She was envious of her good deeds. [Rashi knows this] because envy is [otherwise] forbidden.

Did your father act this way to your mother. Rashi derives this from Yaakov’s answer: “Who has withheld from you.” This implies, as Rashi says there, that Yaakov was saying: “You tell me to act as my father did. I am not like my father. It is from you that Hashem has withheld children, not from me,” implying that she had mentioned his father.

From here, that one who has no children is considered as if dead. Otherwise, [if it meant that she is presently dying,] why did she ask for children? מתה is an adjective, not a present tense intransitive verb [conveying that she is dying]. And it is not a transitive verb [conveying that if Yaakov does not give her children, she will kill herself].

From you that He has withheld, not from me. Question: Many prophets prayed for others, such as Elisha (Melachim II 4:33), and [Eliyahu] for the Tzorphis woman. Why did not Yaakov, too, pray for her, although he had children? Furthermore, why was he angry? He should have answered her calmly, as the words of the wise are heard when spoken calmly. The answer is: Yaakov told Rochel that he had prayed for her, but Hashem did not accept the prayer. Rochel said, “If so, you must be wicked.” Thus he was angry with her, as she considered him wicked. He answered her: “I am not like my father. Both of them were childless, and his prayer was accepted because of both their merits. But I am not childless; Hashem has withheld children only from you. With us, only one person’s merit [is relevant]. That is why my prayer is not answered! (Maharshal)

She said to him, “Your grandfather Avraham, had children from Hagar...” I.e., although he had children from Hagar he interceded for Sarah. So you too, although you have children, you should do the same for me.

He has judged me and found me guilty, and found me innocent. In Bereishis Rabboh (71:7) it says: “He judged me and found me guilty — ‘Rochel was barren.’ He judged me and found me innocent — ‘And has given me a son.’” Accordingly, “Hashem has judged me” is one matter [i.e., “found me guilty”], and “He has also heard my voice” is another matter [i.e., “found me innocent”]. See Re’m.

Menachem ben Saruk explains it in the Machberes as צמיד פתיל... Meaning: In his work that connects words of the same root, he connects נפתולי אלהים נפתלתי with צמיד פתיל.

He was born circumcised... Accordingly, גד means “cutting,” that is to say that the cutting of his circumcision was already done.

With me.... Otherwise, what does “in exchange for” mean? “Your son’s jasmines” clearly implies a complete trade, i.e., each gives something that is his.

Because she made light... she did not merit being buried with him. [You might ask:] Does it not it say in Bereishis Rabboh 82:11 [that she was buried on the road] so she would assist her children when Nevuzaradan will exile them, as Rashi explains in Parshas Vayechi (48:7)? The answer is: Had she not made light of Yaakov, Leah would be buried there instead, and she would assist her children. Because Rochel made light, she did not merit being buried with him.

God helped him... Rashi is saying that הוא refers to Hashem, for otherwise, [if it meant “that night,”] it should say ההוא. How did He help him? Yaakov came from the field riding a donkey, intending to ride to Rochel’s tent. Hashem caused the donkey to bray so that Leah would hear and go out to meet Yaakov, so he would come to her tent. And so it was. He came to Leah’s tent, and that night, Yissachar was conceived. Thus it says יששכר חמור גרם(49:14). I.e., how did יששכר come to be born? חמור גרם. I.e., the donkey was the cause (הגורם).

She desired and sought to increase the number of tribes. [Rashi knows this] because normally the phrase וישמע אלהים pertains only if one prayed. But here it is not stated that she prayed for sons. Thus Rashi explains, “Because she desired...” I.e., since she so wished to increase the tribes, it was considered as if she prayed for this — and Hashem granted her wish.

Having a similar meaning as בית זבול... Meaning: his dwelling will be with me. The suffix ויזבלני denotes “with me.” It does not mean he will take me to his dwelling.

His main dwelling place will not be other than with me... Re’m writes: I do not know why Rashi states it as a negative, “Will not be other than,” rather than as a positive, as the verse itself implies: “Now his main dwelling will be with me.”

He remembered that she gave her signs to her sister... Otherwise, what did He remember about her? In Scripture, זכירה always refers to a deed. For example (8:1), “And Hashem remembered Noach and all the beasts...” which Rashi explains there: “That they did not cohabit in the ark.” And so with the זכירה of Lot (19:29), he did not tell [the Egyptians] that Sarah was Avraham’s sister.

She was concerned lest she fall to Eisov’s lot... [The reward] is measure for measure. Since Rochel acted so that her sister would not be sent away in shame from her husband, it is not fitting that she should be barren and be sent away in shame from her husband. (Gur Aryeh)

This is what the poet alluded to: “When the Red One...” האדמון refers to Eisov. כבט means, “When he saw.” שלא חלה means, “That Rochel did not have birth pangs.” צבה means “he desired” to take her as wife, and she was petrified.

He has brought it into a place where it will not be seen... I.e., אסף does not mean that her shame was [previously scattered and now] gathered into one place, as that would be to her detriment — her shame would be seen more.

As long as a woman has no child she has no one to blame for her faults... Accordingly, “my shame” means my fault and my sin for breaking my husband’s household utensils.

Is it possible that he had sons and would send his daughter...? You might ask: Perhaps he had younger boys [who were too young to be sent]? The answer is: If so, he would have sent Bilhah or Zilpah, who were from a concubine, rather than Rochel who was his daughter from his true wife. If he had no sons, it is understandable to send Rochel, for then she will inherit him. [According to the laws of inheritance] daughters from a true wife come before daughters from a concubine. Consequently, she would surely guard [his flock] well. But if he had sons, she would not inherit any property, as sons come before daughters according to the laws of inheritance. Were that the case, he would not have sent Rochel. Perforce, he had no sons at all. (Mahara’i)

The meager amount... I.e., it does not mean that Lavan knew his livestock was with Yaakov, rather that he knew of the livestock’s meager amount.

For the needs of my household... Rashi is explaining that לביתי does not mean as it seems to, that Yaakov is saying he will go “to my home,” i.e., return to his father’s house and stay there. For Lavan said afterwards, “What shall I give you? ...” [And Yaakov replied], “I will continue to tend....” This shows that he did not intend to leave Lavan, but to [stay and] guard his flock. Perforce, לביתי means “for the needs of my household.”

Now only my sons provide my needs... Rashi explains this since גם אנכי implies that previously, some else was doing for the needs of his household. Thus Rashi explains: “Now only my sons...”

Dark brown, similar to red... I.e., Onkelos translates חום as שחום, which means red.

Speckled and spotted among the goats and dark brown among the sheep... Re’m asks: If so, speckled and spotted was the sign for goats, but not for sheep. Yet, does not the verse say, “I will remove from them every שה that is speckled or spotted,” [ostensibly referring to sheep]? He answers: The word שה in our verse refers to goats. For it is written (Devarim 14:4): שה כבשים ושה עזים, showing that goats too, can be called שה. Maharshal objects: On the contrary, since Scripture needed to specify (in Devarim 14:4) that שה also refers to goats, this indicates that wherever שה appears without specification, it refers to sheep and not goats! Furthermore, our verse should have combined the phrases and said only, “And every goat that is spotted and speckled.” Also, why does the verse speak first of goats and then switch to sheep? Furthermore, it is written in v. 35, “That day he removed the תישים.” Why when referring to goats does Scripture sometimes say שה and other times תיש? Maharshal answers: It seems to me that שה means sheep, not goats. Nevertheless, the sign [of Yaakov’s wages] was speckled or spotted for goats, and dark brown for sheep, [as Rashi says]. And when Yaakov said, “Remove from them every שה that is speckled or spotted,” he meant as follows: You surely should take away the speckled and spotted goats, and the dark brown sheep, [as those kinds will be my wages]. And take away even the speckled or spotted sheep, [kinds] which should have been mine [but in fact are not]. This way I will not have any of the speckled or spotted goats, or any of the speckled, ringed or spotted sheep. Only those that will be born from now on, i.e., the speckled or spotted goats, and the dark brown sheep, will be mine. But Yaakov did not say to take away the dark brown goats because there were none to be found. This answers all the questions.

Furthermore, that you may not say... because of the speckled and spotted males... According to the first explanation, they could simply count how many there are now, and know that all above this number were born later. Thus Rashi says: “Furthermore, that you may not say...” (Re’m)

For my righteousness will come and testify before you... [Rashi is saying that] תבוא is third person feminine, not [masculine] second person. The proof is: it is written the righteousness will come “before you,” as if Yaakov said: “For my righteousness will come before you and testify concerning my wages.”

And it is through theft that it is in my possession. On the phrase, “Is stolen if it is in my possession,” why did Rashi need to offer an explanation: “It will be obvious that I have stolen it from you”? [The answer is:] So we will not think it means, “I bought it properly, but it turned out to be stolen merchandise, which I did not know.” Thus Rashi explains as he does.

A term indicating acceptance of terms. [Rashi is explaining that here it is] not like הן לי לא נתת זרע (15:3), which means הנה (behold).

If only you remain satisfied with this. I.e., although Yaakov said it verbally, Lavan thought: perhaps he does not mean it in his heart, or he will change his mind.

Lavan, on that day... [Rashi knows that our verse speaks of Lavan and] not Yaakov, for it is written afterwards, “And he gave them to his sons and he placed a three days’ journey between himself and Yaakov.”

It is a tree called לבנה... Otherwise, [if לבנה meant white], it should be writtenלְבָנָה . Re’m explains that if [it meant] the tree was white, why did Yaakov need to peel it to make it white? It already was white!

He also took a stick from לוז**...**Rashi is answering the question: לבנה is not לוז; [so why does the verse describe it as such?] Thus Rashi explains, “He also took a stick from לוז. Re’m explains that “were fresh” interrupts between “poplar” and “hazel”, thus [Rashi explains that the phrase] “hazel and chestnut” is a separate point.

Where the water was running... [Rashi knows that רהטים means running] because the Targum of [(Bereishis 18:2)] וירץ (he ran) is ורהט.

In the ducts where the flock came to drink... אשר תבאן הצאן forms one phrase with שקתות המים, so that נוכח הצאן refers back to ויצג המקלות. Rashi is saying that Yaakov stuck the rods into the ducts and watering troughs so the rods would be in front of the flock when it drank, so the animals will become heated.

The female animal would see the sticks... Otherwise, [if they were not startled backwards,] why does it say, “They became heated”? Water does not usually cause animals to become heated. And according to R. Hoshaya, “heated” means “pregnant.”

To the appearance of the sticks. [Rashi explains this] because the sticks did not make the animals have ringed, speckled and spotted offspring. It was the sticks’ appearance that did this, i.e., the uncovered white. You might ask: How could Yaakov commit this trickery? There are many explanations, but it seems to me that Yaakov did it with his own flock, [not with Lavan’s.] The offspring of Yaakov’s flock rightfully belonged to Yaakov even without these signs, but Lavan wanted to take even those offspring from him. Yaakov thought: I will make sticks so that the offspring of my flock will all be speckled and spotted, to gain what is rightfully mine. (Maharshal)

So that the flock faced the... the brown ones that he found among Lavan’s flock. The [second] flock mentioned here means the goats, as Lavan had taken away all the brown sheep, as it says in v. 35. But Lavan did not separate the brown goats since this [kind] was not Yaakov’s wages. Similarly, he did not separate the speckled and spotted from the sheep, only from the goats, as I [Re’em] wrote above. This is because these [kinds of sheep] were not Yaakov’s wages. (See the Re’m’s elaboration here.) Re’m writes further that [when Rashi says, “Those that were born spotted and speckled,”] the phrase “those that were born” is likely a misprint [and should be omitted], unless we say it refers to those already born before Lavan took away [part of his flock]. Then, Rashi would be saying: Those speckled and spotted [sheep] already born to Lavan’s flock, which Lavan did not take away because these [kinds] were not Yaakov’s wages.

Fruitful and multiply more than other flock. צאן רבות cannot mean what it sounds like, that he had many flocks, for it is already written, “The man became tremendously prosperous” — which surely refers to the flocks mentioned before. Rather it means, “That are fruitful...” (Re’m)

He would sell his flock at a high price and buy for himself all these. [Rashi knows it means this] because otherwise, why does Scripture mention slaves while recounting [how the rods increased] the flock? R. Meir Stern writes: [Rashi knows it means this] because otherwise, it should have mentioned people before animals. Moreover, why does Scripture go back and speak of animals, saying: “Camels and donkeys”? Thus Rashi says, “He would sell...” to explain that the flock was mentioned first because he owned it first. Then Scripture mentions what he bought by selling the flock, placing people before animals. And since everything is now in proper order, we need not say, [to explain the order in which they are listed,] that he sold the slaves to buy camels and donkeys, as he did with the flock [to buy the slaves]. Therefore Rashi says, “And buy for himself all these” — all was bought with the money he received from selling the flock.