THE WORDS OF LABAN’S SONS. Laban had sons as Scripture explicitly tells us, and (Laban) gave them into the hand of his sons (Gen. 30:35).¹

footnotes: ¹ See I.E.’s comment on Gen. 30:35.

YOUR FATHER’S COUNTENANCE. I can tell by looking at your father’s countenance that he is not (ennenu) toward me as beforetime.² (countenance) is a plural. The word enennu can be translated: he is not or it is not. If enennu is connected to pene the Bible should have employed enam, which is a plural, rather than enennu which is a singular. Hence enennu cannot refer to pene. It is rather connected to avikhen (your father) (Filwarg, Cherez). The verse is thus to be rendered: I see by your father’s countenance that he is not toward me as beforetime. On the other hand, enennu (he is not) may refer to countenance (pene).³ Compare, The anger (pene) of the Lord hath divided them (chillekam) (Lam. 4:16).⁴, a plural, connected to a singular. In this verse the verb pertaining to pene, chillekam (hath divided them) is in the singular. We thus see that while pene is a plural, it can be treated as a singular (Filwarg, Cherez). Hence enennu can refer to face. Weiser explains that pene is not really treated as a singular. It is a plural but a singular follows it for emphasis.

footnotes: ² The verse reads: Ro-eh anokhi et pene avichen ki enennu elai kitmol shilshom. Pene ³ In this case the meaning of the verse is: I see your father’s countenance that it (the countenance) is not toward me as beforetime. ⁴ Where we find pene

HATH MOCKED ME. Hetel is irregular in that it lacks a dagesh.⁵ should have been placed in the tav. According to I.E. hetel is a pi’el. The middle root letter of a pi’el perfect receives a dagesh, and the first root letter is vocalized with a chirik. Thus “mocked” should have been vocalized hittel. Hence hetel is irregular (Filwarg). It should have a dagesh like the word va-yehattel (and he mocked) in that Elijah mocked (va-yehattel) them (I Kings 18:27).⁶ is a pi’el, has a dagesh and follows the normal pi’el paradigm. The meaning of hetel is mocked.⁷

footnotes: ⁵ A dagesh ⁶ Va-yehattel ⁷ It means to mock by deceiving.

TEN TIMES. The word monin (times) is akin to the word meneh (number) in Go number (meneh) the people (II Sam. 24:1).⁸. This is either a scribal error in the text of I.E., or it indicates that the author quoted verses from memory. The meaning of our verse is: your father deceived me ten times. Or ten signifies many times.⁹

footnotes: ⁸ There is no such verse in the Bible. The reference is obviously to II Sam. 24:1. The text there reads, Go, number Israel and Judah ⁹ Cohen. Ten is a round number (Friedlander).

From the statement, The streaked shall be thy wages, it is clear that Laban changed Jacob’s hire so that it was limited only to streaked goats.¹⁰ At other times Laban limited Jacob’s hire to speckled goats.

footnotes: ¹⁰ Jacob’s wages were to consist of speckled, spotted and streaked goats. Laban, as this verse indicates, changed his original conditions and gave Jacob only one of this kind rather than all three.

THUS GOD HATH TAKEN AWAY. Va-yatzel (hath taken away) is similar in meaning to va-yenatzelu (and they despoiled) in And they despoiled (va-yenatzelu) the Egyptians (Ex. 12:36).¹¹ and it connotes taking what rightfully belongs to one. In Ex. 12:36 it is in the pi’el (the intensive) and it means to take highhandedly, to despoil (Weiser). Both (va-yatzel and va-yenatzelu) come from the same root as hatzileni (deliver me)¹². (Gen. 32:12), although in the latter case the meaning of the word is a bit different from the first two examples.¹³ What Jacob told his wives was also true.¹⁴ Jacob dreamed that God would aid him so that his sheep would increase and be strong even without the use of the peeled sticks.¹⁵

footnotes: ¹¹ They both mean to take. However, there is a difference in nuance between them. In our verse the word is in the hifil ¹² The root being nun, tzadi, lamed ¹³ Here it means to save from death, take away from danger, to deliver. ¹⁴ Not only is what Jacob reported concerning Laban’s cheating true, but the report of the dream is also true. The Bible often omits events in a narrative but later reports what has been omitted in its recapitulation of the events (Weiser). ¹⁵ At those times God saw to it that the goats were born strong, streaked, speckled and spotted.

I AM THE GOD OF BETH-EL. Its meaning is: I am the God, God of Beth-el.¹⁶ has the definite article prefixed to it, it cannot be in the construct with Beth-el. Hence what we are dealing with is an abridged phrase. See notes to I.E.’s comment on Gen. 2:9. The same is the case with and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:9), which is to be interpreted as if written: and the tree of the knowledge, knowledge of good and evil.¹⁷

footnotes: ¹⁶ A word with the definite article prefixed to it cannot be in the construct. Since ha-el ¹⁷ See I.E.’s comments on Gen. 2:9.

FOR HE HATH SOLD US. It is as if he sold us¹⁸ in that he did not do with us what a father normally does with his daughters. What he did was to say to you, “Guard my flock and take my daughters as your hire.”

footnotes: ¹⁸ Laban did not actually sell them, hence I.E.’s comment.

HE HAD GATHERED. Rakhash (he had gathered) comes from the same root as rekhush (substance).¹⁹ is a denominative of rekhush (Weiser).

footnotes: ¹⁹ Rakhash

NOW LABAN WAS GONE TO SHEAR HIS SHEEP. That were in the care of his sons who were three days journey away, as is reported by Scripture (Gen. 30:35, 36). Hence, it was told Laban on the third day that Jacob was fled (v. 22).²⁰

footnotes: ²⁰ I.E’s point is that since Laban was three days journey from Jacob, it took that long for him to learn that Jacob had fled.

THE TERAPHIM. Some say that the teraphim are copper objects used to tell time.²¹ Others say that astrologers have the power to make an image that speaks at certain times.²². 38 reads: to make an image of certain known stars, and this image speaks. They offer proof from For the teraphim have spoken vanity (Zech. 10:2).²³ However, this is not the meaning of the aforementioned verse.²⁴ I believe that the teraphim are human images made to draw power from above.²⁵ I am not permitted to explain this any further.²⁶ Proof that the teraphim are human forms can be found in the teraphim which Michal, the daughter of Saul, placed in David’s bed thereby fooling the guards into thinking that the teraphim were really David.²⁷ As to the verse which states, For the children of Israel shall sit solitary many days without king, and without prince, and without sacrifice, and without pillar, and without ephod or teraphim (Hos. 3:4),²⁸ it can be explained in two ways. One, the prophet says, Israel shall be without king, and without prince because God chose only members of the Davidic family to be kings over Israel. Therefore the verse which follows says, afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king (v. 5). The verse continues, and without sacrifice, and without pillar; this refers to sacrifices and pillars to the idols. In a similar manner, and without ephod also refers to idolatry, because the worshippers of Baal made an imitation of the ephod that Moses made.²⁹ means neither the worship of God nor idolatry. Hence Scripture reads ephod and not “the ephod” as in Bring hither the ephod (I Sam. 23:9).³⁰ ephod. The ephod, with the definite article prefixed to it, is the ephod made by Moses. Therefore an ephod in his hand (Ibid. v. 6) does not refer to the ephod made by Moses. I will explain the ephod and offer irrefutable proofs for my interpretation concerning it in the proper place if God will be kind to me and grant me life.³¹ The second interpretation is that and without ephod or teraphim means, they will neither serve God (without ephod) nor idols (or teraphim).³² That teraphim are idols can be ascertained by Laban’s referring to them as gods (v. 30).³³ to God, and without pillar to Baal, and without ephod to God or teraphim to Baal. Some say that Rachel stole the teraphim in order to keep her father from idolatry.³⁴ If this were the case, why did she take them with her and not bury them on the way?³⁵ The most likely reason that Rachel stole the teraphim was that Laban, her father, was an astrologer, and Rachel feared that he would look at the stars and discover which way they fled.³⁶

footnotes: ²¹ A copper sun dial that was also used for divination (Weiser). ²² Vat. Ebr ²³ We thus see that the teraphim speak. ²⁴ The verse is not to be interpreted as meaning that the teraphim actually speak. It means that the signs they give are false. Speak is used figuratively, as in what do the cards say (cf. Krinsky). ²⁵ See I.E.’s comment on Ex. 20:20. ²⁶ Lest people learn to make them. ²⁷ Cf. I Sam. 19:13-17. ²⁸ This verse implies that there is nothing wrong with teraphim. Quite the contrary, it is juxtaposed with the ephod, a garment used in the service of the Lord. ²⁹ The two interpretations of Hos. 3:4 are: A. The verse deals with idol worship, hence the juxtaposition of ephod and teraphim. B. The verse deals both with the worship of God and with idolatry. According to the latter interpretation and without ephod or teraphim ³⁰ According to I.E. ephod means an ³¹ Cf. I.E.’s “long commentary” on Ex. 28:6. ³² According to this interpretation the ephod mentioned in Hos. 3:4 refers to the one used in the worship of the Lord. ³³ We thus see that the teraphim were used in idol worship although they were not originally made for that purpose. This validates I.E.’s interpretation that the teraphim refer to idol worship. In Hosea I.E. explains this second interpretation as follows: and without sacrifice ³⁴ Cf. Rashi. ³⁵ As Jacob did with the idols his children had on them. Cf. Gen. 35:2-4. ³⁶ The teraphim, which were in human form, drew powers from the stars and revealed hidden things to Laban. Krinsky and Weiser suggest that I.E. is of the opinion that the teraphim had images of stars on them and through them Laban could divine hidden things.

AND JACOB OUTWITTED LABAN. Jacob stole nothing from Laban save his “wits.” Scripture uses the term heart for wits because the heart is the seat of man’s intelligence.³⁷

footnotes: ³⁷ Verse 20 literally reads: And Jacob stole the heart of Laban the Aramean. I.E. points out that unlike Rachel, who stole the teraphim, Jacob stole only Laban’s heart; i.e., he fooled him.

AND GOD CAME TO LABAN THE ARAMEAN. This occurred before he overtook him (v. 23). Therefore its (v. 4) meaning is, and God had already come to Laban the Aramean. I have already pointed out many similar instances. ³⁸ means, and God had come to Laban…in a dream. God appeared to Laban out of respect for Jacob.³⁹

footnotes: ³⁸ Of the use of the pluperfect. See I.E.’s comments on Gen. 1:9. Would Laban spend the night doing nothing after overtaking Jacob, thereby give him a chance to escape? Thus we must assume that upon overtaking Jacob, he confronted him and that And God came to Laban…in a dream ³⁹ Laban was no prophet. It was only out of God’s regard for Jacob that He appeared to Laban.

EITHER GOOD OR BAD. Do not speak to Jacob about returning even if you think it is for his good.⁴⁰

footnotes: ⁴⁰ This is what Scripture means by good. Laban obviously spoke to Jacob. Indeed, Scripture records their conversation. What God meant was, do not try to convince him to return by threats, or by promises, even if the latter are sincere (Weiser).

AND LABAN WITH HIS BRETHREN PITCHED. Et echav is to be rendered: with his brethren.⁴¹ is the sign of the direct object Hence et echav means his brethren. The verse thus might conceivably be rendered: Laban pitched his brethren. However, this is impossible since pitched refers to tents, hence I.E. points out that et here is not the sign of the direct object but is to be rendered with.

footnotes: ⁴¹ Et

The word tent written in reference to Jacob also carries over to Laban.⁴² That is, now Jacob had pitched his tent in the mountain, and Laban pitched his tent with his brethren in the mountain of Gilead.

footnotes: ⁴² The object following pitched with reference to Laban is missing, hence I.E.’s comment.

NOW HAST THOU DONE FOOLISHLY. Aso (done) is an infinitive.⁴³ is asot. Aso is short for asot (Weiser), or the vav of aso takes the place of the tav (Cherez). It is in the construct⁴⁴ of aso is vocalized with a chataf pattach. This is the construct vocalization. Had it been in the absolute, it would have been vocalized with a kamatz (Weiser). with either this or so. However, they are missing.⁴⁵ or hiskalta asot ken. I.E. thus renders Now thou hast done foolishly as: thou hast acted foolishly in doing this (deed) or, thou hast acted foolishly in doing so.

footnotes: ⁴³ The infinitive of the root ayin, sin, heh ⁴⁴ The ayin ⁴⁵ The text is abridged. It should have read hiskalta asot zeh

IT IS IN THE POWER. El is to be rendered power. Compare, I am become as a man that hath no help (eyal) (Ps. 88:5).⁴⁶ (help) is rendered by I.E. as strength.

footnotes: ⁴⁶ Eyal

LONGEST. Nikhsof (longest) is an infinitive in the nifal. It is similar to nilchom (fight) in or did he ever fight (nilchom) against them (Jud. 11:25).

The word nikhsafta means thou longest. Yikhsof (eager) in He is like a lion that is eager (yikhsof) to tear in pieces (Ps. 17:12) is similar.

HE SHALL NOT LIVE. Because I will put him to death. Some say that this was a prayer⁴⁷ 56a; Sanhedrin 90b. and it was because of this utterance that Rachel died on the way.⁴⁸ is a quote from Gen. 48:7. If this be so, let them tell us who prayed and thus caused the death of Phinehas’ wife?⁴⁹

footnotes: ⁴⁷ Jacob prayed, “May God strike the one who stole the teraphim dead.” This interpretation is offered by Rashi. It is found in the Talmud, Berakhot ⁴⁸ In childbirth. In the way ⁴⁹ She, too, died in childbirth. Cf. I Sam. 4:19, 20.

AND LABAN WENT INTO JACOB’S TENT, AND INTO LEAH’S TENT, AND INTO THE TENT OF THE TWO MAID-SERVANTS. Both maid-servants shared one tent. Or it (v. 33) means into the tent of each one of the two maid-servants.⁵⁰ is short for: into the tent of each of the two maid-servants (Weiser). Afterward⁵¹ Laban entered Leah’s tent a second time. Proof of this is Scripture’s statement, And he went out of Leah’s tent. It is also possible that Jacob’s tent was between Leah’s and Rachel’s tents.⁵² However, it appears to me that the Bible tells us what happened in abridged form⁵³ and puts off the mention of Rachel’s tent for last. The sequence of events was as follows. Laban searched Jacob’s tent, then Leah’s tent, then Rachel’s tent and then the tent of the two maid-servants. The meaning of our verses (33 and 34) is that Laban searched Jacob’s tent, Leah’s tent and the tent of the two maid-servants and found nothing because there was nothing of his there. Scripture then tells us that when Laban went out of Leah’s tent and into Rachel’s tent where the teraphim had been, Rachel had by then taken them and put them in the saddle of the camel.⁵⁴

footnotes: ⁵⁰ And into the tent of the two maid-servants ⁵¹ After searching the tents of Jacob, Leah and the two maid-servants. ⁵² The question which I.E. deals with here is: Why did Laban search Rachel’s tent last? We would expect him to search her tent after that of Leah. I.E. suggests that Jacob’s tent was in the middle, between that of Rachel and Leah, and that to the side of Leah’s tent stood the tent (or tents) of the maid servants. After searching Jacob’s tent, Laban decided to search the tent of his older daughter first. Coming out of Leah’s tent he found the tent of the maid servants and searched it On his way back he stepped another time into Leah’s tent, found nothing there and proceeded to search Rachel’s tent He did not search Rachel’s tent after that of Leah because it was not next to it (Cherez). ⁵³ It omits telling us that the search of Rachel’s tent took place after the search of Leah’s tent. Scripture first tells us about those tents where Laban found nothing. It then tells us what happened when Laban searched Rachel’s tent. ⁵⁴ Scripture puts off telling what happened when he searched Rachel’s tent in order to be able to elaborate.

[IN THE SADDLE.] Some say that kar (saddle) is a kind of saddle cloth.⁵⁵ However, I believe that the term kar ha-gamal (saddle of the camel)⁵⁶ as a double word and that Scripture uses two words having the same meaning even though one word would suffice. See I.E.’s comment on Gen. 8:11 and the notes thereto. means a camel, as in Send ye the camel (kar) for the ruler of the land⁵⁷ is a noble and especially swift species of camel. Cf. I.E.’s comments on Is. 16:1; 66:20. (Is. 16:1); and u-va-kirkarot (and upon the camels) (Is. 66:20).⁵⁸ I further hold that the driver or rider of the kar (camel) is called the kari (II Kings 11:19). Rachel took the teraphim and put them in the place where the camel (kar ha-gamal) was kept.⁵⁹

footnotes: ⁵⁵ Weiser. ⁵⁶ I.E. explains kar ha-gamal ⁵⁷ Translated according to I.E. According to I.E. a kar ⁵⁸ Translated according to I.E. ⁵⁹ Rather than: And she put them in the saddle of the camel.

AND SAT UPON THEM. She was not in the tent.⁶⁰ to mean cushion, or saddle, is that the word kar is not so used in Scripture. It is only so used in Rabbinic literature (Cherez).

footnotes: ⁶⁰ She was not in her tent but rather where the camel was. The reason I.E. does not interpret kar

THAT THOU HAST HOTLY PURSUED. Dalakta means pursued. Yidlak in the poor is hotly pursued (yidlak) (Ps. 10:2) is similar.

I BORE THE LOSS OF IT. If any of the flock was torn by beasts, I bore the guilt⁶¹ (I bore the loss of it) is a denominative of chet (sin). Hence achatennah means I was guilty for it, the sin, was on me and I thus had to make it up and replace it. and I gave you its equivalent.

footnotes: ⁶¹ I.E. points out that achatennah

STOLEN BY DAY. The yod of genuveti (stolen) is superfluous. It is similar to the yod of mele’ati (full of) (Is. 1:21).⁶² has the same meaning as genuvat. Mele’ati has the same meaning as mele’at. The meaning of our verse is: whether stolen by day or by night,⁶³ (stolen by day and stolen by night). I.E. points out that the vav does not mean “and” but that it means “or” or “whether.” That is, it made no difference to you whether it was stolen during the day or night. of my hand didst thou require it.

footnotes: ⁶² Genuveti ⁶³ The Hebrew reads genuveti yom u-genuveti layelah

AND THE FEAR OF ISAAC. Isaac’s fear of the Lord aided me, for the merits of a father help his son.

[EMPTY.] The mem of rekam (empty) is not a root letter.⁶⁴. The word is a noun.⁶⁵ The Bible employs this form (rekam)⁶⁶ with the masculine,⁶⁷. feminine⁶⁸ and the plural.⁶⁹ The mems of omnam (verily, truly)⁷⁰ is alef, mem, nun. The final mem is not a root letter. and chinnam (for nothing, gratis) are similar.⁷¹, thus the final mem is not a root letter.

footnotes: ⁶⁴ Its root is resh yod kof ⁶⁵ It is an adverb, but I.E. included it among the nouns (Weiser). ⁶⁶ Hebrew nouns change according to gender and are written differently in the singular and the plural. However, since this word is an adverb, although I.E. classifies it as a noun, it is treated as an adverb. ⁶⁷ In our verse, rekam shillachtani ⁶⁸ Ruth 1:21. ⁶⁹ Ex. 23:15. ⁷⁰ II Kings 19:17, Job 34:12. The root of omnam ⁷¹ Gen. 29:15, Ex. 21:2, 11. Its root is chet, nun, nun

AND WHAT CAN I DO THIS DAY FOR THESE MY DAUGHTERS. Laban was being especially explicit.⁷² is unnecessary. The text should have read, for my daughters. The verse should be understood thus: and to these my daughters, what can I do to them?⁷³

footnotes: ⁷² These ⁷³ How could I think of doing harm to these my daughters. The Hebrew literally reads: And to my daughters, what can I do to these. Hence I.E.’s explanation as how the verse should be understood.

A PILLAR. Because he set it up.⁷⁴ because he set it up (hitziv otah) (Weiser). Cherez explains that a pillar is so called because it is set up.

footnotes: ⁷⁴ Jacob called the pillar a matzevah

A HEAP. A gal (heap) is so called because it is formed by rolling stones together.⁷⁵ (heap) comes from the verb galal (to roll) (Weiser). He also called it Mizpah.⁷⁶ (he called it) is feminine and cannot refer to gal (heap) which is masculine. It must therefore refer to matzevah (pillar) which is feminine. Weiser claims that I.E.’s comment was transposed from verse 49 by a scribe who mistakenly thought that it referred to the heap. What I.E. is saying is that the heap was called Galeed and the pillar Mizpah. Cherez claims that it refers to the place. He called the place by two names, Galeed and Mizpah (place here being treated as feminine).

footnotes: ⁷⁵ Hence the noun gal ⁷⁶ Cf. verse 49. Weiser points out that the suffix of kare’ah

[THE LORD WATCH.] The meaning of yitzef adonai is : the Lord will watch. I have appointed thee a watchman (tzofeh) (Ez. 3:17) is similar.

[WHEN WE ARE ABSENT.] Ki nissater (when we are absent) is to be read as if written: ki nissater anachnu.⁷⁷. I.E. says that this should be read as if written: ki nissater “anachnu” ish me-re’ehu. The reason for inserting anachnu is that the context requires a first person plural pronoun (anachnu) following nissater (a verb in the first person plural imperfect) since what follows (ish me-re’ehu) is in the third person. We will be distant one from another and will not be able to see each other. Nevertheless, God will see each one of us.

footnotes: ⁷⁷ The text reads: ki nissater ish me-re’ehu

[FOR HE SAID.] This refers to Laban. Jacob called it⁷⁸ Mizpah because Laban said to him, the Lord will watch, etc.⁷⁹ should be understood as follows: and Mizpah, i.e., Jacob called it (the stone) Mizpah because and he said, i.e., Laban said to him, the Lord watch, etc.

footnotes: ⁷⁸ The pillar (Weiser). According to Cherez, the place. ⁷⁹ And Mizpah for he said: The Lord…

IF THOU SHALT AFFLICT MY DAUGHTERS. Saadiah Gaon explains this to mean: if you will not cohabit with your wives.⁸⁰ 77b and Rashi. Now this is a strange rendition of afflict. Nowhere in Scripture does afflict have this connotation.⁸¹ What problem is there in interpreting the term according to its plain sense?⁸² Its meaning is: do not do anything evil to my daughters or force them to do things against their will.Jagar-sahadutha is Aramaic for Galeed.⁸³

footnotes: ⁸⁰ So also Yoma ⁸¹ It may mean to rape. Cf. Gen. 34:2. It is never used in the sense of withholding relations. ⁸² Causing pain. ⁸³ This comment has been misplaced. Its proper place is in verse 47 (Weiser).

WHICH I HAVE SET UP. Laban and his brethren.⁸⁴ (which in Hebrew means I have cast) refers to the heap of stones since the pillar was set up by Jacob alone (v. 45). Laban said, I have cast, because it was Laban and his brethren who made the heap, for we read, And they took stones and made a heap (v. 46). They cast stones and formed the heap. Yariti comes from the same root as yarah⁸⁵ and it means to cast. (cast) in hath He cast (yarah) into the sea (Ex. 15:4). He cast them into one place.⁸⁶

footnotes: ⁸⁴ I.E. explains that yariti ⁸⁵ Its root is yod, resh, heh ⁸⁶ I.E. is explaining what to cast a heap means. It means to cast many stones in one place until a heap is formed.

THAT I WILL NOT PASS OVER. The covenant made on this heap.⁸⁷ E’evor (pass over) in our verse has the meaning of violate,⁸⁸ means to pass over, hence to violate, to “pass over the law, or agreement.” The meaning of our verse thus is: that I will not violate the covenant made on this heap. as in they have transgressed (averu) the statute (Is. 24:5).⁸⁹ (they have violated the statue) is not found in the Bible. The reference is probably to Is. 24:5, they have transgressed the laws (averu torot), violated the statute (chalefu chok). For an explanation of the misquote, see above note 8.

footnotes: ⁸⁷ This heap thus means the covenant made on this heap. ⁸⁸ The root ayin, bet, resh ⁸⁹ Averu chok

[FOR HARM.] To do harm. Others say that it means, thou shalt not pass over this heap to harm me and I will not pass over this heap to harm thee.⁹⁰ has its primary meaning of to pass over, and heap does not mean the covenant made at the heap but rather the heap which will serve as a border.

footnotes: ⁹⁰ In this case the root ayin, bet, resh

[THE GOD OF THEIR FATHER.] Each one said: the God of our Father judge betwixt us.⁹¹. One might thus think that both took the same oath and swore by the same Deity. I.E. points out that this is not so. Nahor served idols; hence his god was an idol. However, Jacob referred to the God of Abraham and Laban to the god of Nahor, his grandfather who worshiped idols as is attested by Joshua.⁹². I.E., in his comments on Gen. 20:17 points out that they served refers to Terah and Nahor. We thus see that Nahor served idols.

footnotes: ⁹¹ The Bible says, The God of Abraham, and the God of Nahor, the God of their Father, judge betwixt us ⁹² Cf. Josh. 24:2, Your fathers dwelt of old time beyond the River, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nahor; and they served other gods

AND JACOB SWORE BY THE FEAR OF HIS FATHER. Fear of his father means the One whom his father feared. Others say that this alludes to the day when Jacob’s father Isaac was bound on the altar. The latter interpretation is not far-fetched.