“Jacob took all that belonged to our father.” Later they said “and from what belonged to our father he made all this wealth.” The word from what implies only a portion and not everything, thus their statements seem to contradict each other. Moreover, it is difficult to understand how they could speak such an obvious falsehood — did Jacob really take everything that belonged to their father, leaving him with nothing? After all, Laban still had sheep, cattle, and tents! The explanation of these matters is as follows: Initially, they weren’t speaking about physical possessions at all, but rather about the schemes and matters of deception in which their father was more expert and knowledgeable than anyone else in the world. He was able to deceive others, but others could not deceive him. Jacob learned all of Laban’s deceptive ways until even Laban himself couldn’t stand against him, for Jacob outmaneuvered Laban. Regarding this they said Jacob took all that belonged to our father — meaning he acquired all his methods of deception. When speaking about the actual wealth, they said and from what belonged to our father he made all this glory/wealth.

If he would say, “The speckled ones shall be your wages,” etc. The text should have said “if he said” [in past tense], because if he would say implies the future. It appears that this relates to what [Jacob] said and God did not allow him to harm me, because he had already seen in his dream I have seen all that Laban is doing to you, etc. Therefore he said if he would say referring to the future, because obviously during the time of placing the rods, spotted and speckled ones would be born. Rather, even in the future when I won’t place the rods, nevertheless everything will be according to his condition — that if he says the speckled shall be your wages, they will all birth speckled ones, because I was thus promised in the dream from the Almighty, since God saw my affliction and all that Laban was doing to me. For when I said remove from there every speckled and spotted sheep, my intention was to say that there should be two flocks close to each other, and if the females would go to the flock of speckled and spotted ones, it would be due to my fortune, and if they would become pregnant in their [Laban’s] flock, it would be due to his fortune. Presumably Laban would agree to this because it’s more likely they would become pregnant in their own flock than go to another flock. But Laban distanced them by a three days’ journey in such a way that it would be impossible for the females to go to that [other] flock, so that Jacob would leave empty-handed. Therefore, he needed to do the matter with the rods, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, agreed with his method, indicating that even without placing the rods, it would be so in the future.

In the book Toldot Yitzchak, he explained that the reason it states if he would say thus is because Laban saw that everything Jacob desired, God fulfilled and agreed to. Therefore, he thought to devise a scheme against God’s will, which was to initially stipulate spotted ones [as Jacob’s wages], and when spotted ones would be conceived, he would then change the agreement to speckled ones, since the spotted ones had already been conceived. However, the Holy One, Blessed be He, knew what was in Laban’s heart — that this is what he would say after they were conceived — and so God caused them to be conceived with the appearance that Laban would specify in the future at the time of conception, saying “this is the appearance I desire.” This is why it states if he would say thus in the future tense.

From good until bad. The phrase from good until bad refers to matters that can be interpreted in two ways. According to this interpretation, [God] prohibited Laban from three types of communication with Jacob: First, He forbade him from speaking good— meaning pleasant and comforting words — because the goodwill of the wicked is harmful to the righteous. This is because the wicked person’s heart ultimately intends to harm the righteous, and when he speaks kindly, his words are certainly mere flattery, intended to prevent the righteous person from being cautious and guarding against him. It is obvious that one should not engage in such speech, as it can lead to harm. Furthermore, even regarding ambiguous speech that can be interpreted in two ways, one might have thought it would be permitted to speak to him in this manner, and he should simply be mindful and suspicious [of the implications]. Therefore, the word “until” comes to teach that it is forbidden to mislead him with words. Not only are these two types of speech forbidden because they could cause the righteous person to stumble, but even regarding completely negative speech, one might have thought it would be permitted to threaten him with harsh words so that he would be cautious and guard himself, reasoning “if he is not careful, at least I have saved myself.” Therefore, the word bad comes to teach us that you must not threaten him or do him any harm.

And with this they resolve [the apparent contradiction]: Regarding what was said subsequently and you shall not cross over this mound to me for evil — which implies that for good purposes you may cross over. However, in contrast, Laban said if I do not cross over to you this mound — which implies that under no circumstances would he cross over, even for good purposes. This is because “my goodness is not upon you,” as already last night God told me Beware of speaking with Jacob of good — from which we can deduce that He does not desire my goodness, for I am suspected in His eyes that all my “goodness” toward you is [actually] for evil. And he said if I do not cross over to you this mound — even if I do not also cross the pillar, but you shall not cross over to me the mound and the pillar for evil. This implies that [crossing] the mound alone without crossing the pillar is permitted even for evil purposes, because in the meantime Jacob would certainly regret the evil [intent], which is not the case with Laban. And this explanation is correct.

“These twenty years to me in your house.” Earlier he said These twenty years I have been with you, and did not mention the word “li” [to me], and also said with you instead of in your house. Because in truth, Jacob was not in Laban’s house except for one month, as it is said and he stayed with him for a month of days, meaning he only dwelt with him in his house for a month of days. But during all the other times, he was dwelling in fields and tents to shepherd Laban’s flock and was not in Laban’s house, as he said I was consumed by heat in the day and frost by night. Therefore he said these twenty years I have been with you but not “in your house.” Nevertheless, even this month of days that he dwelt in the house of this wicked deceiver did not feel like just a few days to him, but rather like a long time because they were days of suffering, which appear as many days. And he said “Woe to me that I dwelled for such a long time with this wicked person,” even though it was brief, to me [li] — meaning in my eyes it weighs as if I had been in his house for all 20 years. Therefore he said these twenty years li [to me] in your house — in truth it wasn’t 20 years but only one month, but to me this month weighs as 20 years, not like my mother said and you shall dwell with him a few days, for perhaps my mother didn’t know the extent of his wickedness, but my heart knows the bitterness of his soul and how much suffering I endured while being with you in your house proper.

Another interpretation: Initially, Jacob mentioned all that he had done with him [Laban], how he had acted with him in faithfulness, and afterward he mentioned all that Laban had done to him. Therefore, he first said These twenty years I have been with you, meaning “I acted with you in faithfulness, I did not bring you torn animals, etc.” And this entire account speaks of Jacob’s faithfulness. Afterward, he said to him, “Look, in contrast to this, what you did to me,” saying These twenty years for me in your house — see what you did to me. Indeed, I served you fourteen years for your two daughters and six years for your flocks, and through all this you changed my wages ten times, and you did not treat me according to my deeds. This explains well why he first mentioned with you and afterward said for me — and this is a precious explanation.

“If not for the God of my father, the God of Abraham, and the Fear of Isaac had been with me.” He [Jacob] said that regarding Abraham my grandfather, even though he had already died and you did not fear him directly, nevertheless his God exists forever, and from Him you feared lest He demand my blood from your hand if you would do me any harm or send me away empty-handed from all my labor. But Isaac my father, who is still alive, you feared him, for the Fear of Isaac means that you were afraid of him because he is a prince and his name is great among the nations. From him you feared to do me harm or to send me away completely empty-handed, lest he demand retribution for my insult from your hand. And if not for these two factors, then you would have sent me away empty-handed. And if you would say, “Who can prove that perhaps you did all this from the uprightness of your heart and not from fear?” To this he said, “Last night proves it,” meaning last night proves that it is as I say, for you yourself said It is in my power to do you harm, but the God of your father spoke to me last night, etc. From this we can deduce that it was from fear that you refrained from harming me, and not from love.

And regarding what it says “and he swore by the Fear of his father Isaac”: Abarbanel wrote that he [Jacob] swore by the Binding of Isaac, as one would swear by a commandment. Similarly wrote the Toledot Yitzchak. And according to our interpretation, he swore by the reverence of his father, as this was a commandment dear to him — meaning he swore by the commandment of revering one’s father. And specifically by this commandment because he was now hurrying to go to his father’s house to fulfill this commandment, therefore he mentioned this commandment and swore by it.