הבה לי בנים, “get me children!” Rachel demanded that Yaakov pray on her behalf, failing which she would die She considered any woman who had no children as “dead.” Nachmanides expresses his amazement at such an interpretation as he cannot understand why this was something that would infuriate Yaakov, as the Torah reports in the next verse when he upbraids her by asking if he was in place of the G’d Who had denied her children. One even prays on behalf of people to whom one is not married, so why should he feel offended by her demand that he pray on behalf of his wife? As to the comment by the Midrash that Yaakov rejected the comparison with Yitzchok praying for Rivkah to have children as inappropriate, seeing that Yitzchok at the time did not have children, whereas he, Yaakov did have already four children, surely that is not a reason why he should not pray on behalf of his favorite wife!? According to the plain meaning of the text, Rachel demanded children from her husband. She threatened that if he refused to pray on her behalf she would kill herself. She would not lay a hand on herself, but she explained that she would simply die from frustration and shame, and would blame her death on her husband. Yaakov’s anger was aroused because she so misunderstood the power of prayer that she felt that the prayer of a צדיק automatically commits G’d to fulfill it. Yaakov thought that Rachel used the threat of her death as a ploy, something not unknown when women are denied having their way. At any rate, after telling Rachel that the matter was not really in his hands, seeing that G’d had granted him children but not from her, she decided to pray on her own behalf. This is what the Torah means in verse 22 that G’d “listened to her,” as a result of which she bore Joseph.

הנה אמתי בלהה, בא אליה ואבנה גם אנכי, “here is my maidservant Bilhah, sleep with her and I too will be built through her (child).” Sarah, when suggesting that Avraham sleep with Hagar, had phrased it differently, saying “perhaps I will be built up though her.” (Genesis 16,7). Rachel appeared certain that Bilhah would have a son. The reason for her feeling certain that she would succeed was that Avraham had not yet been told by G’d that he would have a son by Sarah. Rachel, having revealed to her sister the secret code between her and Yaakov so that she would not be embarrassed under the wedding canopy, was certain that this merit would work in her favour now. Her preparedness to allow a competitor to sleep with her husband would, she was sure, produce in the desired result. Some commentators believe that Rachel’s certainty was based on the extra letter ה in Bilhah’s name, this being an allusion to offspring as per הא לכם זרע, or כי בי-ה ה' צור עולמו, this world having been created under the aegis of the letter ה. Rachel, רחל was the only of one of the matriarchs who did not have the letter ה in her name. She meant to make up for this deficiency by giving בלהה to her husband as her alter ego.

ותלד ליעקב בן, “She bore a son for Yaakov.” Nachmanides draws our attention to the fact that with all the births by the maidservants the Torah writes the formula: “she bore a son for Yaakov,” to indicate that Yaakov wanted these sons and acknowledged them as his, and that is why they are not referred to as “sons of the maid.” When the Torah speaks of “a fifth son and a sixth son” (verses 17 and 19) when Leah bore them, whereas no such ordinal numbers had been used in connection with her first 4 sons, and we could have expected these ordinal numbers to have been applied to the two sons Bilhah bore, the Torah wanted to emphasise how welcome these sons were not only to Leah but also to Yaakov. The repetition of “for Yaakov,” was more important seeing that Leah had already borne him four sons.

נפתולי אלוקים נפתלתי, “I have writhed repeatedly in prayer before G’d, etc.” (a prophetic pronouncement) I have become closer to G’d through him (Naftali) as Chirom of the tribe of Naftali did for the construction of Solomon’s Temple what Betzalel had done for the building of the Tabernacle in Moses’ time. (Kings I 5,24,32) Other commentators view Rachel’s struggles with G’d as concerning the inclusion of Bilhah’s sons in the 12 tribes, “the tribes of the Lord.”

ותרא לאה כי עמדה מלדת, “Leah became aware that she had stopped becoming pregnant, etc.” Nachmanides endeavours to justify Leah giving her servant maid Zilpah to Yaakov as a wife although she was not barren and had already born 4 sons for her husband. He suggests that Leah, as a prophetess, was aware that 12 sons would be born for Yaakov, and she wanted to be sure that the majority would be from her or her family. The reason that Yaakov agreed was that he, too, wanted to have more sons. It is possible that seeing that Yaakov knew that the land of Canaan had been given to Avraham, and both Avraham and Yitzchok had not produced many children, Yaakov wanted to make up for this by marrying a number of women. He knew that the fourth generation of Avraham’s descendants would return to the land of Canaan to take possession of it.

ותאמר לאה בגד, “Leah said: ‘good fortune has come.’” Some commentators, in zeroing in on the name גד, point out that members of the tribe of Gad were the first ones to receive their ancestral portion of land in the land of Israel, as documented in Numbers 32,2 “the members of the tribes of Gad and Reuven came, etc.” Other commentators hold that that the word בגד means that Leah said: “now I know that my husband has betrayed me, seeing that he has taken my maid servant as a competing wife.” When Avraham took Hagar he had not had any children by Sarah. When Rachel gave her maid servant to Yaakov, she too had not born any children for him. But I have born my husband four children, so there was no reason for him to take her as a wife. If, nonetheless I have started being capable of having children again this must be my reward for allowing him to take my maid servant. When she bore another son she called him אשר to reinforce this feeling of joyous gratitude to G’d Who had blessed her with 6 sons.

דודאים, “jasmines.” According to Ibn Ezra jasmines exude a pleasant fragrance and also possess the shape of a human being with head and hands like extrusions. Other commentators claim that these flowers are conducive to its owner conceiving. Ibn Ezra himself doubts this as in his estimation theses flowers are “cold,” i.e. do not stimulate sexual arousal. Nachmanides writes these jasmines were not intended to make her pregnant, but she wanted to enjoy their fragrance, being aware that Rachel had become pregnant as a result of her prayers and not as a result of inhaling the fragrance of jasmines. Reuven brought his mother the branches of the jasmine plants, not the roots which resemble human features. This may be why people say that these roots may somehow help a woman to get pregnant, although Nachmanides did not find reference to this in any medical text at his disposal.

ותקרא שמו יששכר, “she named him Issachar.” Actually, she should have called him שכר, “reward.” Since she felt she had been rewarded for two actions, the handing over of her maid servant, as well as the handing over of her son’s jasmines, she indicated this by the second letter ש in the word שכר calling this son יששכר.

הפעם יזבלני אישי, “this time my husband will reside with me.” Seeing I have so many children my “tent” is no longer adequate for my needs. My husband now has to take me into his tent.

ואחר ילדה בת, “after that she bore a daughter.” In this instance the Torah fails to mention that Leah was pregnant prior to giving birth. The Midrash explains the real pregnancy producing Dinah (should have ?) commenced with Rachel who was supposed to give birth to Dinah. However, Leah her sister prayed, asking that Rachel should not become embarrassed by producing fewer sons than either of the maid servants. As a result of this prayer, the embryo in Leah’s womb at that time was changed to being a female and was born as a girl. [The Talmud Berachot 60 attributes the prayer to Leah who was pregnant, but does not mention the transfer of an embryo to her womb. According to the version in the Bereshit Rabbah 72,6 before me, the embryo was not transferred, but its sex was changed, something which the Midrash claims is possible even at a much later stage, such as the woman being already on the birth stool. Rachel had prayed for one more son, G’d fulfilling her prayer later when Binyamin was born. There is no reason to believe that Rachel was pregnant at the time Yaakov left Lavan, as she could hardly have claimed to be menstruating when her father searched her tent for the teraphim in Genesis 31,35 if she had been pregnant. The Talmud warns that a miracle such as occurred here, should not be used as a precedent for praying for male or female children, after the pregnancy has been in effect for 40 days. Ed.]

ויהי כאשר ילדה רחל את יוסף, “it was as soon as Rachel had given birth to Joseph, etc.” Yaakov felt certain that now Lavan would permit him to leave, as there was no further reason for him to fear that Yaakov would divorce Rachel seeing that he had a child by her; it is also possible that before this even Rachel might not have been willing to leave her father’s house and town. She herself might have been afraid that Yaakov would divorce her if she failed to bear him any children.

נחשתי ויברכני, “I have myself come to feel that the Lord has blessed me on your account.” The expression נחש usually implies that the knowledge one has acquired is empirical, the result of experimentation. Lavan had made all kinds of experiments to determine to what he owed his good fortune during the 14 years that Yaakov had been with him. Another explanation is that he used his “teraphim,” his oracles, to determine this, and even those indicated that Lavan’s new found wealth was due to Yaakov’s presence. It is interesting that later on in verse 30 Yaakov does not attribute Lavan’s wealth to his presence but to לרגלי, from the day I came, i.e. not because of anything I did. Yaakov was a model of modesty.

מתי אעשה גם אנכי לביתי, “when will I also be able to do something for my family?” According to Rashi he meant that up to now only his children had supported him with their work, whereas, i.e, their father had been fully occupied in providing wealth for his father-in-law. According to Nachmanides there is no evidence that Yaakov owned any flocks which his sons could have tended. Besides, Reuven, his oldest son was only 6 years old at this time, so that his efforts could not have amounted to much. Therefore, what Yaakov meant was: ”when can I start doing for my family what I have been doing for your family?”

אעבור בכל צאנך היום הסר משם כל שה נקוד וטלוא, “I will go through all your flocks today. Remove from these every dappled or blotched lamb, etc.” The word וטלוא means או טלוא, “or blotched,” not that the same sheep displays both dappled and blotched skin patterns. The males are the subject of discussion here.

וטלוא ונקוד בעיזים, “or the blotched or dappled among the kids.” These are the female goats. This is spelled out again when in verse 35 Lavan carries out the suggestion Yaakov had made.

וכל שה חום בכבשים, “and all the brown sheep.” Lavan set aside (for himself) all the male sheep which had any brown coloured spots on their pelts, and all the female sheep which had any white spots on their skins. Lavan gave those animals to his sons to tend, and henceforth any of the remaining flocks that would give birth to animals with such markings would be Yaakov’s wages. [He thought that he had made certain there would be only a minute number of such births, seeing that the animals that were likely to provide such genetic input had already been removed. Ed.] I find it difficult to understand to what end sheep are suddenly introduced in a context that dealt with different kinds of skin patterns of goats, both of males and females of the species.(verse 35) We would have expected the Torah to write: sequentially, התישים והעזים, just as the Torah describes this when writing את התישים העקודים...ואת כל העיזים וכו'. Nachmanides writes that the males of the goats were generally dappled and blotched, whereas the male sheep were generally brown. He proceeds to explain our verses as follows: [starting with verse 32. Ed] “remove from there all the lambs that are dappled or blotched, and from the sheep also the brown ones place with the dappled and blotched ones, so that my wages will consist of animals born having these markings on their skin. He wanted the same to apply to the dappled and blotched goats.” He did not mention male goats at all, just as he had not mentioned the male sheep separately. Nachmanides quotes as proof that his interpretation is correct that when Yaakov peeled off some bark from the staves near the water troughs so that they resembled the desired skin patterns, no mention is made of the colour “brown” at all. (compare verses 37-38). If Yaakov had among his flocks of prime sheep only brown ones, i.e. the choicest animals of the flocks, it would follow that he made no attempt at all to increase the number of brown patterned lambs that would be born and would be part of his wages. We must also note that in Yaakov’s dream (31,10) which he relates to his wives, not a word is mentioned about any brown-coloured animals. From the animals and their behaviour which appeared in Yaakov’s, dream it is evident that his wages, or rather the wages that he and Lavan had agreed upon, had been the עקודים, נקודים, and ברודים, not the brown ones. If he had mentioned brown ones in verse 33 it was because among the brown sheep or goats for that matter, these never reproduced in a variety of skin colours other that their original brown. If he had attempted to increase the number of animals with illegal machinations, why did he not try to increase the number of brown sheep that would be born? He did not do so because only brown sheep reproduce brown skinned lambs.

ויסר ביום ההוא את התישים, “On that day Lavan removed the he-goats (of special skin patterns).” Nachmanides writes that Yaakov had been imprecise and had spoken only about טלוא ונקוד בעזים, the dappled and blotched she goats, whereas Lavan was aware that the male genetics are paramount in determining the skin pattern of the young; this is why by removing the male goats he hoped to effectively prevent goats being born which bore the skin markings which would have made them Yaakov’s. Lavan had even removed the עתודים, animals with just a little white around their ankles. (According to many commentators what is described here as חום, brown, refers to generalized spotting of a brownish colour, the basic colour of sheep being white). According to the way we explained matters this is all logical, as Yaakov also did mention the male animals since it is written הסר משם כל שה וגו', “remove from there every lamb, etc.” The word כל included the males, the billy-goats. Alternately, one may explain that the words כל אשר לבן בו in verse 35, refer back to the goats from which he had separated all those that had any white stripes or spots. The meaning of the words וכל חום בכבשים in the same line, would mean “every sheep displaying the skin pattern mentioned earlier,” i.e. נקוד וטלוא, referring to brownish dapples and blotches.

ויקח לו יעקב מקל לבנה,”Yaakov took for his use an aspen stick, etc.” Some people are amazed at why Yaakov the righteous person could resort to such a device. Nachmanides counters that seeing that they had made an agreement that the animals born with such skin patterns would be his wages, Yaakov was well within his rights to do everything to ensure that as many animals showing such skin patterns would be born. Perhaps Yaakov had even conditioned his acceptance on his being allowed to do what he could to encourage the birth of animals with the skin patterns that were to remain his. Seeing that Lavan did not have the expertise in genetics which Yaakov possessed, [or the angel taught him in the dream, Ed.] he did not object to such a request. The other shepherds did not become aware of Yaakov’s stratagem as he used it only twice each year in the spring and fall when the animals are in heat. If Yaakov had used the stratagem every time before the animals were at the troughs, Lavan would not have had any lambs born to him at all. Some commentators say that in the first year many lambs were born to the flocks by the grace of G’d, the angel having revealed to him that by the use of the aspen sticks whose bark was peeled in the right way, the sheep while in heat would exercise their imagination and their young would reflect this in their skin pattern. Yaakov made no use of this information until the second year, so as to avoid being accused of having stolen some of Lavan’s sheep. Once he had sheep with such skin patterns of his own, he was no longer suspect.

והכבשים הפריד יעקב, “Yaakov had already separated the sheep, etc.” According to Rashi this means that he set aside as his own flocks all those that had been born with the skin patterns agreed upon as his wages. He made separate herds of them and made them walk in front of the mature flocks in a manner that caused them to face those flocks. This is the meaning of the line ויתן פני הצאן אל עקוד וכל חום בצאן לבן, “he made them face all the ankle-striped and the brown ones among the sheep.” The problem with this commentary, writes Nachmanides, is that it does not explain why he had separated the sheep only and not the goats, both male and female, so that they too would reproduce young ones of the desired skin pattern. Why did he not make a separate herd of the goats also? Furthermore, seeing that according to Rashi’s opinion the sheep do not produce the skin pattern called עקוד as we surmise by the fact that Yaakov was not given such as part of his wages, as opposed to brown (speckled) ones, there was no point in his peeling aspen sticks when these sheep came to the water troughs. It therefore made perfect sense that Yaakov kept the sheep completely apart from the goats. He had a flock of goats, both male and female, which were נקוד וטלוא; these he made walk in front of the senior generation of sheep. All this makes sense according to those who hold that any נקוד וטלוא among the sheep would not belong to Yaakov in any event. According to Rashi’s own opinion that all the skin patterns mentioned applied to both goats and sheep, the reason he separated the herds of sheep from those of the goats was that among the goats there were not (as yet) any which showed brown patches of skin.

המקושרות, “the early-bearing ones,” some commentators understand the word as “the strong ones.” They believe that it refers to those whose limbs were firmly attached to each other. Such firm attachment between the various limbs is considered a sign of good health. By contrast, the עטופים (verse 42) are the ones whose health was more precarious. They were the weak ones. The word occurs in this context in Lamentations 2,19 העטופים ברעב, “the ones weakened by famine.” Nachmanides writes that הקשורים are the male animals which follow the females very close on their heels and never stay far away from them as they are usually in heat. A parallel expression in the Torah would be ונפשו קשורה בנפשו, the manner in which Yehudah describes the spiritual bond between his father and Binyamin. (Genesis 44,30). Ibn Ezra explains that in the month of Nissan, all the young lambs born to the sheep were strong and healthy, to wit מקושרות. Seeing they are so healthy and strong, they have a strong sex drive, always staying close behind the females. On the other hand, the ones born in fall, in Tishrey, are by nature weak, and Yaakov was not particularly interested in them, hence he did not bother with the aspen sticks at that time of year. At least, he refrained from doing so in order to minimize the chance of Lavan learning of his stratagem.

ובהעטיף הצאן לא ישים, והיה העטופים ללבן. “When the ewes and she-goats were late he would not place the aspen sticks in their path to the troughs.” This was because at that time they did not give birth to lambs or kids with the desired skin pattern. As a result, all the blotched ones would belong to Yaakov, being strong animals born in spring. Some commentators understand that the fact that these skin patterns appeared was not even due to Yaakov’s stratagem, but was a divine assistance Yaakov experienced, a minor miracle. This explains why Lavan did not check regularly on what Yaakov was up to, as he had been unaware of what had been happening. He did not even view the use of the aspen sticks as responsible for the fact that the young sheep and goats born under Yaakov’s supervision mostly had the skin patterns favouring him. Most miracles are not of the type of splitting the sea, or water turning into blood, but they are “additives” to initiatives undertaken by man. [According to that view, had Yaakov not used this stratagem the miracle could not have occurred, just as if the woman whose oil the prophet Elisha increased manifold could not have experienced this miracle if her jar had been totally empty of oil. Ed.] (compare Kings II 4,1-6) This commentary, is not valid in our situation, as without question the stratagem used by Yaakov can be successfully applied by other shepherds whom G’d does not favour with miraculous intervention.