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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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