The shepherds give the flocks to drink... Meaning: They would give them to drink [regularly]. Similarly with ונאספו and וגללו [in the next verse]; the future tense is used in place of the present tense, to convey that they would regularly gather and roll the stone.

Because the stone was large Rashi is explaining [how the phrases fit together, as logically they should be ordered differently.] When it said, “There were three flocks of sheep lying beside it,” it should have immediately explained why they were lying there, and say it was because “all the flocks would gather.” [And why would they gather? Because “there was a large stone.”] Therefore Rashi says on our verse, “Because...” He is explaining how, “There was a large stone over the mouth of the well,” [fits in with the other phrases].

Every expression in the present tense... in the future tense as well as in the past ... Why did Rashi not explain this before, on ישקו העדרים — “The shepherds give (משקים) the flocks to drink”? Furthermore, why did Rashi not bring the Targum there? [The answer is:] Here it is written וגללו (past tense) and the Targum is מגנדרין, present tense—while in v. 8, again it is written וגללו, and the Targum there is ויגנדרון, future tense! The [varying] Targum clearly shows that the verses are speaking in present tense. But the Targum of ישקו does not show this, as the word is not repeated. Before, it is written ישקו, and here it is written והשקינו. And so too all the other words are all different, except for וגללו.

Nevertheless, it is not yet time for the sheep to be gathered. Rashi is answering the question: Is not this point expressed backwards? Once Yaakov said, “The day is yet long,” Scripture does not need to write, “It is not yet time for the sheep to be gathered,” as it is obvious! Thus Rashi explains that Yaakov is making two points.

To give them drink because the stone is large. Rashi is explaining that they cannot roll it due to its weight, as Rashi said on v. 3, and not because they had so agreed among themselves.

As one removes a פקק from a bottle opening... This means a cover from a bottle. Rashi is saying that Yaakov did not roll the stone [with difficullty] as the shepherds did, but [he removed it] with ease. Rashi deduced this because it is written ויגל, “he revealed,” and not ויגלל (“he rolled”).

Because he foresaw... she would not be buried with him. There is a question on this explanation: If she would ask him, “Why are you crying?” he surely would not mention her death to her. What would he answer? Therefore Rashi brings another explanation. And with the second explanation alone, a question arises: Why would this great tzaddik cry because he came empty-handed? (Maharshal)

Because her mother had died... Regarding Rivkah it is written (24:28), “The girl told her mother’s household.” [Why here did Rochel tell her father?] Thus Rashi explains that Rochel’s mother had died.

He thought that he was loaded with money... Otherwise, why would he run?

He thought: “Maybe he has brought gold coins...” Since Lavan did not run [to greet Yaakov because of affection] but only because [he thought that Yaakov was loaded with] money, why then did Lavan embrace him? Thus Rashi explains as he does.

He thought: “Maybe he has brought pearls and he has them in his mouth.” [Question:] Is it normal to carry jewels in one’s mouth?! The answer is: Someone carrying jewels hides them and does not reveal them. Lavan thought: “I will kiss him and appease him so that he will reveal to me what he has.” (Maharshal)

That he came only under duress, because of his brother. Otherwise why does it say, “All that had happened”?

Now I have no reason to take you into the house... I.e., every אך comes to exclude something. What does it exclude here? Therefore Rashi explains, “Now I have no reason...”

I will put up with you for a month. You might ask: How does Rashi know [that Lavan said] specifically for a month? The answer is: Since he actually did so, as it says, “Yaakov lived with him for a month,” this surely is [what he said] at the beginning.

Because you are my brother, should you work for me for nothing? Rashi is saying that the incredulity is not on the phrase, “You are my relative (אחי),” as they indeed were אחים, as in (13:8): “We are kinsmen (אחים).” Furthermore, if this is the meaning, then it should say הֲאָחִי אתה. Rather, the incredulity is on the phrase: “Should you work for me for nothing?”

Because she thought she would fall to the lot of Eisov. [Rashi is answering the question:] Why does the verse speak badly about this righteous woman? He answers: “Because she thought...” I.e., from her bad point we learn her good point. You might ask: The verse implies that Leah also was of beautiful form, but had tender eyes. If so, why does the verse contrast her with Rochel by saying, “Rochel was of beautiful form”? It should rather say, “The eyes of Rochel were beautiful.” The answer is: Since Leah’s eyes were not beautiful, she was not beautiful either. For it says in Taanis 24a: “If a bride’s eyes are beautiful, her entire body need not be checked.” Thus it was rightly said that “Rochel was of beautiful form.”

These are the “few days” that his mother had told him... Otherwise, he would be disobeying his mother’s command.

And you may know... for it is written: They seemed to him... Rashi is saying that by nature, Yaakov’s love of Rochel should make [even] a few days seem long—as it is written (Mishlei 13:12), “A delayed hope makes the heart sick.” [Why did seven years seem to him like a few days?] Perforce, it is referring to the “few days” that his mother had told him.

And lest you say, “I will change Leah’s name...” therefore, I say “the younger one.” You might ask: Why did he not just say, “Your younger daughter”? The answer is: Had he not said “Rochel,” Lavan would have given him Zilpah. She also was his daughter, but from a concubine, as Rashi explains on v. 31:50. And she was even younger than Rochel. But if so, why did Yaakov not fear Lavan might change Zilpah’s name to “Rochel,” and give her instead, since she was his youngest daughter? The answer is: Zilpah was not his true daughter as she was from a concubine. And her name was not really “Rochel” so he would have to change her name. Yaakov did not fear a double deceit by Lavan. Another answer [why Yaakov said “Rochel”]: If Yaakov had only said, “Your younger daughter,” perhaps Lavan’s wife would have another daughter, whom Lavan would give him. The marriage would be after seven years of work, and though she would be a minor, she would be fit for relations — as Yitzchok married Rivkah when she was just three. And then Lavan would not be tricking him at all, as the stipulation was to give his youngest daughter! Therefore Yaakov said: “For Rochel, your younger daughter.”

Even the lowest of the low would not express himself in such a manner... I.e., it is not acceptable behavior for a hired worker to say, right when the years of his contract are up, “Give me my wages.”

Immediately after the seven days of the marriage feast. For it is written, “And he completed the week for this one, and he gave him...”

[The Torah] compares the others to the first... Rashi deduced this from the extra word אחרות. Alternatively, since it is written עוד, it implies “additional” ones similar to the first ones. Just as he was faithful in the first ones, as Lavan had not yet deceived him, so was he faithful in the latter ones, although he had deceived him.

Since the Matriarchs were prophetesses... You might ask: [If so,] why does Megillah 14a mention only seven prophetesses — Sarah, Miriam, Devorah, Chan-nah, Avigayil, Chuldah and Ester? The answer is: Scripture testifies about Sarah [that she prophesized], as it is written (21:12): “Regarding all that Sarah tells you, listen to her,” teaching that Avraham was inferior to Sarah in prophecy. And so [Scripture testifies about] all of them. But we do not find [it written unequivocally] that the [other] Matriarchs prophesied, as our verse could follow to its simple meaning. Maharshal answers that the Matriarchs prophesied only on matters pertaining to themselves: they knew what the future held for them but not for others. Therefore, they were not counted with the other prophetesses.

With the exception of Leivi, because the Ark decimated them. I.e., the tribe of Leivi would carry the holy Ark and could not handle it with sufficient caution. Thus, many of them died.