אם כה יאמר: נקודים יהיה שכרך, וגו', “if he would say thus: “the blotched ones will be your wages, etc.” Originally, Yaakov had stipulated two skin patterns among the goats, as well as the colour brown when it would show up among the sheep. When the result favoured Yaakov, Lavan changed the terms of the agreement, substituting skin patterns which had been rare up to that point. However, as soon as he did so, the animals bore young with the skin patterns which favoured Yaakov disproportionately. The new skin patterns were already totally unrelated to anything Yaakov could do by peeling them and patterning them. It was clear that without Divine intervention on behalf of Yaakov, he could not have become so rich in so short a period of time. We know this from the fact that Yaakov did not add that he had to use these stratagems again and again.

והנה העתודים העולים על הצאן עקודים, נקודים וברודים. “and behold, the he-goats were ankle striped, dappled, and blotch-striped.” If the male possessed one of each of these skin patterns, the lamb born by the female which it had mounted would have the corresponding skin pattern. According to Nachmanides, whenever the Torah mentions the term עתודים, what are meant are the rams or billy-goats, the אילים, the fully grown, even outsize specimen. Other commentators understand the term עתודים as describing fat animals of their species The reason that they are mentioned separately is that although these animals are raised only for eventual slaughter to serve as meat, and not for siring lambs, the phenomenon of the lambs which they sired having the skin pattern favouring Yaakov was in evidence. According to Rashi, angels brought these animals from Lavan’s flock to Yaakov’s flocks in order to help him increase the proportion of appropriately skin-patterned animals. According to Nachmanides, the plain meaning is that appropriately skin patterned males had to be seen as mounting the females which would later on bear the young reflecting the father-animal’s genes. The word הנה, which Yaakov uses in describing his dream, is meant to show how vividly he experienced this in his dream.

אנכי הא-ל בית א-ל, “I am the G’d of Beyt-El, etc.” According to Nachmanides, Yaakov recounted all that the angel had said to him in his dream to his wives in order to win their agreement to leave their father’s house and to return with him to the land of Canaan. This was not all a single dream. The revelations involving the aspen sticks occurred while Yaakov was still in Lavan’s employ, whereas the revelation in our verse here occurred during their journey, for as soon as Yaakov had been instructed by G’d to leave Charan and to return to Canaan he did so. He sent for Rachel and Leah, told them of the Divine instructions in his dream, and they left forthwith.

ותען רחל ולאה, “Rachel and Leah replied, etc.” I have been bothered by the fact that Rachel did not display courtesy for her older sister and spoke first. In the meantime I have seen a comment in Bereshit Rabbah, 74,4 where the author quotes an opinion that the reason that Rachel died before her sister was that she spoke up before her sister. In that connection Rabbi Yossi questioned the author of that statement by asking him if he had ever seen that when someone calls Reuven that Shimon will answer that call (instead of Reuven?) What did Rachel do wrong? The Torah reports that Yaakov called Rachel and Leah to the field in that order. Why should not Rachel have replied first? Rabbi Yossi must explain Rachel’s death as due to a different circumstance, i.e. Yaakov’s conditional curse of the person who had stolen Lavan’s teraphim.

ותגנב רחל את התרפים, “Rachel stole the teraphim.” According to Rashi, she intended to wean her father from idolatry by removing the idol from him. Nachmanides admits that it is possible that Lavan had been using the teraphim in his worship of idolatry. It is however by no means certain that teraphim served only as idols. We certainly would not expect to come across idols in King David’s residence, and yet we are told in Samuel I 19,13 that Michal, David’s wife placed such teraphim in David’s bed, feigning that it was he who was sleeping in that bed. Surely, David did not keep idolatrous figures in his home. It is most likely that the teraphim were objects which enabled people to know the time of day, and in that connection they were also used to help them to predict future events. The root of the word is from רפה, “weak” as in רפי ידים, “weak-handed,” or נרפים אתם, “you are weak” (in the sense of lazy, not pulling one’s weight.) The reason people call these objects תרפים is to hint that the reliability of these objects in predicting future events is not very strong, although in the majority of instances the predictions prove more or less accurate. Only people who do not pray to the Lord, the Creator, would be foolish enough to put their trust in them. Some people argue that astrologers possess the power to summon up certain images at a time which they can accurately predict. Ibn Ezra writes that teraphim are objects made of copper which are designed to help us determine portions of an hour, such as minutes. Some people claim that some astrologers possess the skill to raise some life-like shapes at a predetermined hour, and that apparition appears to speak intelligently. Personally, I believe that teraphim are replicas of human beings, constructed in a manner designed to endow them with some divine powers. Some commentators believe that Rachel stole the teraphim in order to wean her father from practicing idolatry. If that were so indeed, why did she keep these teraphim with her instead of at least burying them? It is far more likely that Rachel, being aware that her father was an astrologer, was afraid that by a combination of astrology and the teraphim he would succeed in tracking the movements of Yaakov and his family and he would overtake them in short order. Another view is that she took the teraphim so that these would not reveal to him where Yaakov was at that time. [according to that view she did not really ”steal” them but denied him their use at a critical point in time. Ed.]

ויגד ללבן ביום השלישי, “Lavan was informed on the third day, etc.” Rashi explains the time lag by the fact that Lavan’s flocks grazed a distance of three days travel from those which Yaakov tended. It does not refer to a distance between the town and the area where Lavan’s flocks were grazing. Nachmanides questions Rashi’s commentary that there is no proof for his contention as Yaakov hardly set out from the middle of the field, but went back to town to gather up his and his family’s belongings. It is possible that Lavan’s flocks grazed close to the town, these flocks being on the east side of town, whereas Yaakov grazed his flocks on the west side of the town. Yaakov returned home, gathered up his belongings. Seeing that he had not given Lavan reason to suspect that he was about to leave him, he gained an initial advantage and Lavan only found out that he was gone when he had occasion to return to the town. By the time Lavan had organized his sons and sheepshearers, arranged for a pursuit, plus the time spent riding in pursuit, seven days had elapsed until he caught up with Yaakov.

וידבק אותו בהר הגלעד, “He caught up with him at Mount Gilead.” Lavan reached the slopes of the mountain on the evening of the sixth day after Yaakov’s departure and he saw Yaakov’s encampment from a distance. During the night G’d appeared to him and warned him not to molest Yaakov in any shape or form. Ibn Ezra explains the sequence וידבק, “he caught up,” followed by ויבא, “he arrived,” as one of many examples in the Torah when a major point is being made before something which actually had happened earlier, but was subordinate in importance.

אל לבן הארמי, “to Lavan from Aram.” The reason this detail-with which we are already familiar- was mentioned here, was to emphasize that although Lavan, as an Aramite like the other members of his town, was an idolater, G’d appeared to him in a dream for the sake of the righteous Yaakov..

מטוב עד רע, “either good or evil (threats).” When wicked people do you favours, “טוב”, such favours are tainted because they originate with the wicked. Sooner or later, something רע, “evil,” will happen as a consequence of such a “favour.” According to Nachmanides, G’d did not permit Lavan to try and convince him to come back with him, in return for favourable conditions which he would provide for him. Neither was he allowed to try and frighten Yaakov by warning him of what he would do to him if he did not come back.

ואלוקי אביכם אמש אמר אלי, וגו', “and the G’d of your father has said to me last night.” I find it difficult to understand why Lavan told Yaakov that G’d had told him not to do harm to him. After all, it was a known fact that Lavan hated Yaakov and wanted to totally uproot him. Seeing that G’d had forbidden him to do so, why did he mention this to Yaakov? Yaakov would have been more afraid of him if he had not mentioned his nocturnal experience at all? I believe the reason is that Lavan was aware that Yaakov was a prophet and he thought that G’d would have revealed to him what He had said to Lavan. Under those circumstances he felt it would be better for him to come clean right away and admit that G’d had warned him.

עם אשר תמצא את אלוקיך לא יחיה, “the one in whose possession you will find your deities shall not live.” Some commentators hold that this is not the formula used in a curse, but that Yaakov meant to say that such a person did not deserve to live, but deserved to be hung as a thief. If he were to be convicted of the death penalty, Yaakov promised to be the first one to assist in the execution.

באהל יעקב ובאהל לאה, “in Yaakov’s tent and in Leah’s tent.” According to Rashi Yaakov’s tent was in fact Rachel’s tent as he spent most of his nights in her tent. Even when he left the tent of Leah, he, Lavan, went back a second time to Rachel’s tent as he was aware that she was fond of rummaging around. (Bereshit Rabbah on that section. Ed.] . Nachmanides does not agree that the same tent in the same verse is referred to once as Rachel’s tent and another time as Yaakov’s tent. Ibn Ezra wrote that Lavan searched in this order: 1) the tent of Yaakov, 2) the tent of Leah, followed by the tent of the two maidservants who shared a tent, or to each of their tents separately, Afterwards he went back once more to Leah’s tent. The proof is that the Torah writes: “he departed from the tent of Leah.” The Torah describes this procedure in a manner which enables it to say that Lavan had failed to locate the teraphim in any of these tents. as they had not been hidden there. In verse 34 when he came to a tent that did contain the teraphim, the Torah reports this search separately, to stress that although this tent contained the teraphim, Lavan failed to find them. Hence the words “he did not find” are repeated again. He continues that he feels that what most likely happened is that Lavan proceeded in order by first searching Yaakov’s tent, followed by searching the tent of Leah, followed by searching the tent of Rachel, and that of the two servant maids. The reason why the Torah describes Rachel’s tent as being searched last was to emphasise that in spite of the fact that the teraphim were in her tent, he did not find them as by then she had hidden them under the saddle of the camel that she was sitting on.

אל יחר בעיני אדוני כי לא אוכל לקום מפניך. “may my lord not be angry, for I am suffering from my monthly menstrual pains.” Nachmanides writes that he does not understand what kind of an excuse Rachel offered with these words. Who has ever heard of women who experience these pains being unable to get up and stand on the floor? Perhaps she meant that all women suffer from pains in their head and in their limbs when these pains begin. I believe it is far more likely that the women in those days were quarantined during their monthly cycles so that men would not approach them and speak to them as it was considered that they could thereby confer disease through their exhaling bad breath. Our sages have already confirmed this in a Baraitha in the tractateNiddah. Even to be looked upon by a menstruating woman was considered hazardous. This is why special huts were set aside for the use of women in such a condition. [this editor has seen such a hut in Hawai with his own eyes. Ed.] According to the aforementioned Baraitha, a Torah scholar is forbidden to even enquire after the well being of such a woman. Rachel said that good manners require that she give a kiss to her father but that due to her present condition she was unable to do so, etc. Some commentators do not understand the words דרך נשים as applying to menstruation pains but, on the contrary, to the state of pregnancy.

ויחר ליעקב,”Yaakov became angry.” Even though, originally, Yaakov had given Lavan permission to search, seeing that he had said that the person with whom the teraphim would be found should not live, and he had said in front of everybody “please identify anything in my entourage as yours if you are able to,” how would Lavan be able to find anything unless he searched all of Yaakov’s belongings? Originally, Yaakov had thought that Lavan suspects one of his servants to have stolen the teraphim; he therefore permitted the search. It had not occurred to him that Lavan would suspect even him or his wives of being thieves. When Lavan had not found anything in his camp, he concluded that he had come with a trumped up charge. This is why he accused Lavan of having staged a pursuit for nefarious reasons, other than that he wanted to retrieve his property. He now told him that if anyone had been robbed it was him, whose wages Lavan had changed so many times, that he, Yaakov, would have been in his rights to search among Lavan’s belongings what he had robbed Yaakov of.

טריפה לא הבאתי אליך, “I did not present to you wounded animals.” Even animals which had been wounded or killed by wolves and lions, for which I was not legally liable, I did not bring you as proof that I had not caused you the loss of an animal. I rather made restitution out of my own pocket. Seeing that according to Jewish law, a paid guard is responsible for this type of loss, how did Yaakov excel in any way by making good such losses to Lavan? When he speaks about stolen (not by violence) animals he refers still to the above-mentioned torn animals. He is only describing various situations which are all classed as force majeure, conditions beyond man’s control, for which he could not have been held responsible. Losing an animal to wolves or lions is something that no shepherd can be blamed for.

ופחד יצחק היה לי, “and the one whom Yitzchok fears was on my side.” Rashi explains that Yaakov did not want to use the name of G’d outright by saying אלוקי יצחק, “the G’d of “Yitzchok,” as we have a tradition that G’d does not associate His name with the living, as the chance always exists that even a righteous person may become corrupted before he dies. This “rule” is contradicted when Eliezer spoke of אלוקי אדוני אברהם, “the G’d of my master Avraham. [besides G’d Himself associated His name with the living in Yaakov’s dream of the ladder. Ed.] Ibn Ezra explains the words פחד יצחק as meaning that the fact that Yaakov’s father Yitzchok had been G’d fearing now came to the assistance of his son, something known as זכות אבות, the merit of the fathers.

ויוכח אמש, “when He reproved you last night.” Rashi understands the word יוכח as a derivative of תוכחה, rebuke, and not as a derivative of הוכחה, proof. It is more likely that the word has the same meaning as in 31,37 ויוכיחו בין שנינו, “and let them judge between us.” At this point Yaakov says that the G’d Who is aware of all the things that are hidden from man, has intervened and shown who is upright and who is not. Proof that this is the correct interpretation is that Yaakov did not say ויוכח אותך אמש, “and He has judged you last night.”

ולבנותי מה אעשה לאלה, “as to my daughters, what (harm) should I do to these?” We must understand this as if he had said ולבנותי מה אעשה להן,. “what could I possibly do to my daughters?” Nachmanides explains the whole expression as one expressing pity, i.e. Lavan when looking at his daughters and grandchildren is overcome, and exclaims: “how could I possibly be cruel enough to cause any harm to my own family?” This is why he added the words אשר ילדו, “the children that they have given birth to in my own house?” He says this in the form of an apology to Yaakov who had accused him of pursuing him with evil intent. He asks Yaakov rhetorically how he could accuse him of harming them when all he wanted was to see his grandchildren, and kiss them! He now wants to do them a favour by making Yaakov promise that he would not marry any additional wives, depriving his grandchildren of part of their inheritance.

והיה לעד ביני וביני, “which will be a witness between me and between you.” According to Rashi the subject of the word והיה is G’d, i.e. G’d will be the witness. Nachmanides says that G’d is not a part of this covenant at all, but the word ברית is the subject of the word והיה. In other words: “the covenant will serve as witness.” Anyone violating this covenant will become the victim of the curses associated with the sin of violating a solemn agreement. It is also possible to understand what happened here as follows: Lavan wanted to select a witness that endures throughout the lifetime and beyond of the parties making the agreement. This is why Yaakov erected a stone to serve as the witness. (verse 45) This is also why Lavan said in verse 48 that this heap of stones would serve as the witness to this agreement.

ויאמר יעקב לאחיו, “Yaakov said to his brothers” A reference to Yaakov’s sons, seeing that the people accompanying Lavan were all his supporters, members of his immediate family, as well as members of Nachor’s family generally. Yaakov’s sons were like brothers to him. Lavan had refrained from bringing strangers with him, people who for one reason or another might side with Yaakov in the approaching confrontation. Some commentators believe that Yaakov did speak to Lavan’s supporters asking them to help collect stones. His addressing them as “brothers,” was intended to be a rebuke, i.e. they ought to behave like brothers and not like opponents. Nachmanides also interprets the word לאחיו as applying to Lavan’s brothers. He did not want to ask for such assistance from his father’s-in-law directly, as he related to him with respect. He wanted to avoid giving the impression that everything was under his sole control. The situation is similar to Pharaoh’s enquiring from Joseph’s brothers what their occupational skills were in Genesis

ויאכלו שם על הגל, “they ate there next to the heap of stones.” There, as a symbolic gesture cementing the conclusion of the covenant, something that was customary when any pact or alliance was concluded between two or more parties. The point was that both the parties involved ate from the same loaf of bread as a sign of friendship. Having partaken of that symbolic meal, they swore to one another to maintain that agreement and not to breach it. It is also possible that they had the meal described in verse 54 next to this monument to their reconciliation. In that event, the purpose of the collecting of stones may have been to erect tables and seating arrangements around which the meal would be consumed.

ויאמר לבן הגל הזה עד, “Lavan said: “this pile of stones will be witness.” After Yaakov had named this pile of stones “Gilad,” (a pile of stones that is testimony), Lavan adopted Hebrew for the sake of confirming the agreement, seeing that they were able to agree on a mutually acceptable name for the monument in question. Alternatively, the Torah renders what Lavan said in Aramaic in Hebrew for the sake of the readers who do not understand Aramaic.

והמצפה אשר אמר, “he also called it mitzpah, (lookout) as he said.” According to Rashi this mountain which appears by that name in Judges 11,29, got its name from the fact that that both Yaakov and Lavan had said to the other that G’d would look down upon this monument to ensure that neither party would breach the agreement. Nachmanides, on the other hand, claims that if Rashi were correct there must have been a high platform on top of this pile of stones. In view of the unlikelihood of this, he believes that our verse is a continuation of verse 47, which had been interrupted by Lavan in verse 48. The words ויעקב קרא לו גלעד והמצפה על כן, must be read as a single sequence, i.e. Yaakov called the pile of stones “Gilad” as well as “hamitzpah.” The reason he did so was because he invited G’d to supervise the agreement which had been sealed between him and Lavan, and to protect him against any attempt to violate that agreement. Ibn Ezra writes that the words אשר אמר, (verse 49) refer back to Lavan, so that the meaning of the line is: “Yaakov called the pile “Mitzpah” because Lavan had said to him: “may G’d look upon (יצף) this monument, etc.”

עד הגל הזה, “this pile of stones is a witness, etc.” This is why Bileam (re-incarnate of Lavan) had his foot squeezed against the wall by the she-ass when he was on the way to curse the descendants of Yaakov, the “wall” described in Numbers The “wall” is a euphemism for this pile of stones, Bileam, being the re-incarnate of Lavan. [this may account for the fact that when Bileam arrived at Balak he was limping. Ed.]

אם אני לא אעבור אליך את הגל הזה ואם אתה לא תעבור אלי את הגל הזה ואת המצבה הזאת לרעה. “that I will not pass this pile of stones and neither will you pass this monument with hostile intent.” According to Ibn Ezra the words את הגל הזה are not to be taken literally, but are a symbol for the agreement confirmed by both Yaakov and Lavan when they erected the pile of stones and ate a sacrificial meal together to seal the covenant. The word אם here has the same meaning as the word אשר, “that.” The word תעבור, too, does not refer to walking past an imaginary line, but is a euphemism for action, i.e. hostile action. Other commentators see in the verse a mutual promise to cross this symbolic boundary in order to come to the assistance of the other party when this is called for. It is a boundary only to prevent hostile invasion of the other party’s realm. Still other commentators believe that Lavan did not want to say something offensive, negative, hence he couched it in a manner that describes it as an inactivity, although the final word לרעה strictly speaking, only makes sense if the opening words had been אם אעבור, instead of to אם לא אעבור. Still another opinion understands the negative opening as a hint that Lavan agrees that when either one of them is in difficulties which the other party can save him from, that in such a situation it is, of course, in order to cross this new boundary between their respective realms. This would be in line with other agreements called ברית, alliance, when either party promises the other to assist them when the need arises.

אלוקי אברהם ואלוקי נחור ישפטו בינינו, “the God of Avraham and the gods of Nachor may judge who between us is righteous.” We have to understand this verse as each of the two parties saying what he said as applicable only to the deity that he worshipped. Yaakov certainly did not accord the gods of Nachor legitimacy by considering them as fit to judge anything. Each of the parties mentioned the deity worshipped by their respective grandfathers, something Yaakov also did when he swore in the name of Avraham, who was his grandfather. This was a courtesy, Yaakov actually only swearing by the G’d of his father, i.e. בפחד אביו יצחק.