construct mode when we would have expected to read עשרה מונים, is because it is the final contact with the single digit numbers. It actually belongs to them, though in our language it is written as a 2 digit number. The fact is that the first 10 numbers are all part of one group, the number “ten” being the last one of that group. Hence it is treated here as if in the construct mode. To prove that this is correct, note that whenever the number ten appears, such as in ואפו עשר נשים, “ten women will bake” (Leviticus 26,26), where the number of women involved bears no relationship to the ninth or eighth woman preceding her, such a number is not in the construct mode. My late father of blessed memory explained the word עשרת as not being meant literally. It is not a figure of speech meaning “numerous times,” Yaakov had spent 6 years working for Lavan’ in order to amass his own flocks. The sheep give birth twice a year, i.e. 12 times in 6 years. Lavan therefore had opportunity to change Yaakov’s wages 8 times in the intermediate 6 years, and once each in the first year and last year respectively.

We thus learn that he changed his conditions 100 times. Rashi explains it as changing the conditions rather than changing the form of payment because it would cause no loss if Lavan changed the wages. For example, if Lavan owed cash but gave movables, [thereby changing the form of payment,] this would not be a loss. Thus Rashi explains that Lavan changed the actual conditions, as Rashi says on v. 41: “You kept changing the condition between us, from speckled to spotted...”

Perhaps Laban noticed already the first time that it was unusual for most of the flocks to give birth to animals with the skin patterns which he had allocated to Jacob. As a result he tried to be clever and changed the designation of the animals which were to be Jacob's as soon as the animals were in heat, before they actually gave birth. If that is what happened the description of his trick as התול, deception, instead of as robbery would be accurate.

IF HE SAID THUS: THE SPECKLED SHALL BE THY WAGES. The meaning thereof is that at first Laban agreed to give Jacob the two appearances the speckled and the spotted — also the brownish lambs. Then he retracted and agreed to give him another color, and thus he changed it every year. The flocks, however, gave birth accordingly. This was not due to the power of the sticks, for he was telling them of the deed of the Great G-d who treated him wondrously each and every year, just as he said, But G-d suffered him not to do me evil.¹⁷⁸Above, Verse 7.
It is also possible that Laban changed his wages after the flocks became pregnant and gave birth in accordance with Jacob’s will, it pleasing the Creator to do so. [In this case, it clearly was not due to the power of the sticks.] And so we find in Bereshith Rabbah:¹⁷⁹74:2. “The Holy One, blessed be He, foresaw what Laban was destined to do to our father Jacob, and He created the form of the sheep to conform to the colors Laban was to stipulate. Thus, it is not written here, ‘If he said (amar) thus,’ but it is written, ‘If he will say (yomar) thus,’” [indicating that G-d foresaw what Laban was destined to stipulate to Jacob].

וילדו כל הצאן, this percentage could certainly not all be attributed to exposing the sheep to the peeled sticks.

אם כה יאמר, "If he said thus, etc." Although the original condition had been that Jacob should take the spotted and speckled ones, he did not honour his word but agreed to give him only one of these two.

אם כה... כל הצאן, the word כל need not be understood literally as “all.” It means simply: “most.” We have many examples in Scripture when the word כל does not mean “all,” but “most.” A well known example is Genesis 41,55 וכל הארץ באו מצרימה, which cannot mean that everybody came to Egypt, but must mean that most people from the neighbouring countries sent representatives to Egypt to buy food there during the famine in their own land. Although in our verse onlyנקודים and עקודים are mentioned specifically, the same applies to טלאים.

אם כה יאמר: נקודים יהיה שכרך, וגו', “if he would say thus: “the blotched ones will be your wages, etc.” Originally, Yaakov had stipulated two skin patterns among the goats, as well as the colour brown when it would show up among the sheep. When the result favoured Yaakov, Lavan changed the terms of the agreement, substituting skin patterns which had been rare up to that point. However, as soon as he did so, the animals bore young with the skin patterns which favoured Yaakov disproportionately. The new skin patterns were already totally unrelated to anything Yaakov could do by peeling them and patterning them. It was clear that without Divine intervention on behalf of Yaakov, he could not have become so rich in so short a period of time. We know this from the fact that Yaakov did not add that he had to use these stratagems again and again.

Another reason is that originally the ankle-striped ones had not been included in the agreement at all. Laban therefore argued that those certainly were not part of Jacob's share. The fact that Laban did not admit the truth can be seen from the fact that he had removed this category of animal, whereas later on he negotiated with him about exchanging them for animals with a different skin pattern. This kind of wheeling and dealing was repeated no fewer than ten times. All the while the original conditions remained legally valid.

The reason the Torah describes this as in the future, i.e. ואם כה יאמר, instead of אם כה אמר, may be support for my theory that Laban hastened to change the terms of the agreement as soon as the animals were in heat and conceived, but before they actually gave birth again. Clearly Jacob's success was not due to his own machinations but only to G'd's intervention on his behalf.

ויצל, He separated. Any word in the Hebrew language denoting salvation, involves setting someone apart from others who share doom.

ויצל, a form of removing something (in order to save it). מקנה אביכם, seeing that he was robbing me, G’d arranged it so that most of the sheep gave birth to young ones whose skin bore the markings which we had agreed should be mine. Not only this, but G’d showed me in a dream that my good fortune was due to His intervention on my behalf and was not due to a fortuitous natural event. G’d takes a personal interest in what happens to those who revere Him, and He saves them from those who unjustly oppress them.

הציל, entweder: Gott rettete das Vermögen eures Vaters vor der Gefahr, unrechtes Gut in sich zu enthalten und gab mir das Meine; oder: was Gott mir von dem Vermögen eures Vaters gab, war ein gerettetes Gut, war nicht etwas mir nicht Gebührendes, sondern war mein Eigentum, das in den Händen eures Vaters Gefahr lief, mir entzogen zu werden. Und zwar gehörte es mir, weil ich es bei ihm erarbeitet hatte, nicht aber etwa als von dem Vater meiner Frauen zu erwarten gewesene übliche Mitgift. Daher: אביכם, nicht: אביכן.

את מקנה אביכם, “the herds of your father.” The masculine ending ם is used although according to the rules of grammar the feminine ending should have been used

והנה העתדים BEHOLD THE RAMS — Although Laban had separated all these so that the sheep should not give birth to young marked similar to them, angels brought them from the flock which had been placed in charge of Laban’s sons to the flock in Jacob’s charge (Genesis Rabbah 73:10).

AND IT CAME TO PASS AT THE TIME THAT THE FLOCK CONCEIVED. This was after Laban changed his wages, and therefore the angel said to Jacob, For I have seen all that Laban does unto thee.¹⁸⁰Verse 12 here.

ויהי...העתודים, another word for he-goats, תישים.

והנה העתודים העולים על הצאן עקודים, נקודים וברודים. “and behold, the he-goats were ankle striped, dappled, and blotch-striped.” If the male possessed one of each of these skin patterns, the lamb born by the female which it had mounted would have the corresponding skin pattern. According to Nachmanides, whenever the Torah mentions the term עתודים, what are meant are the rams or billy-goats, the אילים, the fully grown, even outsize specimen. Other commentators understand the term עתודים as describing fat animals of their species The reason that they are mentioned separately is that although these animals are raised only for eventual slaughter to serve as meat, and not for siring lambs, the phenomenon of the lambs which they sired having the skin pattern favouring Yaakov was in evidence. According to Rashi, angels brought these animals from Lavan’s flock to Yaakov’s flocks in order to help him increase the proportion of appropriately skin-patterned animals. According to Nachmanides, the plain meaning is that appropriately skin patterned males had to be seen as mounting the females which would later on bear the young reflecting the father-animal’s genes. The word הנה, which Yaakov uses in describing his dream, is meant to show how vividly he experienced this in his dream.

The angels would bring them... Rashi is saying that the spotted males going upon the flock surely were not those males born [after the agreement, which rightfully belonged] to Yaakov. For if so, what is the verse coming to teach us? Perforce, they were Lavan’s flock. And [if you ask:] How did they get here? Rashi explains, “Although Lavan... the angels would bring them...”

(10-13) Obgleich Laban alle die buntfarbigen Böcke ausgesondert hatte und nur einfarbige da waren, so siehst du doch, dass Ich die Geburten nach den wechselnden Bestimmungen Labans gestalten lasse; denn ich habe sehr wohl gesehen, was Laban dir tut. Also nicht etwa, weil du hier nicht meinen Schutz auch ferner finden könntest, sondern weil ich האי בית אל, weil ich der Gott bin, dem eben ein בית auf Erden gebaut werden soll, der seine Stätte im Familienleben der Menschen finden will, wie du dies bei dem Denkstein erfahren, und dessen Verwirklichung du dort gelobt. Dieses Gelübde erwartet bereits seine Erfüllung. Ich habe das dir Verheißene bereits gelöst, jetzt ist es an dir. das deinerseits Gelobte zu erfüllen — צא מן הארץ הזאת, in diesem Lande, in Aram, kann dieses Familienleben wie Gott es will sich nicht entfalten, hier war es genug, dass Jakob einem Laban gegenüber materiell und geistig sittlich unversehrt geblieben und die harte Probe der Redlichkeit einem Schurken gegenüber glänzend bestanden.

וברודים, speckled, some of the animals he saw in the dream showed such skin patterns.

וברדים GRISLED — Explain it as the Targum renders it: פציחין open; old French faissie, checquered. There was a white stripe going right round the body, the spots of which it was composed being open and running from one end to the other. But I can bring no evidence from Scripture that this is the meaning.

AND, BEHOLD THE HE-GOATS WHICH WENT UP ON THE FLOCKS [WERE RINGSTRAKED, SPECKLED, AND GRIZZLED]. The meaning thereof is that it was shown to Jacob in a dream that the he-goats which mounted the flocks were all ringstraked, and afterwards they were all speckled, and still later they were all grizzled. And the angel told him that in view of the injustice which Laban does him by changing his wages, the future offspring will have the appearance which Jacob will need, and that henceforth Jacob should not make the sticks, for Whoso putteth his trust in the Eternal shall be set up on high.¹⁸¹Proverbs 29:25.

וברודים, a variant of the word טלואים; the reason why the Torah switched to this term is to tell us that the whiteness of the spots in questions is similar to that of hail stones, ברד.

A white strand encircled its body... I.e., one could run one’s hand along the white strand, for the black did not interrupt. The white strand stretched around its entire body.

AND, BEHOLD, ‘HA’ATUDIM’ WHICH WENT UP ON THE FLOCKS. He-goats and rams are called atudim for all the adults in the flocks are so called. This applies also to the mighty ones among men, as in: ‘atudei’ (the chief ones) of the earth.¹⁸²Isaiah 14:9.
And Rashi comments: “Although Laban had separated all these so that the sheep should not give birth to young marked similarly to them, angels brought them from the flock which had been placed in charge of Laban’s sons to the flock in Jacob’s charge.”
In line with the simple meaning of Scripture this was a vision assuring Jacob that the flocks would give birth to young similar to the marked rams and he-goats, and the proof of it is the word vehinei (and behold), for this expression is used with respect to all dreams, indicating that it is as if the action is in the presence of the dreamer. In Bereshith Rabbah,¹⁸³73:7. the Sages did not mention the angels [bringing the marked ones from the flocks of Laban], but it may be inferred by exegesis. Thus they said: “It is not written here olim (went up) but ha’olim (those that mounted),” [meaning those which actually mounted. Thus the dream only indicated the action of the atudim which came from Laban’s flocks and that they were ringstraked, speckled, etc. However, the fact that they came was not part of the dream. This really occurred since the angels brought them]. But the plain sense of the verse is as we have said.

העתודים…עקודים, נקודים וברודים. the ankle-striped ones, the spotted ones and the blotch-striped. We need to know what precisely was the category described as ברודים. Unless that category was also part of the original agreement between Laban and Jacob, why did the angel show Jacob that category in his dream?

I have seen an explanation by Ibn Ezra (30,39) who identifies the ברודים with the טלואים. He does not offer any proof for his contention. Furthermore, from a close look at Jacob citing such examples as: אם כה יאמר עקודים יהיה שכרך, it is clear that Jacob took for himself only either עקודים or נקודים. Why would he have the ewes mounted by categories of rams which were not his share at all?

The reason therefore appears to be that Laban was not only a swindler but he also had תרפים, charms that supposedly revealed to him many hidden things. Midrash Tanchuma describes Laban as consulting these charms which would reveal to him what developed inside the animals' wombs and the appearance of the fetuses [much like what we learn nowadays through the ultrasound examinations Ed.]. In view of this Jacob was stymied every which way through these תרפים. This is why G'd had to interfere on Jacob's behalf. It is important to appreciate that the skin patterns of the animals to be born was determined at the time they were in heat; these skin patterns were not subject to change afterwards except through miraculous intervention by G'd. Such a miracle was one of upsetting natural laws in a very basic manner. G'd does not ligthly engage in the performance of this kind of miracle. We know this from statements of our sages in Sotah 2 and Shabbat 23. G'd therefore acted with particular adroitness so as not to have to upset the laws of nature unduly. He did this by causing three categories of rams to mount the ewes when they were in heat. As a result each of the female animals contained the sperm of three different types of rams, each potentially fertilising the ewes they had mounted and causing them to have its particular skin pattern. This stymied the power of the charms. The charms could not then reveal to Laban which skin pattern would ultimately result at the time these ewes gave birth. Since Laban and Jacob had agreed that the skin pattern of the animals to be born would determine which belonged to Jacob, Laban did not know in advance what skin pattern would emerge. This matter is not as far-fetched as you may think since we know of certain birds that can change colour in order to adapt themselves to their environment so that it helps camouflage them against predators. G'd simply employed a natural process such as the birds employ for themselves and made it operate with these sheep and goats. When the Torah speaks about ברודים, it refers to a kind of טלוא as stated by Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah. Perhaps this particular variety of טלוא contained more white speckles, similar to white pellets of hail (ברד).

כי ראיתי את בל אשר לבן עשה לך. "For I have seen all that Laban is doing to you." The angel explained to Jacob the reason G'd performed this miracle, that G'd had observed the evil machinations of Laban and how the latter had employed the idols (תרפים) to help him cheat Jacob. There had been no other way to save Jacob from Laban's trickery except by miracle.

The angel also hinted to Jacob that the result of all of Laban's machinations were meant for Jacob to retain. This is why the Torah did not write: כל אשר עשה לך, "all that he is doing to you." The verse may be read thus: "all that Laban is doing--is yours." You are not a thief by keeping all these animals that are born with these skin patterns; the G'd who judges fairly has taken from the one and given to the other (the victim).

האל בית אל is the same as אל בית אל the ה of האל being redundant. It is customary for Scripture to speak thus, e. g. (Numbers 34:2) “When ye come into the land of Canaan הארץ כנען (instead of ארץ כנען).

I AM THE G-D OF BETH-EL. Jacob related to his wives all that G-d’s angel had told him in the dream, all this serving to persuade them to go with him. However, what he told did not consist of one dream. The statement, Lift up now thine eyes, and see, all the he-goats¹⁸⁰Verse 12 here. was made to him when he served Laban for his flock, at the time the flock conceived¹⁸⁴Verse 10 here. in one of the first years.¹⁸⁵One of the first of the six years he served for the sheep. See further, 31:41. The statement, I am the G-d of Beth-el was made to him after that, at the time of the journey, for after He said to him, Now arise, get thee out from this land,¹⁸⁶In Verse 13 here. he no longer remained in Haran to further tend Laban’s flocks so that the he-goats would mount the flocks and the flocks would give birth to speckled and spotted. But on the morrow of the dream, he sent for Rachel and Leah and told them his dream, and they left Haran.
I am ‘ha’e-il’ (the G-d) of Beth-el. The meaning thereof is, as Rashi explained it, that the letter hei in ha’e-il is redundant and is the same as if it were written: “I am e-il Beth-el (the G-d of Beth-el).” Similarly, To ‘ha’aretz’ (the land) of Canaan;¹⁸⁷Numbers 34:2. [the hei is redundant and is the same as if it were written: “to eretz Canaan (the land of Canaan).”] Grammarians¹⁸⁸Ibn Ezra and R’dak. adjusted it by saying that it is as if it were written, “I am the G-d, who is the G-d of Beth-el.” Similarly, And the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,¹⁸⁹Above, 2:9. [which is as if it said: “and the tree of the knowledge, namely the knowledge of good and evil”]; the cords of gold,¹⁹⁰Numbers 39:17. [which is as if it said, “the cords, which are cords of gold]. And the angel here speaks in the name of He Who sent him, [therefore, he speaks in the first person and says, “I am, etc.”] ….

אשר משחת, in order to sanctify it; so far you have not offered a sacrifice on it that would discharge your vow.

אנכי הא-ל בית א-ל, the noun to which the word בית א-ל is attached is absent, i.e. the line should have been:אנכי הא-ל א-ל בית א-ל. We have a similar construction in Joshua 3,14 הארון הברית, where the word ארון in the middle in the construct mode is also missing. In our verse the meaning of the whole line is: “I am the Lord that has revealed Himself to you as G’d at Beyt El.”

אנכי הא-ל בית א-ל, “I am the G’d of Beyt-El, etc.” According to Nachmanides, Yaakov recounted all that the angel had said to him in his dream to his wives in order to win their agreement to leave their father’s house and to return with him to the land of Canaan. This was not all a single dream. The revelations involving the aspen sticks occurred while Yaakov was still in Lavan’s employ, whereas the revelation in our verse here occurred during their journey, for as soon as Yaakov had been instructed by G’d to leave Charan and to return to Canaan he did so. He sent for Rachel and Leah, told them of the Divine instructions in his dream, and they left forthwith.

משחת שם WHERE THOU ANOINTEDST [A PILLAR] — This denotes distinction and eminence just as when one is anointed king one is raised to eminence: thus, too (Genesis 28:18) “and he poured oil upon the top of it (the stone)” that it might be anointed to be an altar (thus being distinguished among other stones).

WHERE THOU DIDST ANOINT A PILLAR, WHERE THOU DIDST VOW A VOW UNTO ME. The meaning thereof is that “you have vowed to worship the Proper Name of the Eternal in the Chosen Land, and that this stone should be to you a house of G-d in which to set aside your tithes,¹⁹¹Above, 28:22. and if you further delay the fulfillment of your vows, G-d might yet be angry at your voice.”¹⁹²See Ecclesiastes 5:5.

אשר נדרת לי, we already explained that when the angel speaks as messenger of G’d he describes himself by the name applicable to his Master, i.e. to G’d.

אשר נדרת לי WHERE THOU VOWEDST A VOW UNTO ME —and you are bound to fulfill it, for you said (Genesis 28:22) “it shall be God’s house”, signifying that you would offer sacrifice there.

העוד לנו IS THERE YET ANY FOR US? — Why should we prevent you from returning? Can we at all hope to inherit anything belonging to our father together with his sons?

Do we still have a portion. Why do you think it will be difficult for us to part from our father?

העוד לנו חלק ונחלה, "Do we still have a share or an inheritance in our father's house?" When Rachel and Leah mentioned both חלק and נחלה they referred to two things. They referred to their maternal inheritance seeing that their mother had already died; they also referred to a potential inheritance from their father and concluded that they had no prospect of either. They cited as proof the fact that their father had considered them as strangers already at the time he had sold them. Their father had not considered them as his children for some time already. As a result, even though according to the laws of the Gentiles daughters stand to share in the inheritance, they felt they did not have such a chance.

ותען רחל ולאה, here too the younger sister speaks first, just as in Exodus 10,3 ויאמר משב ואהרן, although Moses was the younger. Seeing that Rachel loved Yaakov as intensely as he loved her, she responded first.

ותען רחל ולאה, “Rachel and Leah replied, etc.” I have been bothered by the fact that Rachel did not display courtesy for her older sister and spoke first. In the meantime I have seen a comment in Bereshit Rabbah, 74,4 where the author quotes an opinion that the reason that Rachel died before her sister was that she spoke up before her sister. In that connection Rabbi Yossi questioned the author of that statement by asking him if he had ever seen that when someone calls Reuven that Shimon will answer that call (instead of Reuven?) What did Rachel do wrong? The Torah reports that Yaakov called Rachel and Leah to the field in that order. Why should not Rachel have replied first? Rabbi Yossi must explain Rachel’s death as due to a different circumstance, i.e. Yaakov’s conditional curse of the person who had stolen Lavan’s teraphim.

Unsere feinfühlenden Weisen lassen es schwer gegen Rahel in die Wagschale fallen, dass sie vor ihrer älteren Schwester das Wort geführt, und meinen, deshalb sei sie auch früher gestorben.

When Rachel and Leah added: ויאכל גם אכול את כספנו, "he also consumed our wages," this refers to both the money of the marriage settlement of their mother and the value of the labour Jacob performed for fourteen years in order to marry them.

הלא נכריות נחשבנו לו ARE WE NOT THOUGHT ALIENS BY HIM? — Even at a time when it is customary for people to give a dowry to their daughters — at the time of their marriage — he treated us as strangers for he sold us to you in return for your labour during fourteen years

כספינו, which he had earned in payment for marrying us off. He even ate up the money you earned with your hard labour which was meant to support us.

גם אכול את כספנו, the money he had been supposed to give us to get married. As to the word גם in this verse, the sisters referred to more than one “eating.” Not only did he consume what he had been supposed to give us, but he even consumed the proceeds of your hard work which was intended for the benefit of our family.

For he has sold us. A father usually gives his daughter a dowry, but our father sold us like slaves and took the purchase price — fourteen years of labor — for himself.

For he withheld the wages for your work. I.e, of the six years that you worked for pay.

חלק ונחלה nicht jetzt und nicht in der Zukunft. Wie Fremde hat uns unser Vater behandelt. Er hat nicht als Vater unser Glück bauen wollen, als er uns verheiratete. Gewuchert hat er mit uns. Andere Väter geben ihren Töchtern Mitgift, um damit die Mittel des Eidams zu mehren und zu einem besseren Leben ihrer Kinder beizutragen. Nicht so Laban. Er hat vierzehnjährige Dienste für uns von dir gefordert, und da wäre es doch wenigstens billig gewesen, was er mit uns verdient, uns wenigstens als Mitgift zu geben; allein das ist ihm nicht eingefallen, das, was er mit uns verdient, hat er für sich hingenommen!!

את כספנו, “our money;” they told Yaakov that their father had withheld the money that had rightfully been theirs as their dowry, even though he had paid this in the form of physical labour as a shepherd. This would have been no more than common decency.

את כספנו [HAS EATEN] OUR MONEY — for he kept for himself the money for the wages of your labour during the next six years.

כי כל העשר FOR ALL THE RICHES — The word כי here means but; as much as to say: of our father’s property we have nothing at all; but what The Holy One, blessed be He, has taken away from our father, that is ours.

b>All the wealth that Elokim rescued. We do not expect to receive from him anything other than what Hashem has already rescued.

אשר הציל, who has saved, etc. They viewed G'd as having saved the money that their father had stolen from them. The expression הצלה is appropriate when used about saving stolen goods from the robber. When the Torah quotes Leah and Rachel as saying לנו, ours, they meant משלנו, "he stole it from us."

הציל means separated (or taken away). Similarly all forms from the Hiphil of this root occuring in Scripture (usually translated by “to deliver”, “to rescue“) mean taking away, for one who rescues a person takes him away from the misfortune or from the enemy.

Now. Now that he has accepted the slander about you and may use it to justify stealing whatever you have.

Whatever Hashem has said, do it. There is no need for you to seek further permission.

את בניו ואת נשיו HIS SONS AND HIS WIVES — He took the males before the females whereas Esau took the females before the males, as it is said (Genesis 36:6) “And Esau took his wives and his sons etc.” (Genesis Rabbah 74:5)

ויקם יעקב וישא, he lifted his wives on to the camels so that they could ride.

Yaakov rose. Yaakov employed four strategies to conceal his flight. His children and his wives. He sent his family away before taking his belongings. Upon the camels. He seated them upon camels openly, as if going on an outing.

Whereas Eisov put the females ahead of the males... Because he was lustful, and his wives were his primary interest. (Re’m)

מקנה קנינו means — what he had purchased by means of קנינו his own property i.e. his sheep, viz., menservants, maidservants, camels and asses (Genesis Rabbah 74:5; cf. Rashi on Genesis 30:43).

וינהג...מקנה קנינו, the first time the word מקנהו appears in our verse it refers to cattle Yaakov had acquired as a result of his activities as shepherd. The expression מקנה קנינו on the other hand, refers to livestock he had purchased. Whenever the word מקנה is spelled with the vowel tzeyreh under the letter נ this indicates that it is in the construct mode.

All his possessions. He did not exchange his livestock for more easily transported currency. To come to Yitzchok. He acknowledged openly to Lavan’s household that he was leaving, so they assumed that he had Lavan’s permission and did not bother reporting it.

That which he had obtained for his sheep... [מקנה קנינו] means the purchases resulting from his livestock: what he bought by selling his flock. “He led away all his livestock” refers to the [spotted] livestock that was born and constituted his wages.

מקנה neben רכוש ist vorzugsweise das lebendige Eigentum, die Herden, רכוש die andere bewegliche Habe (siehe Kap.12, 5). Es wird ausdrücklich hervorgehoben, dass die andere bewegliche Habe, die er hatte, nur solche war, die er für sein Eigentum — das ja direkt nur in Herden bestand — eingekauft hatte.

לגזז את צאנו TO SHEAR HIS FLOCK which he had given into the charge of his sons at a distance of three days’ journey between himself and Jacob.

AND RACHEL STOLE THE TERAPHIM. Her intention was to wean her father from idol-worship. This is the language of Rashi.
Now it is possible that Laban used the teraphim for idol worship, as he himself said, Why hast thou stolen my gods?¹⁹³Further, Verse 30. But not all teraphim were for the purpose of worship, for how could one find idolatry in the house of our lord David.¹⁹⁴See I Samuel 19:13, where it states that there were teraphim in David’s house. That which the commentators¹⁹⁵R’dak, in his Commentary on the verse here. say seems reasonable, namely, that these are vessels to receive¹⁹⁶“Receive.” According to the Tur, “determine.” a knowledge of the hours, and they divine with them in order to gain knowledge of future events. The word teraphim is derived from the expressions: ‘rephai’ (weak) handed;¹⁹⁷II Samuel 17:2. ‘nirpim’ (idle) ye are, idle.¹⁹⁸Exodus 5:17. They are called “teraphim” in order to hint by their name that their words are like a weak prophecy, usually occurring as a prophecy for many days hence¹⁹⁹Ezekiel 12:27. and turning out to be false, just as the prophets have said, For the teraphim have spoken vanity.²⁰⁰Zechariah 10:2. People of little faith set them up for themselves as gods. They do not seek to know by the glorious name of the Eternal, nor do they offer their prayers to Him. Rather, their deeds are guided by divination revealed to them by the teraphim. Thus it is written, And the man Micah had a house of G-d, and he made an ephod, and teraphim,²⁰¹Judges 17:5. and it is further written there, Ask counsel, we pray thee, of G-d that we may know whether our way which we are going shall be prosperous,²⁰²Ibid., 18:5. for they used to ask of the teraphim. Such also was the case in Israel with the ephod, for, having been accustomed to the sacred ephod²⁰³See Exodus 25:6-12. they made something similar in form, and they would seek guidance of it, believe in its words, and blunder after it. Even in sickness they sought not G-d but only them.²⁰⁴See II Chronicles 16:12. This is the meaning of the verse, And Gideon made an ephod thereof, and put it in his city, even in Ophrah; and all Israel went astray after it there; and it became a snare unto Gideon, and to his house,²⁰⁵Judges 8:27. for they turned aside from following the Eternal. Now Laban was a diviner and an enchanter, just as he said, I have divined.²⁰⁶Above, 30:27. His country, too, was ever a land of diviners, as it is written, For they are replenished from the east, and with soothsayers like the Philistines,²⁰⁷Isaiah 2:6. Laban’s city Haran was in the land of the children of the east (above, 29:1). and Balaam the son of Beor the diviner was from his city.²⁰⁸See Numbers 23:7. And this is the meaning of, Why hast thou stolen my gods?¹⁹³Further, Verse 30.

ותגנוב רחל את התרפים, in order that Lavan should not be able to locate the whereabouts of Yaakov and his family. We know from Hoseah 3,4 that Teraphim were credited with supplying such information to people believing in their power. Zecharyah 10,2 also refers to them as speaking, though deceptively. At any rate, they were widely consulted to provide information about the future, information of a supernatural dimension.

ולבן, the place where Lavan sheared his flocks was a distance of three days from where Yaakov tended his flocks as we know from 30,36. This is why Lavan did not hear about Yaakov’s having left until this third day after he had gone. Neither Lavan nor his sons had been home at the at time when Yaakov departed The sons of Lavan had been busy tending their father’s flocks. This is why Rachel took the Teraphim. There was no one at home to stop her from doing this.

ותגנב רחל את התרפים, “Rachel stole the teraphim.” According to Rashi, she intended to wean her father from idolatry by removing the idol from him. Nachmanides admits that it is possible that Lavan had been using the teraphim in his worship of idolatry. It is however by no means certain that teraphim served only as idols. We certainly would not expect to come across idols in King David’s residence, and yet we are told in Samuel I 19,13 that Michal, David’s wife placed such teraphim in David’s bed, feigning that it was he who was sleeping in that bed. Surely, David did not keep idolatrous figures in his home. It is most likely that the teraphim were objects which enabled people to know the time of day, and in that connection they were also used to help them to predict future events. The root of the word is from רפה, “weak” as in רפי ידים, “weak-handed,” or נרפים אתם, “you are weak” (in the sense of lazy, not pulling one’s weight.) The reason people call these objects תרפים is to hint that the reliability of these objects in predicting future events is not very strong, although in the majority of instances the predictions prove more or less accurate. Only people who do not pray to the Lord, the Creator, would be foolish enough to put their trust in them. Some people argue that astrologers possess the power to summon up certain images at a time which they can accurately predict. Ibn Ezra writes that teraphim are objects made of copper which are designed to help us determine portions of an hour, such as minutes. Some people claim that some astrologers possess the skill to raise some life-like shapes at a predetermined hour, and that apparition appears to speak intelligently. Personally, I believe that teraphim are replicas of human beings, constructed in a manner designed to endow them with some divine powers. Some commentators believe that Rachel stole the teraphim in order to wean her father from practicing idolatry. If that were so indeed, why did she keep these teraphim with her instead of at least burying them? It is far more likely that Rachel, being aware that her father was an astrologer, was afraid that by a combination of astrology and the teraphim he would succeed in tracking the movements of Yaakov and his family and he would overtake them in short order. Another view is that she took the teraphim so that these would not reveal to him where Yaakov was at that time. [according to that view she did not really ”steal” them but denied him their use at a critical point in time. Ed.]

That he had given to his sons... three-days’ travel... Rashi says this because of the coming verse (v. 22): “Lavan was told on the third day...” And why didn’t Lavan know until the third day? Perforce it was because, “A distance of three-days’ travel...”

ותגנב רחל את התרפים אשר לאביה; she stole them in order that he would reconsider his actions, saying to himself that any deity which allows itself to be stolen surely cannot be much good to anyone. The same argument had been used by Yoash who told his father that if his deity, the baal, was really capable of avenging himself, he should do so himself instead of letting his human worshipper become his defender. (Judges 6,31) Similar arguments are reflected in Ezekiel 28,9 where the prophet predicts the downfall of the King of Tzor (Tyre) who had declared himself a god. He ridicules this “god” as saying to his murderer: “I am a god!” (quoted by Rabbeinu Bachya).

(19-20) Zweimal hervorgehoben, dass gestohlen wurde. Es war also möglich zu stehlen, und ward nichts anderes entwendet als: Rahel — stahl die Götzen ihres Vaters, weil — wie die Weisen bemerken — sie den Gedanken nicht ertragen konnte, ihren Vater nun ganz, ohne weitere Anregung zum Bessern, dem Götzentum verfallen zu wissen. Sie nahm darum die zum Schutze des Hauses bestimmten Götter. Musste das doch dem Laban deren Ohnmacht klar dartun, da sie sich selbst nicht schützen konnten. Die Etymologie und Bedeutung von תרפים ist dunkel. Aus שאל בתרפים (Jecheskeel 21, 26) התרפים דברו און (Sechar. 10, 2) und der Zusammenstellung אפור ותרפים ersieht man, dass es Götzenbilder gewesen, die Orakel gaben. Auch Jakob stahl — des Aramiten Herz, weil er eben ein Aramite war, weil er es ihm nicht sagen und ihm darum nicht einmal eine Ahnung davon werden lassen durfte, weil er eben entfliehen musste, wenn er überall, wozu er ja berechtigt war, fortgehen wollte.

ותגנוב רחל את התרפים, “Rachel stole the teraphim; what precisely are “teraphim”? According to Pirke de rabbi Eliezer chapter 36, they were deities that people like Lavan worshipped. How did they originate? A firstborn male human being was slaughtered; they cut off his head, salted it (to preserve it from decomposing) using both salt and oil. They inscribed on the forehead of that slain person the name of a deity such as a demon, hung it up under the tongue of the slain person on the wall, lit candles in its honour, prostrated themselves before it, and it would start speaking to the worshipper. (presumably answering questions addressed to it, like to an oracle.) These teraphim are referred to as doing this in the Book of Zecharyah 10,2: כי התרפים דברו און, “for the teraphim spoke delusions.” Rachel stole them so that they could not speak to their father and tell him that Yaakov had fled and where he was going. Not only this; she may have used the opportunity to destroy all idols in her father’s home.

ותגנוב רחל את התרפים, “Rachel stole the teraphim;” in order that Lavan would not be able to divine the route they had taken by consulting them as oracles. We have read about their uses in Hoseah 3,4 as well as in Zachariah 10,2.

ותגגב רחל את התרפים AND RACHEL STOLE THE TERAPHIM — her intention was to wean her father from idol-worship (Genesis Rabbah 74:5).

והתרפים, they are instruments made of copper used to tell time. It was also to consult them to divine future events, although the information forthcoming often proved false. Zecharyah 10,2 already remarks on the unreliability of Teraphim in this regard. The reason the word is in the plural mode, seeing that we speak about a single object, is because it consisted of multiple layers of tablets. According to Ibn Ezra each tablet had the face of a human being and was presumed to get inspiration from celestial regions. Rachel’s objective in stealing the Teraphim was to deny Lavan knowledge about the route Yaakov had taken when he left. Yaakov had no idea that Rachel had stolen the Teraphim as we have been told explicitly in verse 32. Had he known about it he would have prevented Rachel from carrying out such a theft. He would not even have allowed her to remove anything from her father’s house unless he had given his approval, much less the Teraphim.

She intended to remove her father from idol-worship. [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “That belonged to her father,” an apparent superfluous phrase. It should simply say, “His idols.” Perforce, she intended to remove her father from idolatry.

גניבת לב sich unverdient die gute Meinung eines andern zuwenden, sich durch nichtgemeinte Freundlichkeit, Gefälligkeit, Dienstleistung usw. des andern Gewogenheit gewinnen, eine Unaufrichtigkeit, die die Weisen unter dem Namen גניבת דעת bis in die äußerste Konsequenz verpönen, und selbst bis zur Vermeidung des zufälligsten Scheins verurteilen. Jakobs גניבת דעת bestand hier darin, dass er weder durch Miene noch Benehmen Laban merken ließ, ihm sei die in Laban vorgegangene Gesinnungsveränderung bekannt. Er musste aber zu dieser Selbstbeherrschung, ja bielleicht Verstellung seine Zuflucht nehmen, "weil er es ihm nicht sagte" und nicht sagen konnte, "weil er nur fliehend. fortkommen konnte". Hätte er ihm gesagt, dass er, wozu er ja vollkommen berechtigt war, seinen Dienst verlassen wollte, wie er den ,"Aramiten" kannte, so hätte er — wie er das ja ihm auch später offen sagte — erwarten müssen, dass er ihn, wie er gekommen, nackt und allein, wieder vor die Türe gesetzt haben würde.

Yaakov fooled Lavan. He did not give any sign that he knew that Lavan had accepted the slander about him.

ויגנב יעקב את לב לבן הארמי, Jacob deceived Laban the Aramite, etc. It is difficult to justify the expression "fled" which is applied here to a departure without previous good-byes. Perhaps what is meant is that when Jacob gave Laban an accounting about all that he had done, etc., he concealed the fact that he intended to leave him. He presumably asked Laban to dismiss him, thus in effect telling Laban that he had no intention of leaving without a proper ceremony. Had Laban had the slightest notion that Jacob intended to take his family and leave without a send-off, he would have had him watched day and night. The successful flight was possible only because Jacob "stole" Laban's heart. Basically, our verse wanted to explain how it was that Jacob succeeded to depart unnoticed with all his family, herds and flocks.

ויגנב יעקב את לב לבן, he misled him seeing that Lavan thought that Yaakov was in the city, whereas in fact he had left the city.

The Aramean. Besides indicating his nationality, which is irrelevant here, this hints that he was an experienced swindler (ramai). Thus if he had realized that Yaakov knew of the change in his attitude he would not have left him any escape.

על בלי הגיד לו, in that he had not told him his route. Not having told Lavan what route he was going to travel turned his leaving Lavan into a flight. Obviously, Yaakov was not expected by Lavan to announce: “I am fleeing;” the word בורח has to be linked to the word ויגנב. Deceiving Lavan as a sin of omission, i.e. not giving Lavan false information, but failing to give him relevant information, turned Yaakov’s sudden departure into what Lavan perceived to be a flight.

על בלי הגיד לו, the word על here is used as in על עולת התמיד in Numbers 28,10 where it means: “with, in addition to.” Yaakov acted as if unaware of Lavan’s hatred in addition to not informing him of his intended departure. All of this was not exactly in accordance with accepted norms of conduct, but as dictated by sheer necessity, his survival instinct.
כי בורח הוא; out of fear that Lavan would rob him with the aid of the people of his town. He said so to Lavan later when explaining his decision and his actions.

ויברח, usually the word בריחה, flight, means that someone departs without being pursued. The flight is inspired by fear of damage and harm not imminent. When the word ניסה is used to describe flight, this describes people fleeing from pursuers, out of fear from immediate damage and harm.

ויברח...את הנהר, the river Euphrates.

ביום השלישי ON THE THIRD DAY—for there was a journey of three days between them.

ON THE THIRD DAY. For there was a journey of three days between them. Seven days’ journey—²⁰⁹Verse 23 here. throughout these three days during which the messenger had travelled to tell Laban that Jacob had proceeded on his journey, Jacob was consequently a six days’ journey distance from Laban. On the seventh day, [that is, on the day during which Jacob covered the stretch of ground which made him seven days’ journey distance from Laban’s starting point, Laban] overtook him. We may thus infer that the entire distance which Jacob covered in six²¹⁰“Six.” In our Rashi we have “seven,” which seems to fit the calculation better. days, Laban covered in one day. These are the words of Rashi quoting Bereshith Rabbah.²¹¹74:4. It is correct that Laban should proceed as a strong man to run his course,²¹²Psalms 19:6. for such is the way of pursuers. However, Laban had set a three days’ journey²¹³Above, 30:36. between his flock and the flock which was in Jacob’s care, not between the city and his flock. Thus if Laban tended his flocks to the east of the city, Jacob did so to the west, and between them there was a three days’ journey.²¹³Above, 30:36. Now Jacob began his journey from the city, in which were his wives, sons and daughters, and all his belongings with the exception of the flocks. The fact of his flight was told to Laban on the third day since they were not aware of it on the first day, and then Laban returned to his nearby city and took his brethren²⁰⁹Verse 23 here. from there, and starting from his city he pursued him for seven days. [Hence, it should have been said that what Jacob covered in ten days Laban covered in seven days!] We must say then, according to the opinion of Bereshith Rabbah, that it was from the field where the flocks were that Jacob left for the journey, and that Laban took his brethren with him from the shearers of his flocks. [Since there was a three days’ journey between them at the outset and Jacob had already travelled for three days, they were thus six travel days apart. On that day Laban was informed, and the following day he pursued him and overtook him. Jacob meanwhile had covered an additional day’s distance, with the result that the distance Jacob travelled in seven days, Laban covered in one day].
In Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer²¹⁴Chapter 36. it appears that Laban returned to his city, and from there he took all mighty men and all valiant ones, and he pursued Jacob from there.

ויגד...ביום השלישי, we explained this construction vayugad in 27,42.

ויגד ללבן ביום השלישי, “Lavan was informed on the third day, etc.” Rashi explains the time lag by the fact that Lavan’s flocks grazed a distance of three days travel from those which Yaakov tended. It does not refer to a distance between the town and the area where Lavan’s flocks were grazing. Nachmanides questions Rashi’s commentary that there is no proof for his contention as Yaakov hardly set out from the middle of the field, but went back to town to gather up his and his family’s belongings. It is possible that Lavan’s flocks grazed close to the town, these flocks being on the east side of town, whereas Yaakov grazed his flocks on the west side of the town. Yaakov returned home, gathered up his belongings. Seeing that he had not given Lavan reason to suspect that he was about to leave him, he gained an initial advantage and Lavan only found out that he was gone when he had occasion to return to the town. By the time Lavan had organized his sons and sheepshearers, arranged for a pursuit, plus the time spent riding in pursuit, seven days had elapsed until he caught up with Yaakov.

ויוגד ללבן ביום השלישי, “Lavan was told on the third day.” There was a distance of three days’ journey between the area where Yaakov and Lavan grazed their flocks respectively. When the person who told Lavan that Yaakov had left told him about it on the third day, Lavan took his brothers with him and returned to Padan Aram, so that six days had elapsed until he could begin the pursuit. On the seventh day Lavan caught up with Yaakov. This is the meaning of the words וירדף אחריו שבעת ימים, “he pursued him for (a distance of) seven days.” This shows that during the six days Yaakov had managed to cover only a single day’s distance. It is possible that Yaakov left Padan Aram on a Sunday and that Lavan caught up with him on the Sabbath, seeing Yaakov would not travel on that day.

את אחיו HIS BRETHREN — i.e. his kinsmen.

AND HE OVERTOOK HIM IN THE MOUNTAIN OF GILEAD. For on the eve of the seventh day Laban reached the base of the mountain, and he saw Jacob encamped at a distance. That night he slept below Jacob’s camp and the dream came to him.

דרך שבעת ימים. Yaakov was forced to travel very slowly on account of his herds and flocks, so that although he traveled away from Lavan who had been three days’; journey away from him at the start, he could catch up with him within one week. Clearly, Lavan rode after Yaakov at full speed.

דרך שבעת ימים. a distance of seven days. We must examine why the earth did not "fold" under Jacob on this occasion to facilitate his journey (in response to the urging of the angel) as it had done when he was on the way to Charan at the beginning of our פרשה. If the earth even "folded" for Eliezer, Abraham's servant at the time (as we know from Bereshit Rabbah 59,11), it would certainly have seemed appropriate that the same should happen to the righteous Jacob, especially since he then would have been out of danger of pursuit. Perhaps the failure of the earth to "fold" was a way of G'd telling Jacob that he did not need to flee, that even if Laban were to catch up with him he would not even be able to speak to him offensively or threateningly. Had G'd made the earth "fold" for him, Jacob might have thought that G'd had no other means of putting him out of Laban's reach. If G'd had not spoken to Laban even קפיצת הדרך would not have sufficed to allow Jacob to escape Laban and his sons. The greatness of the miracle was that although Laban possessed freedom of choice he was prevented from exercising it against Jacob.

ויקח את אחיו, his relatives.

וידבק אותו בהר הגלעד, “He caught up with him at Mount Gilead.” Lavan reached the slopes of the mountain on the evening of the sixth day after Yaakov’s departure and he saw Yaakov’s encampment from a distance. During the night G’d appeared to him and warned him not to molest Yaakov in any shape or form. Ibn Ezra explains the sequence וידבק, “he caught up,” followed by ויבא, “he arrived,” as one of many examples in the Torah when a major point is being made before something which actually had happened earlier, but was subordinate in importance.

The entire distance that Yaakov traveled in seven days... Rashi means: if Yaakov would have traveled from the place of Lavan’s flock, it would have taken him seven days.

Das Mitnehmen der Genossen zeigt, dass die Absicht gewesen, Gewalt zu gebrauchen. Labans gemeine Natur erkannte, wie das im Verfolge ja klar heraustritt, in Jakobs ganzer Habe nicht dessen mit seiner Kraft redlich erworbenes Eigentum, ist ja die Arbeitskraft kein sichtbares Kapital — sondern nur vom Wohlwollen des Dienstherrn bewilligte, noch dessen Belieben unterstehende und nur mit dessen Einwilligung fortzunehmende Güter.

וירדוף אחריו, “he chased after him. According to Rashi, the distance that Yaakov with all his sheep and cattle had covered in seven days, Lavan, riding, had been able to cover in a single day. Yaakov had taken seven days to get from Padan Arom to Har Gilead. Different commentators disagree on how long it took Yaakov. Considering that we have been told in Genesis 30,36, that he had put three days walk between himself and Lavan, he had only travelled for 4 days before Lavan caught up with him. At any rate Lavan’s catching up with Yaakov is not surprising due to his riding either on camels or donkeys, and not being slowed down by animals and other heavy luggage.

דרך שבעת ימים SEVEN DAY’S JOURNEY — During all the three days during which the messenger had gone to tell Laban Jacob had proceeded on his journey. Consequently Jacob was then six days distance from Laban. On the seventh day i.e. on the day when Jacob covered that stretch of ground which made him seven days distant from Laban’s starting point Laban overtook him. We may infer, therefore, that all the distance that Jacob would have taken seven days to cover Laban covered in one day. And thus it states: “and he pursued after him seven day’s journey” and it does not say “and he pursued after him for seven days” (Genesis Rabbah 74:6).

The fact that G'd chose not to let the earth "fold" for Jacob on this occasion also became important historically. It led to Rachel being buried in a place where her prayers would intercede on behalf of the Jewish people going into exile, Midrash Hagadol Vayishlach 35,18; according to Sanhedrin 105 Laban is identical with Bileam and Cushan Rishotayim who attacked the Israelites in the time of Othniel. If the Israelites defeated him (Judges 3,10) it may have been because he breached the covenant that Jacob and Laban concluded at Galed. Had the encounter of Laban and Jacob not taken place at that time, there would not have been a breach of an agreement not to attack the descendants of Jacob in their own country.

מטוב עד רע EITHER GOOD OR EVIL — why should he not speak good? Because all the good that the wicked do to the righteous is evil in the opinion of the righteous (Yevamot 103b).

LABAN THE ARAMEAN. The intent of this is to relate that even though he was an Aramean, and the people of his place used teraphim and were soothsayers like the Philistines,²¹⁵Isaiah 2:6. yet the prophetic dream came to him in honor of the righteous one [Jacob]. Similarly, And Jacob outwitted Laban the Aramean:²¹⁶Verse 20 here. [the epithet “Aramean” is mentioned in order to indicate that] even though Laban was the Aramean, the diviner and owner of teraphim, [he was still outwitted by Jacob].

Guard yourself that you do not speak. You are forbidden even to speak!

ויבא, just as G’d had communicated with Avimelech in honour of Yitzchok, so He now communicated with Lavan in honour of Yaakov.

אל לבן הארמי, “to Lavan from Aram.” The reason this detail-with which we are already familiar- was mentioned here, was to emphasize that although Lavan, as an Aramite like the other members of his town, was an idolater, G’d appeared to him in a dream for the sake of the righteous Yaakov..

All that is considered good by the wicked is bad as regards to the righteous. [Accordingly,] it seems that the verse means: Do not speak with Yaakov that which is good for you, that he should return with you to Charan, since for him that is bad — for as long as Yaakov associates with a wicked person, the Divine Presence will not rest upon him.

Immer kehrt das Epitheton "der Aramäer" wieder. Nicht vor Laban, vor dem Aramäer, vor der personifizierten Selbstsucht, die in ihm steckte, war Jakob geflohen, und von ihr drohte ihm Übles. מטוב עד רע, es sei Gutes oder Böses. Labans Güte war immer eine List, und Gutes oder Böses heißt: es sei mit List oder Gewalt.

ויבא אלוקים אל לבן, G-d came (in a dream) to Lavan;

EITHER GOOD OR BAD. [Why should he not speak good?] Because all the good that the wicked do is looked upon by the righteous as bad. This is Rashi’s language. But the plain meaning thereof is as follow: “Take heed that you speak not to Jacob and promise to treat him well if he will return with you from his journey, or lest you threaten to do him evil if he will not come with you, for it is I Who commanded him to return to his land.”

Either good. Do not try to lure Yaakov into returning with offers of benefits. Or evil. And do not threaten him.

פן תדבר, that you dare not speak. Do not start a quarrel with him planning to do harm to him as a result. Not only must you not harm him physically, but you must not even inflict verbal abuse on him. The correct meaning of the words פן תדבר is: “not to speak harshly.” Constructions with the prefix פן also occur in Genesis 3,3 as a warning, on pain of death, not to eat from the tree of knowledge, or in Genesis 24,6 פן תשיב את בני שמה not to bring Yitzchok back to Padan Aram.

מטוב עד רע, “either good or evil (threats).” When wicked people do you favours, “טוב”, such favours are tainted because they originate with the wicked. Sooner or later, something רע, “evil,” will happen as a consequence of such a “favour.” According to Nachmanides, G’d did not permit Lavan to try and convince him to come back with him, in return for favourable conditions which he would provide for him. Neither was he allowed to try and frighten Yaakov by warning him of what he would do to him if he did not come back.

מטוב עד רע, though you may think that if you deprive Yaakov only of a small fraction of his wealth that from your vantage point you are doing him a favour by allowing him to retain most of it, or that you plan to rob him of most of it, something which even you realise as an evil thing to do, seeing you want to punish him for leaving you without having taken his leave from you.

וישג...בהר, at the very mountain where Lavan was going to accuse Yaakov of having fled from him, תקע את אחיו, he encamped with his kinsmen. As a result, they were both encamped at the same mountain facing each other. Alternatively, the meaning may be (Onkelos)אשרי ית אחוהי, “erected his tent there with his brothers.

Das ganze Gebirge hieß später Gilead, speziell aber der Berg, auf welchem das Denkmal errichtet wurde. Jakob hatte sein Zelt auf einem dortigen Berge aufgestellt, Laban seine Leute in Reihe und Glied auf demjenigen Berg, der speziell Gilead genannt wurde.

כשביות חרב AS CAPTIVES TAKEN BY THE SWORD — an army going to war is termed “sword”.

ויאמר...כשבויות, like women taken captives by creditors that are kidnapped without their husbands being informed. This is how you treated my daughters.

An army going to war is called “sword.” [Rashi explains this] because “prisoners” are not of a חרב (sword). It should have said, “Prisoners of an army.”

(26-27) ותגנב אותי ,ותגנב את לבבי, das erste: du hast mein Herz bestohlen, hast ihm die Befriedigung eines Gefühles versagt, das ihm doch als Vater und Großvater gebührte, oder wie oben: du hast mich über deine Absicht getäuscht. Das zweite: Du hast mich bestohlen, alles, was du mit fortgenommen ohne mich zu fragen, ist Diebstahl. Siehe Raw Hirsch on Genesis 31: 23.

ותגנב אתי — means thou didst steal away my mind (as in Genesis 5:26).

למה נחבאת, why did you hide it from me, and,

ותגנוב אותי, and you misled me,

ואשלחך, had you informed me I would have let you go in joy.

ולא נטשתני לנשק לבני, children and grandchildren are usually referred to as בנים.

הסכלת עשו. Wir haben im Hebräischen wesentlich mehr Be zeichnungen für Torheit als für Weisheit, vielleicht weil Weisheit einfach, Torheit aber in der Tat von buntscheckiger Mannigfaltigkeit in der Erscheinung ist. סכל ebenso wie .welches die persönlichste, innigste Aneignung bedeutet ,סגל lautverwandt mit ,שכל שֵכֶל: dasjenige Wesen im Menschen, das die Welt und ihre Objekte aufs innigste sich aneignet, d. h. Vorstellungen und Begriffe davon abstrahiert und seiner eigenen innigsten Natur gemäß kombiniert und behandelt, somit: der Verstand. סכלות ist jene missbräuchliche Ausartung des Verstandes, die sich umgekehrt von innen heraus Vorstellungen und Begriffe bildet, ohne sie an der Wirklichkeit der Dinge zu prüfen und zu berichtigen, vielmehr seine subjektiven Meinungen und Ansichten an die Stelle der objektiven Wirklichkeit setzt. סכלות ist die sich auf ihre Subjektivität steifende Ansicht, und סכל ist der eingebildete Narr, oder vielmehr der Narr aus Einbildung. "הסכלת עשו", spricht Laban, "du hast wunder gemeint, wie klug du handelst, und jetzt siehst du, wie töricht du gewesen". Wärest du offen fortgegangen, ich hätte dich väterlich entlassen (hätte dir vielleicht noch eine Mitgift hinterdrein gegeben!), und jetzt, da du nicht wie ein Dieb, sondern als Dieb fortgegangen, siehst du, habe ich die Macht und das Recht, dir alles zu nehmen — wenn nicht Gott es anders gewollt.

לנשק לבני ולבנותי, “to provide my sons and daughters with parting gifts;” although the word נשק appears primarily as meaning “to kiss,” it is also the same word (as a noun) meaning neshek, “weapons,” in the sense of the equipment needed for survival, as we know from Psalms 2,12: נשקו בר, “gird yourselves;”

עשו. Spelled here with the letter ו, but meaning the same as if it had been written with the letter ה. The word is in the infinitive mode. The word עתה (at this juncture) means that “although, generally speaking you are very clever, now you acted foolishly.”

יש לאל ידי means MY HAND HAS THE STRENGTH AND THE POWER — to do you hurt (אל therefore means strength and יש לאל ידי is equivalent to יש אל לידי). Wherever אל is used as a Divine Name it is because it signifies strength and abundance of power.

ואלקי אביכם, for I respect Him.

ואלוקי אביכם, not because of your merits.

יש לאל ידי, as per Onkelos, i.e. “I possess the power.”

ואלוקי אביכם אמש אמר אלי, וגו', “and the G’d of your father has said to me last night.” I find it difficult to understand why Lavan told Yaakov that G’d had told him not to do harm to him. After all, it was a known fact that Lavan hated Yaakov and wanted to totally uproot him. Seeing that G’d had forbidden him to do so, why did he mention this to Yaakov? Yaakov would have been more afraid of him if he had not mentioned his nocturnal experience at all? I believe the reason is that Lavan was aware that Yaakov was a prophet and he thought that G’d would have revealed to him what He had said to Lavan. Under those circumstances he felt it would be better for him to come clean right away and admit that G’d had warned him.

יש לאל ידי, “it is within my power, etc.” The wicked always boast of their wicked deeds; Lavan was no exception; he too boasted about his wickedness. When he coupled the statement יש לאל ידי with the words ואלוקי אביכם, he meant that for the last twenty years he had been able to inflict harm on Yaakov as the fact that G’d did not warn him not to harm Yaakov until the night before he caught up with him shows that prior to this G’d would not have prevented him from harming Yaakov. The fact that G’d did not appear to him until that night may also be taken as proof of Lavan’s goodwill towards Yaakov. Surely, if G’d was so solicitous of Yaakov’s welfare, He would have had to warn him off before now unless G’d was well aware that Lavan had not harboured any hostility against Yaakov. If Yaakov had only left because he was anxious to return to his family in Canaan why did he steal the Teraphim? He repeated mention of Yaakov having stolen something to lend emphasis to the fact that the very fact of Yaakov stealing from him bothered him the most.

עמכם, ich habe Leute genug bei mir, um mit euch allen fertig zu werden. — יש לאל ידי: wie das Verhältnis des Blutes zur Seele vorzugsweise nicht also ausgedrückt wird, dass die Seele im Blute, sondern umgekehrt, das Blut in der Seele ist, von der Seele umfangen und beherrscht wird (siehe Kap.9, 4): ebenso sagen wir hebräisch nicht, die Hand habe Kraft, sondern: die Kraft hat die Hand. Der Seele geht keine Fähigkeit und Kraft verloren, auch wenn ihr der Körper ganz oder teilweise verstümmelt wird. Die Kraft hat mitunter keine Hand, aber nie hat eine Hand die Kraft. Daher die Ausdrücke ש׳ oder אין לאל ידי usw. Es kann aber אל auch einfacher סמיכות sein: es liegt in der Kraft meiner Hand. — אֶמֶש, von מוש weichen, mit individualisierendem א, die eine Hälfte des Tages, die bereits gewichen ist, also nur die vergangene erste Hälfte des Tages, die vergangene Nacht.

יש לאל ידי לעשות עמכם רע, “it is within my power to harm you;” Lavan implies that even G-d is aware of this and is afraid that I will take my revenge of you, and that it why He has warned me concerning you.

אמש, last night.

מטוב עד רע, “either good or evil, etc.” anything which was good for Lavan was bad for Yaakov. If Lavan decided not to kill Yaakov but to merely take away his possessions, this would prove to be bad for Yaakov; this is why G’d had to phrase His warning by saying טוב עד רע. We find a similar construction in Ezekiel 21,8 והכרתי ממך צדיק ורשע, “I will cut off from you righteous and wicked alike.” [Ezekiel speaks about relative degrees of wickedness; he calls someone who only occasionally worships the Baal a צדיק, whereas he who does so on a regular basis is a רשע by comparison. The fact is, however, that both are wicked (Rabbi Saadyah Gaon)]. The proof that our interpretation is correct can be seen from Yaakov’s reply לולי אלוקי אבי...כי עתה ריקם שלחתני, “if my father’s G’d had not been at my side, you would now have sent me off empty-handed.” In other words: sending Yaakov off empty-handed was Lavan’s idea of treating him “good.”

ואלוקי אביכם, a reference to the G’d of Avraham whose name Avraham had popularised throughout the region. The reason Lavan speaks of אביכם “your father,” is that he uses the term as a pronoun including Yaakov and his children.

נכספתה means THOU DIDST LONG—It occurs many times in Scripture: (Psalms 89:3) “My soul yearneth (נכספה) yea, pineth”; (Job 14:15) “Thou wouldst have a desire (תכסוף) to the work of hands”.

ועתה Now that you have left without obtaining my permission and you misled me, I assume

ועתה הלוך הלכת, "When you left now, etc." Laban said: "since you have previously expressed your longing to see your father again, why did you choose to leave now in such a way that it looked like a flight?" Laban was leading up to what he expected Jacob's defence to be, namely that he was anxious to see his father. If so, he argued, why did you have to steal my תרפים, charms? Surely this makes your entire departure appear like a flight! You must have been afraid that the תרפים would reveal your where-abouts to me!

ועתה ...נכסף נכספתה, as per Onkelos, i.e. “even if you felt an overwhelming urge.” The word נכסוף with the vowel cholem is an infinitive mode in the passive conjugation, similar to Samuel I 20,21 נשאול נשאל.

כסף: sich nach etwas sehnen, daher wohl כֶסֶף: das, womit man alles ersehnt, alles erreichen kann.

Now you have gone. You must have run off in this manner because you so yearned for your father’s house.

אלוהי, he called his Teraphim “my gods,” as he and his kind of people relied on them just as we rely on the true G’d.

But why did you steal. Your yearning for your father’s house was no justification for stealing my gods.

כי יראתי BECAUSE I FEARED — He answered his first question first, for he had asked him (Genesis 31:26) “[what hast thou done…] that thou hast carried away my daughters etc.” (this being the first of all Laban’s questions).

כי יראתי...עם אשר תמצא, Yaakov answered Lavan’s first accusation first, and the second one afterwards.

פן תגזול את בנותיך, by saying that you had not given me your daughters in marriage in order for me to remove them from your homeland you would in effect commit robbery as you would detain both my children and my estate. In fact, Lavan used exactly this kind of argument when he said: “the children are my children the daughters are my daughters, etc.” (verse 43). You might have succeeded in doing all this with the help of the local townspeople. Now that I have left your country you will not be able to carry out such a plan.

ויען יעקב, Jacob replied, etc. Jacob said: "I do not deny that I fled. As to the reason why, 'I was afraid you would steal your daughters from me by force. As to your argument that I stole the תרפים so that they could not reveal my whereabouts to you, I swear that whoever has taken them shall not live.'" Jacob committed the fatal error of uttering a curse based on partial information.

ויען...כי יראתי, concerning your question “what did you do by misleading me,” I did not inform you of my impending departure because I was afraid; I said to myself if I tell you, you would rob me of “your daughters,” i.e. my wives and children.

Deine Töchter, und selbstverständlich alles andere.

לא יחיה LET HIM NOT LIVE — In consequence of this curse Rachel died on the journey (Genesis Rabbah 74:9).

לא יחיה, meaning that Yaakov himself will avenge such a crime from its perpetrator.

לא יחיה. He thought that one of the servants must have stolen the teraphim in order to worship them as he had been in the habit of doing before becoming part of Yaakov’s household.

לא יחיה, "he shall not live!" Jacob applied the legal yardsticks applicable to all Gentiles, i.e. the death penalty. Should you argue that there was no need to spell out the penalty seeing everybody knew what the penalty for stealing was, Jacob wanted to emphasise that he would not plead that he had received these תרפים as a gift or had simply forgotten to return them.

עם אשר תמצא את אלוקיך לא יחיה, “the one in whose possession you will find your deities shall not live.” Some commentators hold that this is not the formula used in a curse, but that Yaakov meant to say that such a person did not deserve to live, but deserved to be hung as a thief. If he were to be convicted of the death penalty, Yaakov promised to be the first one to assist in the execution.

עם אשר תמצא את אלוהיך לא יחיה, “the person in whose possession you will find your idols shall not live!” This curse resulted in Rachel dying on route; from here we also learn that a person must be very careful not to cause a righteous person to curse him.

Wie muss Jakob es verstanden haben, seinen Geist allen großen und kleinen Gliedern seines Hauses einzuprägen, dass er mit so voller Zuversicht darauf rechnen konnte, auch ein kleines Kind werde es nicht gewagt haben, auch nur eine Stecknadel mit hinweg zu nehmen, die nicht sein war. Jakob wusste freilich nicht von Rachels Tat und würde sie trotz der Motive nicht gebilligt haben.

מה עמדי WHAT IS WITH ME that belongs to you.

הכר לך מה עמדי, if you can find amongst my possessions any that you recognise as belonging to you, take them!

נגד אחינו הכר לך מה עמדי וקח לך, “in the presence of our kinsmen ascertain for yourself what is with me and take it back.” This proves Yaakov’s integrity. It is typical of the righteous that they do not covet money which is not theirs, not even if it belongs to close relatives. Yaakov who had stayed at his father-in-law’s house for twenty years and whose father-in-law had experienced tremendous blessings due to Yaakov, as he himself admitted, allowed his father-in-law to examine every part of his household and search for any item not his. Lavan actually was not abashed to take advantage of that opportunity as we know from Yaakov saying at the end (verse 37) “for you have handled everything; what did you find?”

ולא ידע יעקב, if he had known that Rachel had taken the teraphim he would not have had the audacity to deny this. Also, he most certainly would not have cursed her by saying “he shall not live!” [actually he had not cursed the thief but the one with whom the stolen goods would be found, and in the event Lavan never did find the teraphim. Ed.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

בכר הגמל IN THE CAMEL’S SADDLE-PILLOW — כר has the same meaning as in the Talmudic phrase "pillows (כרים) and bolsters”. Explain it as the Targum renders it: “in the עביטא of the camel”. This is a packsaddle made like a pillow. In Erubin (Eruvin 16a) we find, "they enclosed it with עביטין” by which is meant the saddles of camels. old French bast, bat; English packsaddle.

בכר, a kind of cushion one places on the back of a camel to sit upon.

ורחל...בכר הגמל, in the saddle of the camel.

ורחל לקחה את התרפים, “and Rachel had taken the teraphim; when Lavan left the tent of Leah went and placed them under her cushion while seated on the camel.

LET NOT MY LORD BE ANGRY THAT I CANNOT RISE UP BEFORE THEE. I do not understand what kind of an apology this is. Do women in that condition not rise or stand? Perhaps she said that her head and limbs feel heavy, and she was sick on account of the menstruation, for such is the customary way among them, and all the more among those such as Rachel, whose birth-giving powers are diminished since they have little blood,²²¹See Kethuboth 10b. and menstruation presses very heavily upon them.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that in ancient days menstruants kept very isolated for they were ever referred to as niddoth on account of their isolation since they did not approach people and did not speak with them. For the ancients in their wisdom knew that their breath is harmful, their gaze is detrimental and makes a bad impression, as the philosophers have explained. I will yet mention²²²See Ramban Leviticus 18:19. their experiences in this matter. And the menstruants dwelled isolated in tents where no one entered, just as our Rabbis have mentioned in the Beraitha²²³“Exterior,” a teaching of the Tannaim that for some reason had not been included in the Mishnah by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi. The collection of Beraithoth was compiled by Rabbi Chiyah and Rabbi Oshayah. They are generally found in the Tosephta. which follows the order of the Mishnah. of Tractate Niddah:²²⁴There are differences of opinion among scholars concerning this Beraitha. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 177, and commencing with the second edition also on p. 548, column 2, top of page. “A learned man²²⁵The meaning of the word talmid or talmud here is not clear. is forbidden to greet a menstruant. Rabbi Nechemyah says, ‘Even the utterance of her mouth is unclean.’ Said Rabbi Yochanan: ‘One is forbidden to walk after a menstruant and tread upon her footsteps, which are as unclean as a corpse; so is the dust upon which the menstruant stepped unclean, and it is forbidden to derive any benefit from her work.’” Therefore Rachel said, “It would be proper for me to rise before my lord to kiss his hands, but the way of women is upon me, and I cannot come near you nor walk at all in the tent so that you should not tread upon the dust of my feet.” And Laban kept silent and did not answer her, as it was customary not to converse with them at all because the speech of a menstruant was unclean.

ותאמר...כי דרך נשים לי, she referred to menstruation. The Torah elsewhere described this as אורח הנשים, when describing Sarah as no longer experiencing these cycles (Genesis 18,11).

אל יחר בעיני אדוני כי לא אוכל לקום מפניך. “may my lord not be angry, for I am suffering from my monthly menstrual pains.” Nachmanides writes that he does not understand what kind of an excuse Rachel offered with these words. Who has ever heard of women who experience these pains being unable to get up and stand on the floor? Perhaps she meant that all women suffer from pains in their head and in their limbs when these pains begin. I believe it is far more likely that the women in those days were quarantined during their monthly cycles so that men would not approach them and speak to them as it was considered that they could thereby confer disease through their exhaling bad breath. Our sages have already confirmed this in a Baraitha in the tractate Niddah. Even to be looked upon by a menstruating woman was considered hazardous. This is why special huts were set aside for the use of women in such a condition. [this editor has seen such a hut in Hawai with his own eyes. Ed.] According to the aforementioned Baraitha, a Torah scholar is forbidden to even enquire after the well being of such a woman. Rachel said that good manners require that she give a kiss to her father but that due to her present condition she was unable to do so, etc. Some commentators do not understand the words דרך נשים as applying to menstruation pains but, on the contrary, to the state of pregnancy.

כי לא אוכל לקום מפניך, “for I am unable to rise before you.” This verse proves that the ancients already practiced the restrictions of ritual impurity when their women were menstruating. In fact, they treated such impurity as equivalent to the ritual impurity associated with a dead body. According to Niddah it was forbidden to enquire after the welfare of a menstruating woman. Rabbi Nechemyah there says that that even the words which come out of the mouth of a menstruating woman are ritually impure, and one is not to walk on the ground such a woman has walked on. One must also not make use of what such a woman has produced with her hands while in such an impure state. This is why Lavan kept quiet and left her tent. The high level of Yaakov’s chastity is attested to by the fact that each of his four wives had her own quarters.

דלקת means THOU HAST PURSUED — as in (Lamentations 4:19) “They chased us (דלקנו) upon the mountains”, and (1 Samuel 17:53) ‘‘from chasing (מדלק) after the Philistines”.

AND JACOB WAS WROTH, AND QUARRELLED WITH LABAN. Jacob had originally given him permission to search the tents, for he said, With whomsoever thou findest thy gods,²²⁶Verse 26 here. and he further said, before our brethren recognize what is thine with me,²²⁶Verse 26 here. and how could Laban find it if not by searching and handling? At first, however, Jacob feared lest one of the wives or servants had stolen Laban’s gods, and now that he saw that they were not with them his anger was aroused, for he said, “He did not lose his gods, only he is seeking a quarrel with me.”²²⁷Judges 14:4. So he said, “Why have you hotly pursued after me as one pursues a thief? You have not found in my possession anything of all thy household stuff²²⁸Verse 37 here. though I was entitled to take from you all I could for you have changed my hire ten times,²²⁹Verse 41 here. and you demanded of me recompense for the animals that were torn by beasts,²³⁰Verse 39 here. and I paid you, though not legally by law required to do so.”

ויחר ליעקב וירב בלבן, after Lavan did not find anything, Yaakov thought that his teraphim had never been stolen at all, but that Lavan had used the accusation as a pretext to search Yaakov’s belongings and to make him appear as a suspected thief.

ויחר ליעקב וירב, Jacob then grew angry and argued, etc. The Torah stresses that Jacob's quarrelling was the direct result of his becoming angry. Otherwise he would not have started a quarrel.

ויחר ליעקב, Yaakov was angry at the fact that Lavan did not believe him and personally searched all his belongings, even though he himself had challenged him to do so by saying הכר נא, “please try and find!” If Lavan had possessed the slightest bit of common courtesy that should have been enough for him to desist from an insulting and degrading search.

ויחר ליעקב,”Yaakov became angry.” Even though, originally, Yaakov had given Lavan permission to search, seeing that he had said that the person with whom the teraphim would be found should not live, and he had said in front of everybody “please identify anything in my entourage as yours if you are able to,” how would Lavan be able to find anything unless he searched all of Yaakov’s belongings? Originally, Yaakov had thought that Lavan suspects one of his servants to have stolen the teraphim; he therefore permitted the search. It had not occurred to him that Lavan would suspect even him or his wives of being thieves. When Lavan had not found anything in his camp, he concluded that he had come with a trumped up charge. This is why he accused Lavan of having staged a pursuit for nefarious reasons, other than that he wanted to retrieve his property. He now told him that if anyone had been robbed it was him, whose wages Lavan had changed so many times, that he, Yaakov, would have been in his rights to search among Lavan’s belongings what he had robbed Yaakov of.

?מה פשעי מה חטאתי, What wrong have I ever committed that entitles you to treat me now as suspect of stealing?

וירב בלבן. He quarrelled with Laban. The meaning of the word בלבן is to show that this argument was considered as a quarrel only in the eyes of Laban. Anyone else would not have considered Jacob's justified argument a quarrel. In Bereshit Rabbah 74,10 Rabbi Azaryah describes this irritability of the patriarchs as preferable to the humility of subsequent generations of their descendants. He describes Jacob's conduct as conciliatory. Jacob pointed out that it was no more than fair that a son-in-law makes use of his father-in-law's utensils once in a while, etc. The approach by Rabbi Azaryah closely reflects what we have said. Perhaps the Torah also had in mind to tell us that Jacob quarrelled "with Laban," i.e. when the two were not overheard, were in the privacy of his tent. He did not humiliate Laban by complaining to him in public.

מה פשעי, מה חטאתי, "what intentional or even unintentional sin against you am I guilty of?" Jacob meant that if during the last twenty years Laban ever had occasion to fault him for an intentional or even an unintentional trespass against him, he could understand why Laban was suspicious of him now. Seeing that he had never given Laban any reason to suspect him of wrong-doing why would he do so now? Jacob also alluded to Laban's manner of searching his belongings. The way Laban had examined every last one of Jacob's belongings clearly indicated that he hoped to find not only his Teraphim but other triviae that Jacob might have stolen from him. Laban had used the disappearance of his Teraphim only as a pretext to conduct a thorough search of all of Jacob's belongings. Jacob challenged Laban's right to have done so.

ויוכיחו — means that they may decide who is right. old French eprouver; English prove.

!כי מששת...שים כה, “please list all your complaints against me in front of all my family and your family. The people whom Yaakov referred to as אחי, “my brothers,” in this verse were the shepherds in his employ who were his brothers vocationally speaking, being members of the same guild.

Let them determine who is right. The meaning of this expression is similar to (24:14), “The girl will be the one whom You have determined (הוכחת) for your servant.” Its meaning is not similar to (21:25), “Avraham then reprimanded (והוכיח) Avimelech.” For if so, it should have said ויוכיחו אותנו.

מששת את כל כלי, "you have handled all my utensils." You have examined items that could not be remotely capable of concealing your Teraphim, such as utensils which are much smaller than your Teraphim.

מה מצאת מכל כלי ביתך, "which, if any of your own utensils did you find?" Did you even find a single utensil that could arouse the doubt that it was one of yours?

שים כה נגד אחי, "place it here in the presence of my brothers, etc." Jacob referred to his having invited Laban in verse 32 to "identify anything of his that he would find." At that time Jacob had still believed that Laban was only interested in locating his Teraphim. This is why he had given him permission to search. In the meantime he found out that Laban had indeed suspected him of thievery. We have written earlier that villains have a tendency of suspecting others of being guilty of the same crimes they themselves are guilty of. Since Laban was a thief, it was natural for him to think of others as thieves also. Jacob now had reason to believe that Laban would claim as his what was really Jacob's. This is why he demanded that Laban display all such items and then proceed to identify them by describing them in minute detail while not looking at them. He was not willing to accept the opinion of Laban's brothers as corroboration of any of his claims, but wanted his own people to be present.

לא שכלו means HAVE NOT MISCARRIED — Similar are: (Hosea 9:14) ‘‘a miscarrying (משכיל) womb”; (Job 21:10) “his cow calveth and casteth (תשכל) not her calf”.

לא שכלו, neither because of any lack of adequate grazing nor due to careless supervision

רחליך ועזיך לא שכלו, you have found me as possessing the very reverse of the characteristics of a thief. Not only did I serve you faithfully, but I have treated you even better than fairness dictates. I have endeavoured with all my skill to prevent your sheep from giving birth to premature, and stillborn young.

זה עשרים שנה, וג׳ "These twenty years, etc." The reason Jacob mentioned "twenty years" was that a thief or swindler would be on guard for a relatively short time not to commit any crimes. It is not in the nature of thieves to control their natural inclination for a long period of time. Jacob therefore wanted to show that the fact he had not stolen anything for such a long period should have made it plain that he was not a thief by nature. He underlined this by the word עמך, with you; He meant you have had plenty of opportunity to observe me commit a misdemeanour. When did I ever do so?

זה עשרים שנה...לא שכלת, because of G’d’s blessing for me.

.רחליך ועזיך לא שכלו , “your ewes and she-goats never miscarried.” Yaakov attributed this to his merit. The Torah promises such a blessing to people observing its commandments (Exodus 23,26).

From here they derive that even a one-dayold ram is called איל... [You might ask:] Doesn’t Rashi comment on Bamidbar 15:11 that if it is under a year old it is called כבש, and only after 13 months it is called איל? [The answer is:] That is true only in regard to sacrifices. See Tosafos, Bava Kama 65b.

זה לי עשרים שנה בביתך — זה עשרים שנה אנכי עמך, so war ich zwanzig Jahre und das ward mir dafür. אילי צאנך. Es scheint Brauch gewesen zu sein, dass die ausgedienten Leithämmel der Herde dem Hirten zufielen.

לא שכלו, “did not miscarry;” it is customary for shepherds to occasionally beat one or another of the animals entrusted to him in order to force them to walk in line with the other beasts. This could result in a miscarriage of a pregnant animal. Yaakov prides himself never to have beaten any of these animals, and that is how he explains that in twenty years under his care none ever miscarried.

ואילי צאנך AND THE RAMS OF THY FLOCK — From this phrase they (the Rabbis) inferred (Bava Kamma 65b) that a male sheep even when one day old is called a ram; for if this be not so, how was this creditable to him? Did he mean that he had not eaten rams (i. e. the larger animals), but that he had eaten the smaller sheep? If so, he was a thief! (39).

ואילי צאנך, it is customary that the shepherds eat the meat of male sheep they tend.

ואילי צאנך לא אכלתי, even things which according to accepted practice I could have treated as mine, I did not eat, seeing that they were nominally yours.

ואילי צאנך לא אכלתי. I did not eat from a single one of the male sheep. The letter מ in front of the word אילי is missing, just as it is missing in Samuel II 23,24 in the line אלחנן בן דודו בית לחם where we would have expected מבית לחם. Another example of such a missing prefix מ is found In Joshua 10,13 עד יקום גוי אויביו, where we would have expected עד יקום גוי מאויביו, “until a nation arises from its enemies.” There are more such examples throughout Scripture. The reason Yaakov made a point of saying that he had not eaten of any of the male sheep was that it was widely accepted that the shepherds who were far from home would eat the meat of such animals. Yaakov made the point that far from following accepted practice, he had only eaten things that had belonged to him outright. Male sheep are worth less in the marketplace than their female counterparts. Their meat is also less tasty.

ואילי צאנך לא אכלתי, “and I did not eat rams of your flock.” Other shepherds do eat these rams and their owners know about it. Ezekiel 34,3 writes: את החלב תאכלו ואת הצמר תלבשו הבריאה תזבחו הצאן לא תראון, “should you eat the fat, should you don the wool, should you slaughter the choicest- but not tend the sheep!” Clearly that verse proves that provided the shepherd carries out his duties he is entitled to the fringe benefits mentioned by the prophet.

רחליך ועזיך, "your ewes and your she-goats did not miscarry." We have to explore what Jacob meant by citing this detail. If he merely wanted to call attention to his success in managing Laban's flock, this is not the appropriate place for such a comment. He also referred to אילי צאנך, וג׳, "the rams of your flocks, etc." Who would have suspected Jacob of eating those? Moreover, if no one had knowledge of Jacob doing any such thing previously, who would step forward after all these years to testify against him?

ואילי צאנך, “and the ewes among your flocks,” Rashi here (based on Baba Kamma, 65 explains that we learn from this line that even a ewe only one day old, is already called “ewe” and not “sheep” or “lamb”. If Rashi were not correct, what point would Yaakov be making by claiming never to have eaten any of the flock entrusted to him? He could have eaten them while they bore a different name, such as mentioned! If you were to counter that we know from experience that the name “ewe” is not applied to male sheep until they have reached the age of two years and someone obligated to bring a sacrificial animal called “ewe” must bring one not younger that two years old, [and are therefore capable of copulating? Ed.] the answer is that, of course, the name “ewe” is applied to even one day old male sheep, it is only for the purpose of serving as a sacrificial animal that such a ewe must be at least two years old. ואילי צאנך לא אכלתי, “neither have I eaten from the ewes of your flocks.” It is the custom of shepherds to look after the flock by day and to bring the flock home at night to the owner; if during the night one or more of the sheep have been stolen, the loss is that of the owner. You, however, have demanded compensation from me even for sheep that disappeared while in your possession and inside your pens.

Jacob contrasted his own behaviour with that common amongst other shepherds. They all steal and account for the missing numbers by attributing them to animals miscarrying, whereas in reality they appropriated such lambs for themselves. Jacob now cited the fact that he had never even claimed that any of Laban's ewes or she-goats had miscarried as proof that he could not have stolen any of these animals. He could therefore not be accused of having eaten any of these animals himself. All his success had been due to G'd who had not allowed a single miscarriage to occur in order that Jacob could not be suspected of dishonesty.

The reason that he mentioned "the rams of your flocks" is to teach us that the Torah considers a male baby lamb already as a ram when it has only just been born. Perhaps Jacob referred to a legal point mentioned by Maimonides Hilchot Gezeylah chapter 2, according to which if someone stole a lamb and it developed into a ram (grew up while in the thief's care) the thief has acquired it [legally speaking, this means primarily that he is responsible for its wellbeing. Ed.], the original owners not being able to reclaim the same animal as compensation. This rule applies even when the owners had not given up hope of retrieving the same animal. Jacob told Laban that even when the circumstances would have been such that he could have legally kept an animal for himself, he did not avail himself of the legality of the matter but acted strictly according to what his conscience dictated to him as being correct moral behaviour. He could have returned lambs to Laban instead of fully grown animals; however he returned fully grown ones if perchance an accident had happened to one of the young animals under his care. He did not even "consume" the difference in value between a lamb and a fully grown ram.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

אכלני חרב THE DROUGHT CONSUMED ME — the same metaphor as (Deuteronomy 4:24) אש אכלה “a consuming fire”.

הייתי, seeing that I did not want to entrust the flock to another shepherd, I was forced to endure the sun’s heat by day and the extreme cold at night. I denied myself sleep at night for fear something could happen to any of the animals.

The same meaning as a consuming fire. אוכלה denotes destruction (כלייה), [not eating (אכילה)].

וקרח THE FROST — as (Psalms 147:17) “He casteth forth his ice (קרחו)”. In the Targum it is rendered by גלידא “hoar-frost”.

שנתי means MY SLEEP.

ותחלף את משכרתי AND THOU HAST CHANGED MY HIRE — You have altered the agreement regarding my hire between us from speckled to spotted and from streaked to grisled.

That I have been in your house. Actually, he was only in Lavan’s house for a month (29:14). The rest of the time he was in the field and in his tents. However, that month was so unpleasant that it seemed as if he spent the entire twenty years there.

ותחלף את משכרתי, by doing so you reversed yourself since it had been you who had determined what my wages should be.

זה לי...בשתי בנותיך, I served you not only for one woman but for two, although it is not accepted practice for a man to serve for a woman. My wives testified to this when they described their father as “selling us.” (31,15)

ושש שנים בצאנך, “and six years for “your” flocks. Under the same terms as those set forth in the Torah for a Jewish servant who has been indentured for a fixed period. (Exodus chapter 21)

ותחלף, “you have repeatedly changed the terms during the currency of that term.” The vowel under the letter ל is a tzeyreh instead of the expected segol.

ופחד יצחק AND THE DREAD OF ISAAC — He did not like to say “God of Isaac” because God does not associate His name with the righteous whilst they are alive. And although He (God) said, when he (Jacob) was departing from Beer-Sheba, (Genesis 28:13) “I am the Lord, the God of Abraham thy father and the God of Isaac”, this was because his (Isaac’s) eyes were dim and he might therefore be regarded as dead (Midrash Tanchuma, Toldot 7) — Jacob, however, feared to say “God of Isaac” and said “the Dread”.

AND THE FEAR OF ISAAC HAD BEEN ON MY SIDE. “He did not want to say “G-d of Isaac” because G-d does not associate His name with the righteous during their lifetime. Although G-d said to Jacob when he was departing from the Land of Israel, I am the Eternal, the G-d of Abraham thy father and the G-d of Isaac,²³¹Above, 28:13. this was because Isaac’s eyes were dim, and he might therefore be regarded as dead. Jacob, however, feared to say so, [and instead said, ‘the Fear of Isaac’].” Thus the words of Rashi. It is also the opinion of Onkelos that pachad Yitzchak means “his G-d,” for he translated it as: “He Whom Isaac fears.”
And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said: “Isaac’s fear of G-d helped me, for the merit of the father helps the son. And Jacob swore ‘bepachad’ of his father Isaac,²³²Further, Verse 53. — by Him Whom Isaac fears.” Ibn Ezra’s explanations of the same expression are thus not alike. Ibn Ezra further wrote,²³²Further, Verse 53. “And there are some who say²³³Found in R’dak. that this ‘fear’ is an allusion to the day of Isaac’s Binding.” This is not far fetched.
By way of the Truth [namely, the mystic lore of the Cabala] the language fits its plain meaning and intent, that is, it refers to the attribute of Justice on high.²³⁴See Ramban above, 9:12. Based on this, Scripture says: Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Eternal their G-d, and David their king; and shall come trembling unto the Eternal and to His goodness in the end of days.²³⁵Hosea 3:5. The verse is stating that they will seek the Merciful One and the attribute of Justice on earth, and bring the Fear of Isaac to G-d and His goodness mentioned.

שלחתני, and not with joy and songs.

The Fear (or “fear”) of Yitzchok. Lavan did not fear Avraham — who was already dead — but only his God. Yitzchok, on the other hand, was still alive and very powerful and it was primarily out of fear of him that Lavan refrained from harming Yaakov.

31.42. לולי אלוקי אבי…היה לי, "Were it not for the fact that my father's G'd the G'd of Abraham helped me, etc." The reason Jacob did not merely say "the G'd of my father Abraham," and chose to repeat the word G'd, was twofold. 1) He meant to say "firstly my father's G'd stood by me because of my father's merits." 2) It was due to the unlimited power of G'd who supervised my fate personally so that I was able to salvage my earnings. When Jacob said: אלוקי אברהם, he meant that it had been Abraham who had spread the fame of that G'd and acquainted mankind with His truth. He demonstrated to the world that G'd judges fairly. Jacob implied that if his father had worshiped a different god such a god could not have saved him.

לולי אלוקי אבי, after having used this term, Yaakov amplifies whom he meant by it, i.e. אלוקי אברהם ופחד יצחק היה לי, as explained by Onkelos פחד יצחק is the G’d Yitzchok was in awe of. Yitzchok had subjected himself to slaughter by his father as he had been in awe of his father’s G’d. One can explain the words פחד יצחק as referring to Yaakov who was afraid that if he did not go home now he would never see his father again while he was alive.

ופחד יצחק היה לי, “and the one whom Yitzchok fears was on my side.” Rashi explains that Yaakov did not want to use the name of G’d outright by saying אלוקי יצחק, “the G’d of “Yitzchok,” as we have a tradition that G’d does not associate His name with the living, as the chance always exists that even a righteous person may become corrupted before he dies. This “rule” is contradicted when Eliezer spoke of אלוקי אדוני אברהם, “the G’d of my master Avraham. [besides G’d Himself associated His name with the living in Yaakov’s dream of the ladder. Ed.] Ibn Ezra explains the words פחד יצחק as meaning that the fact that Yaakov’s father Yitzchok had been G’d fearing now came to the assistance of his son, something known as זכות אבות, the merit of the fathers.

Yaakov was afraid to say אלהי and instead said ופחד. Question: Did he not say אלהי יצחק in Parshas Vayishlach (32:10)? The answer is: There, Yaakov was recounting how Hashem had said “אלהי יצחק.”

פחד יצחק, ist nicht Gott, sondern der schreckenvolle Moment der Akeda, in welcher Jizchak bereits das Opfermesser über sich gezuckt fühlte. Es ist der Höhepunkt der von Jizchak gelösten sittlichen Vollendung. Wäre nicht Abrahams Gott und Jizchaks unendliches Verdienst mir beigestanden etc. Bedeutsam ist hier das Wort der Weisen: חביבה מלאכה מזכות אבות -שזכות אבות הצילה ממון ומלאכה הצילה נפשות, Arbeit ist wertvoller als das Verdienst der Eltern, dieses hat nur Güter, jene Seelen gerettet.

ופחד יצחק, Yaakov claims that if Lavan had not shown a degree of fear of the retaliation by Yitzchok his father who is wealthy and locally mighty, (in addition to the fear of Yaakov’s, Yitzchok’s and his own G-d)

ויוכח The word here has the meaning of reproof (“and he reproved thee”; cf. Genesis 5:24) and not of deciding (as in Genesis 5:37).

‘VAYOCHACH’ YESTERNIGHT. “The word here has the meaning of ‘reproof’ [and he reproved] and not of ‘clarification.’” These are the words of Rashi. But is is more correct to say that it is an expression meaning “clarification.” Since Jacob said above, ‘veyochichu’ (that they may judge) between us both,²²⁸Verse 37 here. he now said that it is G-d, Who knows the hidden secrets, Who should clarify the dispute between the two of them. This is why Jacob did not say, vayochach othcha emesh, [which would mean, “and He reproved ‘thee’ yesternight,” for the meaning of the word is not “rebuke” but “clarify”].

היה לי, Yaakov explains his surviving of Lavan’s machinations as being due to two separate causes. 1) if the G’d of Avraham had not been on my side ריקם שלחתני, you would have sent me home as empty-handed as when I arrived at your home. 2) had it not been for my urgent longing to see my father Yitzchok before he died. I doubt that I would have still have found him alive on my return if I had stayed with you any longer. Out of these considerations I could not remain with you. When I left my father he was already worried about his death approaching. If I want to see him once more alive, I decided that I must return home before it is too late. I could not tell you of my intention as you might have prevented me from being present at his death and my burying him.

ויוכח אמש, “when He reproved you last night.” Rashi understands the word יוכח as a derivative of תוכחה, rebuke, and not as a derivative of הוכחה, proof. It is more likely that the word has the same meaning as in 31,37 ויוכיחו בין שנינו, “and let them judge between us.” At this point Yaakov says that the G’d Who is aware of all the things that are hidden from man, has intervened and shown who is upright and who is not. Proof that this is the correct interpretation is that Yaakov did not say ויוכח אותך אמש, “and He has judged you last night.”

Jacob had an additional thought when he spoke about "אלוקי אבי" (in addition to אלוקי אברהם). First he spoke about the "G'd of my father," i.e. the merit of his fathers, which assisted him. In the case of Abraham this was the merit of חסד, Abraham's outstanding virtue (compare Micha 7,20). In the case of his father Isaac it was the virtue of justice referred to by Jacob as פחד יצחק, "the One whom Isaac stood in awe of." Jacob refrained from saying אלוקי יצחק in order to be able to allude to his father's outstanding virtue. We find G'd Himself referring to אלוקי יצחק in Genesis 28,14. Jacob mentioned both attributes to illustrate the fact that G'd had done outstanding kindness for him and had also helped him to obtain justice from Laban. Unless G'd had employed both these attributes Jacob would not have attained all that he had.

היה לי, “Who had repeatedly be on my side by making you scared;”An alternate interpretation: “if my father Yitzchok who revered and feared G-d, had not assisted me.”Rashi states here that Yaakov was afraid to refer to G-d as Yitzchok’s G-d, as we have a rule that G-d does not associate His sacred name with a person still alive, as there is no guarantee that he may not become a heretic. [If we find that G-d made an exception in the case of Yitzchok, as He said to Yaakov in the dream of the ladder, this was because Yitzchok was blind and housebound and therefore not subject to temptation by the evil urge; at this point Yaakov was not yet sure that the dream had not only been just his wishful thinking or a revelation to him by G-d. Ed.] We do find that Eliezer used the name of the Lord in connection with His being the G-d of Avraham four times, but that was only the Torah reporting it, no proof that G-d approved of his doing so. Alternately, seeing that Avraham had already passed 10 tests of his faith by G-d, Eliezer was on solid ground when he presumed it was in order.

ויוכח אמש. He rebuked (you) last night, when He told you not to dare to display a hostile attitude towards me. (verse 29)

את עניי ואת יגיע כפי, "my misery and my handiwork." Jacob meant that had it not been for the misery he had suffered G'd would have paid him his reward only in the Hereafter even though he was entitled to it here and now. It was only because of the anguish Jacob experienced that G'd paid him his deserts already now and paid him what was due to him for the labour he had performed (compare Deut. 24,15).

כי עתה ריקם שלחתני, “you would now have sent me away emptyhanded.” You simply would not have compensated me for the last six years that I worked for you.

את עניי ואת יגיע כפי ראה אלוקים ויוכח אמש, “G’d saw my wretchedness and the toil of my hands, so He admonished you last night.” He warned you last night not to kill me. If so, the merit of the toil of my hands has saved me from death whereas the merit of my fearing the Lord has saved my material wealth for me. This is what he meant when he connected the words “and the dread of Yitzchak worked on my behalf for else you would have sent me away empty-handed.” This teaches us that the way a person conducts himself in practice, i.e. “the toil of my hands,” is even more important than his philosophical and theological beliefs here described as פחד יצחק.

מה אעשה לאלה WHAT CAN I DO UNTO THEM — How could it enter my mind injure them, my daughters!

AND TO MY DAUGHTERS, WHAT CAN I DO TO THESE TODAY? Commentators have said²³⁶Ibn Ezra and R’dak. that it is as if it were written, “And to my daughters, what could I do to them today?” and the word “them” constitutes additional clarification. Likewise, As we both of us have sworn,²³⁷I Samuel 20:42. [the word “we” serving as additional clarification]; We, our sons and our daughters,²³⁸Nehemiah 5:2. [the word “we” is here too mentioned for the greater clarity].
But it appears to be more correct that this is said in a compassionate way: “And to my daughters, what can I do to these who are before me, for I am deeply stirred for them, or unto their children, who have been born in my house, and they are to me as my children?” This is also the meaning of whom they have borne. Laban thus said this as if defending himself against Jacob’s words by claiming: “I have come after you to see my daughters, and to determine what favor I can do for them or their children. Now I can do them this good by seeing that you make me a covenant that you will not afflict them and will take no other wives in addition to them.”²³⁹Verse 50 here.

מה אעשה, how can I possibly harm them?

והצאן צאני, if I had indeed changed your wages or sent you home empty-handed I would not have taken anything from you, seeing that it all originated from me. You only acquired it by deceit and deviousness, not legally.

ויען לבן, Laban replied, etc. The word ויען is meant as the answer to Jacob's challenge to display and identify items Laban considered that Jacob had stolen from him. He said that he did not want to embarass his sons and daughters and would not conduct legal proceedings. His own children could testify to Jacob's trickery; however he did not think it seemly to involve his children in testifying against their husbands and father.

ויען לבן...לי הוא, for all of this originated from my possessions.

ולבנותי מה אעשה לאלה, “as to my daughters, what (harm) should I do to these?” We must understand this as if he had said ולבנותי מה אעשה להן,. “what could I possibly do to my daughters?” Nachmanides explains the whole expression as one expressing pity, i.e. Lavan when looking at his daughters and grandchildren is overcome, and exclaims: “how could I possibly be cruel enough to cause any harm to my own family?” This is why he added the words אשר ילדו, “the children that they have given birth to in my own house?” He says this in the form of an apology to Yaakov who had accused him of pursuing him with evil intent. He asks Yaakov rhetorically how he could accuse him of harming them when all he wanted was to see his grandchildren, and kiss them! He now wants to do them a favour by making Yaakov promise that he would not marry any additional wives, depriving his grandchildren of part of their inheritance.

“How could it enter my heart to cause them any harm?” [I.e.,] it cannot mean that Lavan asked Yaakov, “What do you want me to do to them?” because Yaakov never asked him [to do anything].

הבנות בנותי והבנים בני והצאן צאני, Lavan deliberately bent the truth when he said: “and the sons are mine.” A grandfather cannot say of his grandchildren by his daughters that they belong to him. What our sages meant when they said that “grandchildren are like children (Yevamot 62) referred only to the grandsons who are sons of sons, not to grandsons who are children of one’s daughters. He also twisted the truth when he said that the flocks (of Yaakov) were his (Lavan’s) flocks. He had first given them to Yaakov as compensation for his labour. Lavan was similarly legally wrong when he added: וכל אשר אתה רואה לי הוא, “all that you (Yaakov) see is really mine.” This is what Yaakov had in mind when said to him in verse 37: “when you checked out and rummaged in all of my things, what did you find that belonged to you?” Lavan had not replied to this. The entire situation reminds one of what ben Haddad had said to Achav King of Israel, (Kings I 20,3) “your silver and gold are mine, your wives and children who are good are mine.” Achav had replied (verse 7) that Ben Haddad’s words revealed that he was bent on doing harm and did not have a legal argument to support his claim. Lavan also had no legal claim so that he was forced to reply to Yaakov’s challenge “why did you chase after me?” “I came to see my daughters, who are my daughters.”

Es ist zweifelhaft, in welchem Sinne diese Antwort Labans zu verstehen wäre. Es scheint das Hervortreten eines menschlichen Gefühles zu sein. Wenn ich auch die Macht und das Recht habe, und Gott es mir nicht verboten hätte, ich hätte euch doch nichts Leides tun können, da ja alles, was ich um mich sehe, selbst bis auf die Tiere hinab, von mir und den Meinigen stammt.

?ולבנותי מה אעשה, “Lavan is beginning to become more conciliatory by saying that he could not bring himself to harm his daughters [all four matriarchs were his daughters, though not from the same mother. Ed.]

ולבנותי, it actually belongs to my daughters as a dowry.

?מה אעשה לאלה; he said “to these,” after having previously said: “and to my daughters.” He meant that to daughters such as these what am I able to do? How can I allow myself to be separated from them?

He also hinted that the challenge of identifying household goods by mentioning specific details placed him at a disadvantage versus Jacob; the latter would certainly be far more familiar with them and be able to identify any special marks seeing the users were his own daughters who by virtue of using them knew more about them than he, Laban did.

מה אעשה לאלה, even though I could take all of it away from you, what would I do afterwards in order to provide for them.

As to Jacob's charging that the manner of the search was demeaning, all that he Laban had done was examine things which were possessions of his own daughters, i.e. he felt at home in the tents of his daughters. Jacob had no reason to get upset about this.

ולבנותי מה אעשה לאלה, "As to my daughters, what can I do to these?" The word לאלה appears to have no meaning. Perhaps it refers to the words: "all that you behold?" The verse then would mean this: "Since they are my daughters, what can I do to these possessions seeing they are also their children's?" Or, Laban may have meant that though my daughters describe themselves as strangers today, the fact is that I still consider them as my daughters. "What can I do about the way they feel?" We would have to read the words לאלה היום, as belonging together; "today they are called "these" in view of the actions they have committed against me although nominally they are still my daughters."

לבניהם אשר ילדו, to their sons whom they bore. He made a point of saying: "whom they bore," in order not to identify the children with their mother. He only called them their sons since they were biologically their mothers' children. He hoped that they did not share their mothers' character traits. Although the Torah puts these words in the mouth of the wicked Laban, the Torah teaches us something of legal significance at the same time. This is the lesson that in Jewish law the term "family" is determined by the father and not by the mother. We find a similar lesson that the Torah teaches by using Laban as an illustration when the latter espoused the principle of אין מערבים שמחה בשמחה, that one does not celebrate two joyful events simultaneoulsy. Laban had used this rule when he delayed Jacob's and Rachel's wedding by a week so that Leah could have a full week of wedding celebrations with her husband (compare Jerusalem Talmud Moed Katan chapter 1).

והיה לעד means and LET GOD BE FOR A WITNESS.

‘VEHAYAH’ FOR A WITNESS. This means, “And let the Holy One, blessed be He, serve as a witness.” These are the words of Rashi. But this is not the usual sense of the expression. Rather, Laban is saying, “And let the covenant be for a witness between us, for he who violates it should be cursed with all the curses of the covenant,”²⁴⁰Deuteronomy 29:20. similar in meaning to the verse, And they shall be upon thee for a sign and for a wonder.²⁴¹Ibid., 28:46. The meaning of the verse here may be: “Let us establish a covenant by a permanent thing which will serve as a witness between us.” For this reason, Jacob set up a stone as a pillar, and this is the meaning of that which he said, This stone-heap be witness, and this pillar be witness.²⁴²Verse 52 here. A similar meaning is found in the verse, And Joshua said unto all the people: Behold, this stone shall be a witness against us.²⁴³Joshua 24:27.

ועתה לכה, we already explained the meaning of this expression on 19,32.

ועתה, seeing I do not wish to cause them any harm.

והיה לעד ביני וביני, “which will be a witness between me and between you.” According to Rashi the subject of the word והיה is G’d, i.e. G’d will be the witness. Nachmanides says that G’d is not a part of this covenant at all, but the word ברית is the subject of the word והיה. In other words: “the covenant will serve as witness.” Anyone violating this covenant will become the victim of the curses associated with the sin of violating a solemn agreement. It is also possible to understand what happened here as follows: Lavan wanted to select a witness that endures throughout the lifetime and beyond of the parties making the agreement. This is why Yaakov erected a stone to serve as the witness. (verse 45) This is also why Lavan said in verse 48 that this heap of stones would serve as the witness to this agreement.

Come let us make a pact. Lavan wanted to give the impression that Yaakov was the offending party and that the pact was needed so that he would refrain from harming him.

God [being the witness]. Since והיה לעד is written without specifying [its subject], perforce it refers to the preceding phrase: “The God of my father.” Furthermore, if it referred to the pact, it should say והיתה (feminine form).

והיה, da ברית in der Regel weiblich ist, so kann sich והיה wohl nur auf Gott beziehen, auf welchen Jakob hingewiesen hatte, der bereits als Mittler zwischen ihnen aufgetreten; Er, sagt Laban, soll ferner der Zeuge zwischen uns sein.

והיה, the words of this covenant shall testify between me and you. The actual terms of the covenant are spelled out beginning with the words in verse 50 אם תענה וגו'.

לכה ונכרתה ברית, to ensure that you on your part will not cause me any harm either.

וירימה מצבה, as a symbol that this was to be something enduring.

ויקח...וירימה מצבה. He tilted the stone to be upright and placed it on an elevation in the neighbourhood so that it would be visible from a distance. This is the meaning of the word וירימה, as distinct from simply וישם, as for instance in Genesis 28,18. This is also why he called it מצפה, “a lookout point.”

Sobald Laban ברית erwähnt und von Gott sprach, nahm Jakob einen Stein, um ihn zum Denkmal zu setzen. Laban errichtete kein Denkmal; er konnte füglich Jakobs Worten trauen. Jakob aber scheint doch dem Steine mehr als dem Gotte in Labans Munde getraut zu haben. Er veranlasst daher auch Labans Genossen zur Errichtung eines Hügels. Daher יריתי Raw Hirsch on Genesis 31: 51. Raw Hirsch on Genesis 31: 46. לאחיו zu Labans Genossen, die er mitgebracht hatte. Ehe man ein Bündnis für die Zukunft schließt, muss man erst in der Gegenwart sich befreundet haben, sie aßen daher erst gemeinschaftlich an dieser Stelle.

לאחיו UNTO HIS BRETHREN — really his sons, who were like brothers to him since they were standing by him in trouble and in battle (Genesis Rabbah 74:13).

AND JACOB SAID UNTO HIS BRETHREN. I.e., to Laban’s brothers mentioned above,²⁴⁴Verse 23 here. who had accompanied him, as Jacob did not want to say it to his father-in-law whom he treated with respect. Likewise, the verse, And he [Jacob] called his brethren to eat bread,²⁴⁵Verse 54 here. also refers to Laban’s brothers, and he did not invite Laban to eat bread as an act of respect, as if everything is under his authority and is all his. A similar case is the verse, And Pharaoh said unto his brethren: What is your occupation?²⁴⁶Further, 47:3. [which means he said it to Joseph’s brethren]. But Rashi explained: “And Jacob said unto his brethren — to Jacob’s brothers, [meaning, his sons, who were like brothers to him since they stood by him in trouble and in battle].” However, those that came with Laban, whom Scripture calls “his brethren”, were really his friends and companions.
It is possible that that which is said concerning Laban, And he took his brethren with him,²⁴⁴Verse 23 here. refers to his kinsmen, members of his family from the seed of Nahor the brother of Abraham. He did this because he did not want to bring against Jacob strangers lest they fight with him intensely, or covet, rob and steal his belongings. Thus these men were kinsmen to Jacob just as to Laban, and therefore they are called “brethren” of both.
And some say²⁴⁷P’sikta Zutrata above on Chapter 29, Verse 4. that Jacob ethically referred to them as “my brothers,” just as he said to the shepherds, My brethren, whence are ye?²⁴⁸Above, 29:4. And in Bereshith Rabbah, the Sages have said:²⁴⁹74:11. “And Jacob said unto his brethren — these are his sons, whom, in a respectful manner, he called his brothers.” However, with respect to the verse, And he called his brethren to eat bread,²⁴⁵Verse 54 here. the Midrash did not explain [that “his brethren” refers to his sons]! The correct interpretation is the one I wrote at the outset.

ויאמר... לאחיו, to his companions. Although Yaakov used the expression “to his brothers,” in telling them to collect stones for the monument, Lavan and his men did likewise and between them they built them into a pile before sharing a meal together. Yaakov ate a meal with his men, Lavan with his, both near the heap of stones they had erected. It is also possible that the meaning of the word לאחיו includes also the men traveling with Lavan, as they were all included in that term now that their war had been settled peacefully. The meal then would be similar to placing a seal on the newly concluded covenant between them.

ויאמר יעקב לאחיו, “Yaakov said to his brothers” A reference to Yaakov’s sons, seeing that the people accompanying Lavan were all his supporters, members of his immediate family, as well as members of Nachor’s family generally. Yaakov’s sons were like brothers to him. Lavan had refrained from bringing strangers with him, people who for one reason or another might side with Yaakov in the approaching confrontation. Some commentators believe that Yaakov did speak to Lavan’s supporters asking them to help collect stones. His addressing them as “brothers,” was intended to be a rebuke, i.e. they ought to behave like brothers and not like opponents. Nachmanides also interprets the word לאחיו as applying to Lavan’s brothers. He did not want to ask for such assistance from his father’s-in-law directly, as he related to him with respect. He wanted to avoid giving the impression that everything was under his sole control. The situation is similar to Pharaoh’s enquiring from Joseph’s brothers what their occupational skills were in Genesis

AND THEY DID EAT THERE UPON THE STONE-HEAP. They ate a little there as a remembrance. Perhaps it was customary for both of those who made a covenant to eat from one bread as a sign of love and companionship. After having entered into an oath and a covenant, they offered sacrifices and made a great feast. It is possible that the verse stating, and they did eat there upon the stone-heap, refers to the offerings mentioned below,²⁵⁰Verse 54 here. for he said to them, “Gather stones²⁵¹Verse 46 here. and we will make a heap to eat thereon, and it will also serve as a witness when we make the covenant,” and afterwards they ate the offerings upon it. And the meaning of the verse, And they did eat bread,²⁵⁰Verse 54 here. is that Jacob made them a great feast, and not just a party, in order that they should tarry with him all night.

ויאכלו שם על הגל, “they ate there next to the heap of stones.” There, as a symbolic gesture cementing the conclusion of the covenant, something that was customary when any pact or alliance was concluded between two or more parties. The point was that both the parties involved ate from the same loaf of bread as a sign of friendship. Having partaken of that symbolic meal, they swore to one another to maintain that agreement and not to breach it. It is also possible that they had the meal described in verse 54 next to this monument to their reconciliation. In that event, the purpose of the collecting of stones may have been to erect tables and seating arrangements around which the meal would be consumed.

יגר שהדותא This is the Aramaic of גלעד.

He therefore called its name Galeid. He called it by the name that Yaakov had given it, but he explained it in his own way.

ויקרא, each party named the monument using their own language.

Es scheint, dass der Steinhügel, den die Genossen Labans zusammengetragen hatten, Galed, und Jakobs Denkstein Mizpa genannt wurde; jener stand östlich auf Labans Seite, dieser westlich auf Jakobs. Laban kommt auf dem Wege nach Kanaan zuerst an den Galed. Jakob hatte aber nicht erst an dem Gal-Ed, sondern bereits an der Mazeba, die er zuerst passiert, sich des hier Besprochenen zu erinnern. (Siehe Raw Hirsch on Genesis 31: 52.)

גלעד — is really two words — גל עד heap of testimony.

יגר שהדותא, the Hebrew approximation is found in Jeremiah 51,37 והיתה בבל לגלים, “Babylon will then become a heap of stones.”

AND LABAN SAID, THIS STONE-HEAP IS A WITNESS. After Jacob had called it Galed,²⁵²Verse 47 here. Laban spoke in Jacob’s language, This stone-heap is a witness, and therefore its name was called Galed, for they mutually agreed upon this name. It may be that Laban’s words are translated into the Sacred Language, [but he himself did not use the term Galed].

ויאמר לבן הגל הזה עד, he humbled himself to refer to it in Hebrew, Yaakov’s language, after having named it in Aramaic first. He meant that the pile of stones would serve as a witness to what he was about to say.

ויאמר, he made the statement following in his own language. Alternatively, he said all this in Hebrew as it is quite possible that Lavan knew Hebrew and when speaking with Yaakov used to speak to him in Hebrew.

ויאמר לבן הגל הזה עד, “Lavan said: “this pile of stones will be witness.” After Yaakov had named this pile of stones “Gilad,” (a pile of stones that is testimony), Lavan adopted Hebrew for the sake of confirming the agreement, seeing that they were able to agree on a mutually acceptable name for the monument in question. Alternatively, the Torah renders what Lavan said in Aramaic in Hebrew for the sake of the readers who do not understand Aramaic.

על כן קרא שמו, Yaakov named the monument Galed, meaning that the heap of stones should be a witness between himself [and the Torah mentions that this had been his intention already before the thought was articulated. Paraphrased by me. Ed.]

והמצפה אשר אמר AND MIZPAH (literally, the Mizpah); BECAUSE HE SAID etc . — The word והמצפה and the Mizpah must refer to some well-known place bearing this name (for there are several places named Mizpah) it refers to the Mizpah which is in Mount Gilead — as it is written (Judges 11:29) “and he passed over Mizpah of Gilead”. Why was it also called Mizpah? Because each of them said to the other, “The Lord watch (יצף) between me and thee that thou shouldst not violate this covenant”.

AND MITZPAH. Rashi comments that the meaning of the verse is: “And the Mitzpah which is on Mount Gilead, as it is written, And he passed over Mitzpah of Gilead.²⁵³Judges 11:29. Why was it called Mitzpah? Because each of them said to the other, The Eternal ‘yitzeph’ (watch).” And if so, Mitzpah is the name of a high place on top of the mountain. In my opinion, however, Mitzpah is the stone which Jacob set up for a pillar²⁵⁴Verse 45 here. and is connected with the above verse: Therefore was the name of it called Galed,²⁵⁵Verse 48 here. and he also called it the Mitzpah because he said, The Eternal watch between me and thee. It is possible that this stone is Mitzpah of Gilead,²⁵³Judges 11:29. for the place was always called by the name of this stone.

והמצפה, this lookout is referred to in Judges 11,29.

והמצפה also the name מצפה itself was to serve as a witness. This was because immediately prior Lavan had said יצף ה' ביני ובינך, “may G’d watch between me and you.”

והמצפה, this was the monument he had previously called מצפה, as he had erected it on an elevated spot to serve as a lookout point. Another reason why Yaakov had chosen this name was יצף ה' ביני וביניך, that he had invoked G’d’s benevolent intervention based on their truce. Lavan called it something corresponding in the Aramaic language.

והמצפה אשר אמר, “he also called it mitzpah, (lookout) as he said.” According to Rashi this mountain which appears by that name in Judges 11,29, got its name from the fact that that both Yaakov and Lavan had said to the other that G’d would look down upon this monument to ensure that neither party would breach the agreement. Nachmanides, on the other hand, claims that if Rashi were correct there must have been a high platform on top of this pile of stones. In view of the unlikelihood of this, he believes that our verse is a continuation of verse 47, which had been interrupted by Lavan in verse 48. The words ויעקב קרא לו גלעד והמצפה על כן, must be read as a single sequence, i.e. Yaakov called the pile of stones “Gilad” as well as “hamitzpah.” The reason he did so was because he invited G’d to supervise the agreement which had been sealed between him and Lavan, and to protect him against any attempt to violate that agreement. Ibn Ezra writes that the words אשר אמר, (verse 49) refer back to Lavan, so that the meaning of the line is: “Yaakov called the pile “Mitzpah” because Lavan had said to him: “may G’d look upon (יצף) this monument, etc.”

והמצפה אשר אמר, “as to the watchtower he spoke of;” this line is a continuation of the word קרא in verse 48. The Torah explains the reason for the tower being called מצפה, “lookout, or watchtower.”

This Mitzpah is the one on Mount Gilad. Rashi means as follows: Why is Mount Gilad called Mitzpah, as seen from the verse in Shoftim 11:29, which mentions Mitzpah? [The answer is:] The verse itself explains that Gilad is called also Mitzpah because they said to one another, “May Hashem watch (יצף)...”

כי נסתר WHEN WE ARE ABSENT, and shall not see (be able to watch) one another.

יצף, from that location. Compare Ezekiel 3,17 where the word צופה is a noun, “sentinel.” The relative construction between יצף and צופה is parallel to Genesis 1,22 ירב בארץ and פרה ורבה in Genesis 35,11.

אשר אמר, previously.

כי נסתר, when they would live apart and not see each other so that neither would be aware of the other keeping to the terms of the agreement, G’d would be the witness between the two.

בנתי....בנתי The word is written twice, referring once to Leah and Rachel and the second time to the handmaids, because Bilhah and Zilpah were also his daughters from a concubine (Genesis Rabbah 74:13).

ראה אלוקים עד, look that G’d will punish you if you do not treat my daughters properly, seeing He is a witness The whole line may be understood as analogous to Leviticus 5,21, ומעלה מעל בה', where the trespass against G’d is considered as something that only G’d is aware of, there being no human witnesses at hand to testify against the sinner. G’d is always the third party when two people have a disagreement, seeing He knows the true facts of the situation.

אם תענה את בנותי, if you will deprive them of any of their needs, the ones stipulated as the obligation of a husband towards his wives, or even if you do not treat them with the respect due to them. According to our sages in Yuma 77 the words אם תענה refer to denial of marital relations, whereas the words אם תקח, refer to Yaaov marrying additional wives, competitors to the existing ones.

אם תענה את בנותי, “if you were to maltreat my daughters;” Lavan refers to the possibility of Yaakov forcing marital intercourse on his daughters against their will. If he were to argue that in the event of their refusing him he would marry additional wives, he would consider this as if his daughters had been denied their legitimate entitlement to their marital rights.

אם תענה את בנתי IF THOU SHALT AFFLICT MY DAUGHTERS by refusing them thy companionship (Yoma 77b).

אין איש עמנו, a peculiar statement seeing there were plenty of people present at the time. What Lavan meant was that there would be a time when none of the people who now witnessed the covenant would be available to testify if a dispute concerning whether its terms had been kept erupted. Now that Yaakov returned home there was no one to remind him or even to report on observance or non-observance of the terms of the covenant. This is why Lavan invoked G’d as being the witness if the terms of the covenant were broken. He was to be the guarantor. [It is interesting to observe that in spite of Lavan being an idolater he always accepted that the G’d of Avraham was the One to Whom Yaakov owed allegiance, and according to Whose rules Yaakov had to conduct himself. This was not hypocrisy on his part. Ed.]

אין איש עמנו, even though this understanding is private, not having been confirmed by witnesses, he calls upon G-d as his witness it.

יריתי I HAVE SET UP (by casting stones down); the word has the same meaning as (Exodus 15:4) “He cast (ירה) into the sea”. Laban speaks like a person who casts (יורה) one arrow (Midrash Rabbah has “one spear”) and boasts of his prowess.

יריתי, “I erected.” Yaakov erected it at the suggestion of Lavan. The verb ירה occurs in a similar meaning in Exodus 15,4 ירה בים. [a very unusual translation. Ed.]

ויאמר...אשר יריתי ביני וביניך, the words להיותם עד, “to serve as witness” are presumed to be part of this verse. It is also possible that the line as it is written means “shall be between me and you,” as a warning not to trespass, i.e. violate any of the conditions agreed to. Crossing the boundary established for aggressive purposes was outlawed by mutual agreement. Lavan added the words אשר יריתי, “which I have set up,” to emphasise that although Yaakov had in fact erected this pile of stones, this was a joint undertaking and obligated both of them to keep the peace. After all, he, Lavan had first broached the subject of entering into a covenant. This meant that when Yaakov had erected the pile and the monument he had done so at the initiative and suggestion of Lavan, making it a joint enterprise. We have already explained on verse 46 that in fact Lavan’s sons and brothers had collected the rocks which later formed the גל, the heap. [I believe that seeing they had no mortar the monument was called a גל, suggesting that it was not as permanent as a wall with its stones held in place by mortar. Ed.] The meaning of the words אשר יריתי could be: “at my instruction.” We have such a meaning of the root in Job 27,11 אורה אתכם ביד א-ל,”I will teach you what is in G’d’s power.”

אם אני THAT I WILL NOT — Here the word אם is used in the sense of אשר “that”, as (Genesis 24:33) “until that (אם) I have spoken my words”.

עד...אם אני, the expression אם אני and אם אתה in this verse must be understood as if the Torah had written שאני and שאתה, “that I,“ “that you.” We find the word אם used in that sense in Genesis 24,19 עד אם כלו לשתות, “until they have finished drinking,” as we pointed out there.

עד הגל הזה, “this pile of stones is a witness, etc.” This is why Bileam (re-incarnate of Lavan) had his foot squeezed against the wall by the she-ass when he was on the way to curse the descendants of Yaakov, the “wall” described in Numbers The “wall” is a euphemism for this pile of stones, Bileam, being the re-incarnate of Lavan. [this may account for the fact that when Bileam arrived at Balak he was limping. Ed.]

עד הגל הזה ועדה המצבה, “both the mound and the monument are to serve as witness, etc.” After Lavan had already said in verse 50 that G’d is a witness, etc., why did Lavan have to repeat here “This mound or monument is a witness?” Lavan did so only in order to make both heaven and earth his witness. We find that the prophet Samuel did something similar when he made the Jewish people take an oath (Samuel I 12,5 and again in verse 6 of that chapter) when he said to them: “the Lord is witness and His anointed is witness, etc.”

Here אם is used to mean “that”... I.e., אם [in its usual meaning of “if”] implies uncertainty. But here it cannot be explained so. Thus Rashi explains, “Here, אם is used to mean ‘that’.” It comes in place of [the prefix] ש, as if it said ועדה המצבה שאני לא אעבור.

עד הגל הזה, “this stone heap (plus the monument mentioned in the same verse) is to serve as two witnesses;” they fastened a sword to this monument as a symbol; this is why Bileam was struck both by a sword as well as by becoming lame, when his leg was squeezed against a stonewall by his she-ass, Numbers 22,25. Bileam is identified as Lavan, same as kushan rishatayim (according to the Zohar on Chayey Sarah page 126.) We find something similar in the case of a young man who became betrothed to a young lady and swore an oath to her not to marry another woman in addition to her. As proof of his sincerity he gave her a polecat and a cistern After a year, he married another woman who bore him two children. One of his children was fatally injured by a polecat, the other drowned in a cistern. In other words, each one of his children was killed by one of his witnesses to the oath he had broken. (Compare Talmud, tractate Taanit, folio 8, and Rashi’s commentary on that paragraph.) We can also find an allusion to this in the wording of Deuteronomy 17,7: יד העדים תהיה בו בראשונה, “the hand of the witnesses shall be the first upon him, etc.”

אם אני לא אעבור עליך, “I will not cross this stonepile with hostile intent against you. Lavan undertakes not to join anyone bent on attacking Yaakov in return for Yaakov’s promise not to do this in the event that he will be attacked.

לרעה FOR EVIL — For evil you may not pass, but for trading purposes (as e. g., with a caravan) you may pass (Genesis Rabbah 74:16).

אני, the word is spelled with the vowel kametz although it does not signify a comma or other interruption of the subject matter under discussion. It is to be understood as in Psalms 89,28 in אף אני-בכור אתנהו, “I will even consider him as a firstborn.” The long vowel kametz lends emphasis to the word. So it does in our verse, and so it does in Genesis 27,34 ברכני גן אני אבי, “bless me also father!” Esau pleaded: “I too need a blessing.”

אם אני לא אעבור אליך את הגל הזה ואם אתה לא תעבור אלי את הגל הזה ואת המצבה הזאת לרעה. “that I will not pass this pile of stones and neither will you pass this monument with hostile intent.” According to Ibn Ezra the words את הגל הזה are not to be taken literally, but are a symbol for the agreement confirmed by both Yaakov and Lavan when they erected the pile of stones and ate a sacrificial meal together to seal the covenant. The word אם here has the same meaning as the word אשר, “that.” The word תעבור, too, does not refer to walking past an imaginary line, but is a euphemism for action, i.e. hostile action. Other commentators see in the verse a mutual promise to cross this symbolic boundary in order to come to the assistance of the other party when this is called for. It is a boundary only to prevent hostile invasion of the other party’s realm. Still other commentators believe that Lavan did not want to say something offensive, negative, hence he couched it in a manner that describes it as an inactivity, although the final word לרעה strictly speaking, only makes sense if the opening words had been אם אעבור, instead of to אם לא אעבור. Still another opinion understands the negative opening as a hint that Lavan agrees that when either one of them is in difficulties which the other party can save him from, that in such a situation it is, of course, in order to cross this new boundary between their respective realms. This would be in line with other agreements called ברית, alliance, when either party promises the other to assist them when the need arises.

ואת המצבה הזאת, which you have erected as a witness and sign of the covenant between you and me. Yaakov had erected the monument, whereas both had he and Lavan had combined to set up the pile of stones described as גל. This is why he mentioned the מצבה when saying to Yaakov ואם אתה, we must wonder altogether that Lavan was now prepared to make his peace with Yaakov, having obtained nothing in return for his pursuit. The fact is that although he had boasted that he possessed the power to harm Yaakov, he had realised that Yaakov’s G’d not only had assisted him in the past, but had given him, Lavan personally, notice not even to harass Yaakov. This is why now he begged for a peace agreement, as had Avimelech when be asked for such an agreement from Yitzchok after first having expelled him from Gerar. Avimelech had also acknowledged in front of his general that they had convinced themselves that G’d was on the side of Yitzchok (26,28)

אלהי אברהם GOD OF ABRAHAM — Here the word אלהים is holy (i.e. it is the Divine Name). (Genesis Rabbah 74:17)

אלוהי אביהם, Lavan meant that Yaakov could not take offence at Lavan pairing Nachor’s god and Yaakov’s G’d in a single expression. He had chosen Nachor to underline that Nachor’s god was also the god of Terach, who was the father of both Avraham and Nachor.

אלוקי אברהם ואלהי נחור, the first word “elo-hey” is sacred, the second is profane and may therefore be erased, seeing that Nachor had been an idolater. Lavan himself also believed in the gods of his grandfather Nachor. Neither Yitzchok nor Betuel have been mentioned here, seeing they were well known, famous even.

אלוקי אברהם ואלוקי נחור ישפטו בינינו, “the God of Avraham and the gods of Nachor may judge who between us is righteous.” We have to understand this verse as each of the two parties saying what he said as applicable only to the deity that he worshipped. Yaakov certainly did not accord the gods of Nachor legitimacy by considering them as fit to judge anything. Each of the parties mentioned the deity worshipped by their respective grandfathers, something Yaakov also did when he swore in the name of Avraham, who was his grandfather. This was a courtesy, Yaakov actually only swearing by the G’d of his father, i.e. בפחד אביו יצחק.

אלוהי אביהם, “the gods of their father.” The meaning of this verse may be: “the respective gods of Terach the father of both Avraham and Nachor.”

ישפטו בינינו, “will judge between us;” who of us is at fault.he will be attacked.

אלהי נחור THE GOD OF NAHOR — Here the name is non-holy (i.e. it is a designation for an idol) (Genesis Rabbah 74:17).

וישבע יעקב בפחד אביו יצחק. He chose someone who was not the son of Terach to make certain it was understood that his oath was only to the G’d of Yitzchok. Only this G’d was entitled to judge him.

אלוהי אביהם, here too the word “elohey” is profane and may be erased from a Torah scroll if the occasion demands it. Whenever an expression denoting G’d includes idols, even if as something minor, the word is treated as profane. What was meant here are the respective gods of Yaakov’s father and Lavan’s father, each one in accordance with his religious convictions. Yaakov, when rendering his oath, swore by פחד יצחק, the G’d that Yitzchok had been in awe of when he was prepared to be slaughtered by his father. (as we explained on verse 42)

אלוקי אביהם, “the gods of their father.” The word for deity in this verse may be understood as sacred when referring to Yaakov’s deity, or secular when referring to Lavan’s deities. (based on B’reshit Rabbah 74,14.)

אלהי אביהם THE GOD OF THEIR FATHER — Here the name is non-holy (Genesis Rabbah 74:17).

וישבע יעקב בפחד אביו, “Yaakov swore by his father’s G-d; Yaakov was unwilling to refer to his G-d after Lavan had already mentioned his own deities as part of the same reciprocal oath, as he would have considered it as blasphemy; this is why he used a pseudonym, i.e. pachad, when referring to his father’s G-d. We find numerous examples of such kinnuyim, pseudonyms, being used in the Talmud when the sages wanted to avoid having to profane the holy name of G-d by using it unnecessarily. Onkelos also renders it literally, to avoid using the name of G-d when Yaakov had made a strenuous effort to avoid same. An alternate exegesis: he wished to remind Lavan of the fright that had overcome Yitzchok when he had become aware that but for the intervention of Rivkah and himself he had almost bestowed the power to bless on wicked Esau, and thus become guilty of risking losing his share in the world to come. (27,33)

ויזבח יעקב זבח AND JACOB OFFERED A SACRIFICE — he slaughtered cattle for the feast

ויקרא לאחיו, of Lavan. There was no need to invite Lavan himself seeing he was like a father to Yaakov’s children.

ויזבח, he prepared a festive meal so that they would eat together before taking leave of each other. This was in honour of the covenant just concluded.

For his friends who were with Lavan. Here Rashi does not explain “his brethren” as “his sons” as he did on v. 46, “Yaakov said to his brethren,” because here he would not make a feast for his sons. [You might ask:] Why did Rashi not explain there as he does here? The answer is: There Yaakov issued a command and said, “Gather stones.” He would say so only to those under his authority. Therefore Rashi explained it there as “his sons.”

Jetzt bereitete Jaakob ein Mahl auf seinem Berge. Das אהיו kann wieder nichts anderes, als Labans Genossen bedeuten.

לאחיו HIS BRETHREN — those of his friends who were with Laban (cf Targum Jonathan)

לאחיו, Lavan and the men with him. Now that they had concluded a peace treaty they considered themselves all as brothers.

Food, in general, is called bread... Rashi is answering the question: Why does it not say, “To eat meat,” as he slaughtered animals for them?

לאכל לחם TO EAT BREAD — Any article of food is termed לחם bread, as (Daniel 5:1) “made a great feast (לחם רב)”, and (Jeremiah 11:19) “Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof (בלחמו)".