Then Jacob went on his journey, and came to the land of the children of the east.
verse value 1316
Insights
Verse structure: 6 words, 27 letters. The shortest word is "and·lifted" (וַיִּשָּׂ֥א, 4 letters) and the longest is "sons·of·the·east" (בְנֵי־קֶֽדֶם, 6 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "sons·of·the·east" (בְנֵי־קֶֽדֶם). 6 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·the·land" (root ארץ, 305x in Genesis); "Jacob" (root יעקב, 180x in Genesis); "and·went" (root הלך, 113x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'his·feet', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 3 words. Full calculation: וַיִּשָּׂ֥א [and·lifted] (317) + יַעֲקֹ֖ב [Jacob] (182) + רַגְלָ֑יו [his·feet] (249) + וַיֵּ֖לֶךְ [and·went] (66) + אַ֥רְצָה [to·the·land] (296) + בְנֵי־קֶֽדֶם [sons·of·the·east] (206) = 1316.
Onkelos
And Jacob lifted his feet and traveled to the land of the people of the East.
Rashi
וישא יעקב רגליו THEN JACOB LIFTED UP HIS FEET —As soon as he received the good tidings that he was assured of God’s protection his heart lifted up his feet and he walked swiftly. Thus is it explained in (Genesis Rabbah 70:8).
Sforno
וישא יעקב רגליו, when a person proceeds on a journey voluntarily, at his own initiative, this is described in terms of his personality carrying, lifting his feet. When the initiative is not his, even when he does not march involuntarily, under orders against his will, his feet are described as carrying him, i.e. his personality, the rest of his body. At this point of Yaakov’s journey, he belonged to the category of traveler mentioned first. We find the other category mentioned in Isaiah 23,7 יובילוה רגליה, “would her feet carry her?”
Or HaChaim
וישא יעקב רגליו. Jacob raised his feet. The Torah chooses this form of expression to tell us that at this time Jacob was poor and all he could raise [elevate to the status of tithes as promised in his vow, Ed.] were his feet. In the future he would tithe all his produce twice, i.e. give a total of 20% in order to fulfil the words עשר אעשרנו. The second tithe would not merely be 10% of what remained after the first tithe had been given (compare Ketuvot 50). An additional meaning of the Torah's description of Jacob "raising his feet" is that he did not actually have to walk the entire distance to Charan but that the land came toward him. This is the reason the Torah did not say אל ארץ בני קדם, "to the land of the easterners, but ארצה בני קדם." The reason the Torah describes these people as בני קדם, easterners, instead of referring to their city, i.e. Charan, is to tell us that only the district came towards him. Jacob himself walked to Charan in order to find there his Rachel and in order for him to obtain from her all the information she furnished him as described in Megillah 13.
Chizkuni
ארצה בני קדם, “to the land of Aram,” as we know from Isaiah 9,11.
Kli Yakar
And Jacob lifted his feet and went. Since regarding the first journey, our Sages of blessed memory said (Sanhedrin 95) that the earth contracted for him [through a miracle], and according to this the journey did not depend on the efforts of his feet but rather on a miracle, the verse needed to specify that from this point onward he did not travel by means of the earth’s contraction, but rather with his feet like any other person.
Tur HaArokh
וילך ארצה בני קדם, “he proceeded in the direction of the land of the people of the East.” It is a mystery why Yaakov should go to the land of the people of the East, seeing the Torah already wrote that he was heading for Charan, (28,10). On the other hand, according to the tradition that Yaakov had reached Charan on the day he set out in that direction, but that he had turned back to pray at Moriah, not having been aware at the time that he had inadvertently gone past that site without doing so, the meaning of the verse becomes abundantly clear. From Moriah he went forth to the land of the people of the East, where he remained for 14 years before again going to Charan and joining the household of Lavan.
And he looked, and behold a well in the field, and, lo, three flocks of sheep lying there by it.—For out of that well they watered the flocks. And the stone upon the well's mouth was great.
verse value 4314
Insights
Verse structure: 18 words, 80 letters. The shortest word is "for" (כִּ֚י, 2 letters) and the longest is "flocks·of·sheep" (עֶדְרֵי־צֹאן֙, 7 letters). 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "and·behold·there" (וְהִנֵּה־שָׁ֞ם), "flocks·of·sheep" (עֶדְרֵי־צֹאן֙), "lying" (רֹבְצִ֣ים). The root באר appears 3 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "for" (root כי, 167x in Genesis); "and·saw" (root ראה, 140x in Genesis); "that" (root הוא, 133x in Genesis). First appearance of the root עדר ("flocks·of·sheep") in Genesis. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'the·flocks', dividing the verse into phrases of 14 and 4 words.
Onkelos
He looked, and there was a well in the field, and there were three flocks of sheep lying beside it, for from that well they would water the flocks; and a large stone was over the mouth of the well.
Rashi
ישקו העדרים THEY GAVE THE DROVES DRINK —the shepherds used to water the flocks: this verse uses an elliptical phrase (omitting the subject “the shepherds”).
Ramban
AND HE LOOKED, AND BEHOLD A WELL IN THE FIELD, AND LO THREE FLOCKS OF SHEEP LYING THERE BY IT. Scripture tells this story at length in order to let us know that they that wait for the Eternal shall renew their strength, and the fear of Him gives strength. For here our father Jacob is coming from the journey and he is tired, yet he alone rolls away the stone, a task which required all the shepherds. The many shepherds and all the watchmen of the three flocks of sheep could not shift the rock. With respect to this chapter, our Rabbis in Bereshith Rabbah 0:8. also have a secret which alludes to the future. For it happened to him that he came to Haran by way of the well, and only three of all the flocks were gathered. He arrived at the time when the stone was yet upon the mouth of the well, and the flocks waited for the water thereof. Likewise, the matter which is narrated here is all for the purpose of letting it be known that Jacob will succeed in this venture and will have children worthy of the fulfillment of this allusion. For the well alludes to the Sanctuary, and the three flocks of sheep are symbolic of the pilgrims ascending to the Sanctuary during the three festivals. See Deuteronomy 16:16. The expression, For out of that well they watered the flocks, alludes to the fact that they drew holy inspiration from the pilgrimages to the Sanctuary. It may be that it alludes to the verse, For out of Zion shall go forth Torah Thus both prophecy and law emanated from the Sanctuary. — which has been likened to water, Baba Kamma 17a. and the word of the Eternal from Jerusalem. Thus both prophecy and law emanated from the Sanctuary. — And thither were all the flocks gathered here. — from the entrance of Hamath unto the Brook of Egypt. The verse refers to the gathering of pilgrims for the festival of Succoth. — And they rolled the stone from the well’s mouth and watered, here. for they drew holy inspiration therefrom. And they put the stone back here. to lie dormant until the next festival.
Ibn Ezra
"And he saw" — this is an anomalous word, because the yod is voweled with a patah. The word belongs to the qal binyan, yet there is no guttural letter after the yod — for it is the rule of gutturals to broaden (open) the vowel that precedes them — and it would not be proper for a person to drop the vav. Alternatively, one might say that [the patah] comes by analogy with the companions of the yod, which are signs of the auxiliary letters. In my own view, the form was intended as a qal of 'ra'ah' on the pattern of "and he took captives from him" (Numbers 21:1), and accordingly the he of 'ra'ah' has been dropped. It would equally be impossible for the alef to appear at the end of the word. What remains, then, is a hiriq under the yod, making its pattern like "and he was beautiful in his greatness" (Ezekiel 31:7). But this would cause it to be confused with the root 'yarah,' and therefore they voweled the yod with a patah.
Or HaChaim
והאגן גדולה על פי הבאר, And the stone on top of the well was a massive one. If the Torah had not written the letter ה in front of the word אבן, the impression created would have been that there simply was a heavy stone on top of the well. As it is the Torah emphasises the exceptional heaviness of that stone. This teaches us that unless Jacob had had divine assistance he could not have moved that stone. Bereshit Rabbah 70,12 understands the word ויגל as describing the ease with which Jacob rolled the stone off the well.
Chizkuni
וירא והנה באר בשדה, “when he looked, see there was a well in the field.” This whole paragraph, up to and including the line: “he rolled aside the rock,” (in verse 10) has been recorded only in order to teach us about the physical strength of Yaakov. רובצים עליה, “were lying upon it;” in expectation of being watered. פי הבאר והאבן גדולה על, “and the rock covering the opening of the well was large;” this was in order to prevent anything falling into the well which would contaminate its water or interfere with its free flow. It was also meant to prevent individual strangers to make use of its water.
Rabbeinu Bahya
וירא והנה באר בשדה, “he looked, and behold here there was a well on a field.” Every single one of our patriarchs had an encounter with a well and in each case the well was an allusion to future happenings. In Yitzchak’s case the well he encountered was called באר מים חיים. (26,19) Bereshit Rabbah 70,8 explains that to the Jewish people Torah is equivalent to spring water. והנה שם שלשה עדרי צאן, “and here there were three flocks of sheep, etc.” The Torah could have written והנה שלשה עדרי צאן ושם היה באר, “here there were three flocks of sheep and there was a well, etc.” The reason the syntax was changed was to allude to a similar sequence in Ezekiel 3,23: והנה שם כבוד ה' עומד, “and here the glory of G’d was standing.” Israel is called צאנו של מקום, “the flock of G’d,” as we know from Ezekiel 34,31 ואתן צאני צאן מרעתי אדם אתם, “and you are My sheep, sheep of My pasture- you are Adam, etc.” We have another verse expressing the same thought in Psalms 79,13 ואנחנו עמך וצאן מרעיתך, “and we are Your people and the flock of Your pasture.” The reason the Torah mentioned three flocks is that the Jewish people consist of three flocks, i.e. the Priests, the Levites, and the Israelites. All of the Israelites used to make a pilgrimage to the Temple three times a year in order to be in the Presence of G’d. כי מן הבאר ההוא ישקו העדרים. והאבן וגו', “for from that well the flocks would be watered; and the stone, etc.” There is an allusion here to the holy name of G’d which was engraved in the Holy Temple. [The first letters in the words ישקו העדרים והאבן yield the basic letters contained in the Ineffable Name. The extra word גדולה after the word והאבן may hint at the fourth letter, i.e. the repetition of the letter ה in that Holy Name.] The line “for from that well the flocks would receive their water,” is a clear hint that the Temple would serve as the basic inspiration of the various sections of the Jewish people. The words והאבן גדולה is a reference to a “golden crown”, i.e. the letter ד in the line שמע ישראל ה' אלוקינו ה' אחד. The last letter ד which is in larger script in the Torah is equivalent to the final letter in the Ineffable Name, which alludes to G’d’s attribute גדולה.
Kli Yakar
“And he saw, behold a well in the field.” It happened that he saw three flocks of sheep lying beside it — this is a sign that there were three [individuals] who encountered women at a well: Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. This is because a woman is compared to a well, as it is said Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well (Proverbs 5:15). We can further say that the three flocks of sheep lying beside it alludes to the three partners in [the creation of] a person. Therefore, it happened that three flocks of sheep drank from the well, just as the three partners in a person’s [creation] from there water all those who are born. And the large stone was on the mouth of the well — because the modest woman is called a locked garden, a sealed fountain, as if sealed with a stone, and it shall not be opened except at the time of birth, and afterwards they return the stone to its place, so that this well should only be used when necessary for the continuation of the species. And our Sages of blessed memory expounded (in Genesis Rabbah 78:9) the matter of the well in several different aspects. Some say and behold a well refers to the Holy Temple, and some say it refers to [Mount] Sinai, etc. And according to all opinions, these verses do not depart from their simple meaning, rather their intention is to say that the matter of the well and the shepherds happened to Jacob in order to serve as a sign placed in his hands about the future, and regarding this matter the Sages disagreed about what exactly this incident alludes to.
Tur HaArokh
וירא והנה באר בשדה, “he looked and saw a well in the field.” The plain meaning of this verse is a practical illustration of Isaiah 40,31 וקווי ה' יחליפו כח, “the people placing their hope and trust in the Lord will experience physical rejuvenation, etc.” Yaakov’s ability to roll the rock from the well, something several shepherds had been unable to do even jointly, proves that the new hope he had been given through his dream about the ladder had left its mark also on his body. Our sages also derived from the description in the text that the well mentioned is an allusion to the Temple, and that the three flocks of sheep described as lying around the well represent the three annual holydays on which the Jewish people would make pilgrimages to the Temple, seeing that the Temple serves the Jewish people as their spiritual inspiration, just as water serves as the liquid which keeps the body alive and healthy. Not only that, but the Torah itself has been compared to spring-water, seeing that it makes life meaningful, and the people who study it and observe it become people who see a purpose in their existence. The “various flocks“ which are described as lying around that well symbolize the people congregating around the Temple, or around Torah scholars, waiting to become inspired. The replacing of the stone on the well symbolizes the period after the pilgrimages when the Temple is in a relatively dormant condition.
And there were all the flocks gathered; and they rolled the stone from the well's mouth, and watered the sheep, and put the stone back upon the well's mouth in its place.—
verse value 4264
Insights
Verse structure: 14 words, 73 letters. Verse gematria: 4264 is divisible by 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "the·mouth·of" (פִּ֣י, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·gathered·there" (וְנֶאֶסְפוּ־שָׁ֣מָּה, 9 letters). Words sharing gematria 459: the·stone, the·stone. 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "and·gathered·there" (וְנֶאֶסְפוּ־שָׁ֣מָּה), "and·they·would·water" (וְהִשְׁק֖וּ), "the·flocks" (אֶת־הַצֹּ֑אן). The root אבן appears 2 times in this verse. 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "from·upon" (root על, 90x in Genesis); "and·they·would·put·back" (root שוב, 67x in Genesis); "the·flocks" (root צאן, 61x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'the·flocks', dividing the verse into phrases of 9 and 5 words. Full calculation: וְנֶאֶסְפוּ־שָׁ֣מָּה [and·gathered·there] (548) + כׇל־הָעֲדָרִ֗ים [all·the·flocks] (379) + וְגָלְל֤וּ [and·they·would·roll] (75) + אֶת־הָאֶ֙בֶן֙ [the·stone] (459) + מֵעַל֙ [from·upon] (140) + פִּ֣י [the·mouth·of] (90) + הַבְּאֵ֔ר [the·well] (208) + וְהִשְׁק֖וּ [and·they·would·water] (417) + אֶת־הַצֹּ֑אן [the·flocks] (547) + וְהֵשִׁ֧יבוּ [and·they·would·put·back] (329) + אֶת־הָאֶ֛בֶן [the·stone] (459) + עַל־פִּ֥י [on·the·mouth·of] (190) + הַבְּאֵ֖ר [the·well] (208) + לִמְקֹמָֽהּ [to·its·place] (215) = 4264.
Onkelos
All the flocks would gather there, and they would roll the stone from the mouth of the well and water the sheep, and then they would return the stone over the mouth of the well to its place.
Rashi
ונאספו [AND THITHER WERE ALL THE DROVES] GATHERED — they regularly gathered there because the stone was a heavy one וגללו AND THEY ROLLED THE STONE — it means and they used to roll. In the Targum it is therefore translated by ומגנדרין (a participle). The idea of frequentative action is expressed indifferently by the imperfect (future) or the perfect (past) because every action that occurs continually, has already happened and will again happen, והשיבו AND RESTORED [THE STONE] — In the Targum it is translated by ומתיבין(a participle) — and they were always putting back.
Ibn Ezra
"And they would roll" — [that is,] the shepherds [would roll] the stone.
Rabbeinu Bahya
ונאספו שמה כל העדרים, “all the flocks would be assembled there (next to that well);” this is an allusion to all the tribes of Israel from the extreme north to the extreme south who would assemble at the Holy Temple. The word וגללו in the sequence וגללו משם את האבן may be understood as similar in meaning to Berachot 7 ויגולו רחמיך על מדותיך, “they will roll over Your attribute of mercy to ‘exile’ Your other attribute.” The Talmud there discusses the effectiveness of prayer. The words והשקו את הצאן, “they watered the flock,” describe how the Holy Spirit was drawn down in order to provide the Israelites with blessing emanating from the Inner Sanctuary (in the Celestial Temple). The words והשיבו את האבן על פי הבאר למקומה, “and they would replace the stone to its place,” mean that seeing that they had previously elevated the stone (figure of speech) to lofty spiritual regions, once they had absorbed the proper spiritual input from that region they descended from such a spiritual “high.” We find a parallel comment in Sefer Yetzirah 1,4 העמד דבר על בוריו והשב יוצר על מכונו, “leave a matter in its proper state and restore the Creator to His realm.” A Midrashic approach: Rabbi Yochanan interpreted the words וירא והנה באר בשדה as an allusion to the revelation of the Torah at Mount Sinai. The words באר בשדה are a reference to Mount Sinai. The words שלשה עדרי צאן refer to the Priests, the Levites, and the Israelites. The words כי מן הבאר ההוא ישקו עדרים, “for from that well the flocks would be watered,” refer to the Ten Commandments whereas the words והאבן גדולה are a reference to G’d. The words ונאספו שמה, “they were gathered there,” refer to the Jewish people whereas the words וגללו את האבן refer to the Torah being received and accepted. Finally, the words והשיבו את האבן על פי הבאר למקומה, “they put the stone back on the mouth of the well, its original place,” are a simile for Moses saying to the people at the end of the revelation (Exodus 20,22) אתם ראיתם כי מן השמים דברתי עמכם. “You have seen that I have spoken to you from the heaven.”
And Jacob said to them: "My brothers, where are you from?" And they said: "We are from Haran."
verse value 1751
Insights
Verse structure: 9 words, 37 letters. The shortest word is "to·them" (לָהֶם֙, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·they·said" (וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ, 6 letters). The root אמר appears 2 times in this verse. 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·said" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "Jacob" (root יעקב, 180x in Genesis); "my·brothers" (root אח, 164x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'you', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 3 words. Full calculation: וַיֹּ֤אמֶר [and·said] (257) + לָהֶם֙ [to·them] (75) + יַעֲקֹ֔ב [Jacob] (182) + אַחַ֖י [my·brothers] (19) + מֵאַ֣יִן [from·where] (101) + אַתֶּ֑ם [you] (441) + וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ [and·they·said] (263) + מֵחָרָ֖ן [from·Haran] (298) + אֲנָֽחְנוּ [we] (115) = 1751.
Onkelos
Jacob said to them, "My brothers, where are you from?" And they said, "We are from Haran."
Ibn Ezra
"From where" — this is a question about place. It would not be correct to say it without the mem, for without the mem the phrase would mean 'there is nothing.' This form with the mem is also found: "Indeed you are of nothing" (Isaiah 41:24).
And he said to them: "Do you know Laban the son of Nahor?" And they said: "We know him."
verse value 2063
Insights
Verse structure: 7 words, 36 letters. The shortest word is "to·them" (לָהֶ֔ם, 3 letters) and the longest is "do·you·know" (הַיְדַעְתֶּ֖ם, 6 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "do·you·know" (הַיְדַעְתֶּ֖ם), "Laban" (אֶת־לָבָ֣ן). The root אמר appears 2 times in this verse. 5 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·said" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "do·you·know" (root ידע, 58x in Genesis); "Laban" (root לבן, 58x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'son·of·Nahor', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 2 words. Full calculation: וַיֹּ֣אמֶר [and·said] (257) + לָהֶ֔ם [to·them] (75) + הַיְדַעְתֶּ֖ם [do·you·know] (529) + אֶת־לָבָ֣ן [Laban] (483) + בֶּן־נָח֑וֹר [son·of·Nahor] (316) + וַיֹּאמְר֖וּ [and·they·said] (263) + יָדָֽעְנוּ [we·know] (140) = 2063.
Onkelos
He said to them, "Do you know Laban the son of Nahor?" And they said, "We know him."
Ramban
KNOW YE LABAN THE SON OF NAHOR? Laban was recognized and known by the name of his father’s father Nahor since Nahor was more important than Laban’s father [Bethuel], and he was the head of their family, as it is written, the G-d of Abraham and the G-d of Nahor. [Thus, Laban being the son of Bethuel, was nevertheless known by his father’s father’s name, Nahor.] It is possible that Bethuel was a dishonorable person, and Laban wanted people to ascribe his lineage only to his father’s father, for so we find, And Laban and Bethuel answered. [Laban is thus mentioned before his father, which indicates that Bethuel was not regarded as the head of the family.] Perhaps all this is in honor of Abraham for [by virtue of Laban’s being known by Nahor’s name], the whole family traced its lineage to Nahor the brother of Abraham, [and thus demonstrated its connection with its illustrious relative Abraham].
Chizkuni
לבן בן נחור, Lavan’s father Bethuel, was some kind of an outcast, as opposed to his grandfather. This is why the Torah here mentions only Nachor. When Lavan had moved to Charan, his father had already died, and no one there had known him. The local inhabitants welcomed Lavan on account of his well known grandfather Nachor.
Rabbeinu Bahya
לבן בן נחור, “Lavan son of Nachor.” The Torah should have described him as “Lavan the son of Bethuel,” seeing Bethuel was his father. However, this is another instance where the Torah shows that grandchildren are equal to children (Yevamot 62). We have another such example in 20,12 where Avraham described Sarah as “my sister the daughter of my father,” although in effect Sarah was the daughter of Avraham’s brother Haran. He had meant “daughter of my father’s son (Haran).“ It is also possible that the Torah described Lavan as the son of Nachor, seeing that Avraham’s brother Nachor was a well known personality, whereas Bethuel was relatively unknown. When people spoke of Lavan they never referred to him as the son of Bethuel but as the son of Nachor. The Torah simply described things as they were.
Kli Yakar
“Do you know Laban son of Nahor?” Why doesn’t it say “Laban son of Bethuel,” and instead of their response we know why doesn’t it say “we know him”? It appears that Jacob wasn’t asking if they were familiar with him or not, as he assumed it was obvious that local residents would know him. Rather, he was inquiring about Laban’s character and lineage. Regarding his character, he asked if Laban took after Nahor, who was an innocent and upright man, or after his father Bethuel the deceiver, who was known to violate all virgins. Thus he asked, Do you know Laban — is he like the son of Nahor, resembling him in his nature? They responded we know, meaning that he is indeed Nahor’s son, following his ways and resembling him in his deeds. Regarding his lineage, Jacob asked if he was truly born from Nahor, Abraham’s brother, for perhaps his mother had conceived him from another man. He wanted to know if there were any rumors about his mother, similar to how there were rumors about Bethuel who violated all virgins. Jacob was concerned that perhaps Bethuel’s wife had also been unfaithful and Laban was born from another man, and thus not truly descended from Nahor. They responded we know, confirming that he was definitely Nahor’s son, as there had been no hint of impropriety regarding his mother. When Jacob asked them Is he well? it was because he knew that all the local people were wicked, and if Laban was righteous according to their words, then presumably he would not be at peace due to the wicked people who typically provoke the righteous. They responded He is well, and behold, his daughter Rachel was coming with the sheep — and if he hadn’t been at peace, he wouldn’t have sent his daughter among the shepherds for fear they would abuse her. There are those who say that this is why he said to them: indeed, the day is still long — to test them if they were suspected of theft, for shepherds are generally suspected [of theft] (see Rashi’s commentary). And Jacob thought that if they were not kosher [upright], then Rachel should not have been permitted to be alone with them, for it is only permitted [for a woman] to be alone [with men] in a city with two men, and in a field with three upright men. This is why the verse specifically tells you that there were three flocks of sheep, such that they [the shepherds] were upright, and thus it was permissible for her to be alone with them.
Tur HaArokh
הידעתם את לבן בן נחור?, “do you know Lavan, son of Nachor?” The reason why the Torah does not write: “Lavan, son of Bethuel,” is that Nachor was by far more prominent in that town, and Lavan himself did not like to be referred to as his father’s son, but as his grandfather’s grandson. Some commentators write that “Lavan son of Nachor,” means “Lavan citizen of Nachor,” seeing that the town had been named after its founder, Nachor. It was likely that the shepherds did know the mayor of the town Nachor, without knowing Bethuel, father of Lavan.
And he said to them: "Is it well with him?" And they said: "It is well; and, behold, Rachel his daughter comes with the sheep."
verse value 2364 — ל֑וֹ = 36 (double-Chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 11 words, 44 letters. Notable word values: "to·him" (ל֑וֹ) = 36, double chai. The shortest word is "to·him" (ל֑וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·they·said" (וַיֹּאמְר֣וּ, 6 letters). The root אמר appears 2 times in this verse. 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·said" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "coming" (root בוא, 213x in Genesis); "his·daughter" (root בת, 92x in Genesis). First appearance of the root רחל ("Rachel") in Genesis. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·him', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 7 words. Full calculation: וַיֹּ֥אמֶר [and·said] (257) + לָהֶ֖ם [to·them] (75) + הֲשָׁל֣וֹם [is·it·well] (381) + ל֑וֹ [to·him] (36) + וַיֹּאמְר֣וּ [and·they·said] (263) + שָׁל֔וֹם [he·is·well] (376) + וְהִנֵּה֙ [and·behold] (66) + רָחֵ֣ל [Rachel] (238) + בִּתּ֔וֹ [his·daughter] (408) + בָּאָ֖ה [coming] (8) + עִם־הַצֹּֽאן [with·the·flock] (256) = 2364.
Onkelos
He said to them, "Is it well with him?" And they said, "It is well, and here is Rachel his daughter coming with the flock."
Rashi
באה עם הצאן IS COMING WITH THE FLOCK — The accent in the word באה is on the א, and the Targum is אתיא (a participle), “she is coming”; but in (v. 9) “And Rachel came (באה)”, the accent is on the first syllable, on the ב, and the Targum is אתת, “she came”. The former expresses the meaning “she is doing something” (a participle), the latter expresses the meaning “she has done something’ (a past tense).
Ibn Ezra
"And behold, Rachel his daughter is coming" — [the word ba'ah is] mil-ra' [accented on the final syllable], for here it is an adjective modifying the noun, like the form po'el [a participial pattern].
Sforno
?השלום לו, Yaakov wanted to find out something about Lavan’s circumstances and state of mind before he would come face to face with him. He did so as it is not appropriate for a guest to make such enquiries about his host after he has already been welcomed in his home.
Or HaChaim
?ויאמר להם השלום לו He said to them: "Is he well?" The reason that the shepherds did not say שלום לו, "he is well," which would have answered Jacob's question, is that Jacob's question contained two elements. 1) Is he well physically and economically? and 2) were the shepherds on good terms (at peace) with Laban. By saying merely שלום, the shepherds replied to both of Jacob's enquiries with a single word. When they added that Laban's daughter Rachel was approaching they answered a question Jacob had not asked. They may have done so in order that Jacob should not engage them in any more questions. He could ask Rachel about anything else he wanted to know. They may also have wanted to underline the good relations they had with Laban by pointing out that Laban was not afraid to send a young girl to the well with them. This is in contrast with Yitro, who was not at peace with the local shepherds; the Torah had reported that his seven grown up daughters watered the sheep and even their number did not protect them from being abused by the local shepherds. The one word reply שלום may have had yet another connotation. They meant that regarding Laban's physical wellbeing and his relations with them, those were peaceful. In order for Jacob not to gain the impression that Laban was well to do, they added that he employed his young daughter Rachel as shepherdess, a sign that he could not afford hired help. Moreover, they indicated that Laban's flocks could be managed by a single girl; his possessions could not therefore have amounted to much. They were careful not to utter a lie which would have been revealed as such anyway. Alternatively, they were afraid that Laban might complain to them why they had described him as wealthy. Solomon refers to such considerations in Proverbs 27,14 when he suggests that if someone praises someone else's wealth it is in order that not he but the wealthy person should have the honour of hosting the questioner. Yet another meaning that the shepherds could have had in mind by their brief reply was that Laban was a miser with his money and cheapened himself by letting his precious daughter tend his flock. Jacob was thereby invited to form an opinion of the man and his deeds.
Tur HaArokh
ויאמר השלום לו, “He said: “is he o.k.?” Yaakov wanted to know if Nachor was powerful enough to protect him against Esau, should the latter try and attack him. The shepherds answered in the affirmative, adding that after all, Nachor was the ruling power in that city.
And he said: "Lo, it is yet high day, neither is it time that the livestock should be gathered together; water the sheep, and go and feed them."
verse value 2238
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 46 letters. The shortest word is "behold" (הֵ֥ן, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·said" (וַיֹּ֗אמֶר, 5 letters). Words sharing gematria 146: to·be·gathered, the·flock. 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "it·is·not·time" (לֹא־עֵ֖ת), "to·be·gathered" (הֵאָסֵ֣ף), "the·animals" (הַמִּקְנֶ֑ה). 12 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·said" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "it·is·not·time" (root לא, 127x in Genesis); "the·day" (root יום, 126x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'the·animals', dividing the verse into phrases of 8 and 4 words. Full calculation: וַיֹּ֗אמֶר [and·said] (257) + הֵ֥ן [behold] (55) + עוֹד֙ [still] (80) + הַיּ֣וֹם [the·day] (61) + גָּד֔וֹל [great] (43) + לֹא־עֵ֖ת [it·is·not·time] (501) + הֵאָסֵ֣ף [to·be·gathered] (146) + הַמִּקְנֶ֑ה [the·animals] (200) + הַשְׁק֥וּ [water] (411) + הַצֹּ֖אן [the·flock] (146) + וּלְכ֥וּ [and·go] (62) + רְעֽוּ [pasture] (276) = 2238.
Onkelos
He said, "Look, the day is still long; it is not yet time to gather the livestock. Water the sheep and go, tend them."
Rashi
הן עוד היום גדול LO, IT IS YET HIGH DAY — Because he saw them lying down he thought that they wished to take the cattle home, and that they should not graze any longer. He, therefore, said to them, “Lo, it is yet high day” — meaning, if you are hired men you have not yet finished your day’s task, and if these are your own cattle, nevertheless — 'לא עת האסף המקנה וגו IT IS NOT YET TIME FOR THE CATTLET TO BE GATHERED TOGETHER TO TAKE THEM HOME (Genesis Rabbah 70:11).
Sforno
The day is yet long. He thought they were shirking their duties. The righteous are disturbed by injustice even when they are not the victims.
Or HaChaim
ויאמר הן עוד היום גדול, He said: "The day is still long, etc." The reason that Jacob presumed to judge their actions was that he was concerned with unnecessary suffering of the animals (compare Baba Metzia 32). He also wanted to find out if the reason they delayed watering the flocks was because this was not the proper time and that the town was far off and these animals were used to be kept in the town overnight. This interested him because it would help him determine the distance he had travelled. He learned from the shepherds' answer that what they did was not related to the distance from Charan.
Chizkuni
לא עת האסף המקנה, “it is not yet time to bring the cattle home.” The use of the word: האסף in this context also occurs in Judges 19,18: ואין איש מאסף אותי הביתה, “and no one is willing to give me shelter in his house.” השקו הצאן ולכו ורעו, “water the flock and proceed to let them graze.” Why would a stranger like Yaakov dare to order these shepherds around as if they were his employees? He was afraid that Rachel would join the shepherds, whereas he was interested in having a private conversation with her.
And they said: "We cannot, until all the flocks be gathered together, and they roll the stone from the well's mouth; then we water the sheep."
verse value 3106
Insights
Verse structure: 14 words, 61 letters. The shortest word is "not" (לֹ֣א, 2 letters) and the longest is "all·the·flocks" (כׇּל־הָ֣עֲדָרִ֔ים, 8 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "are·gathered" (יֵאָֽסְפוּ֙), "and·we·water" (וְהִשְׁקִ֖ינוּ). 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·they·said" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "which" (root אשר, 313x in Genesis); "not" (root לא, 127x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'the·well', dividing the verse into phrases of 12 and 2 words. Full calculation: וַיֹּאמְרוּ֮ [and·they·said] (263) + לֹ֣א [not] (31) + נוּכַל֒ [we·can] (106) + עַ֣ד [unto] (74) + אֲשֶׁ֤ר [which] (501) + יֵאָֽסְפוּ֙ [are·gathered] (157) + כׇּל־הָ֣עֲדָרִ֔ים [all·the·flocks] (379) + וְגָֽלְלוּ֙ [and·they·roll] (75) + אֶת־הָאֶ֔בֶן [the·stone] (459) + מֵעַ֖ל [from·upon] (140) + פִּ֣י [the·mouth·of] (90) + הַבְּאֵ֑ר [the·well] (208) + וְהִשְׁקִ֖ינוּ [and·we·water] (477) + הַצֹּֽאן [the·sheep] (146) = 3106.
Onkelos
They said, "We are not able to, until all the flocks have gathered and they roll the stone from the mouth of the well, and then we water the sheep."
Rashi
לא נוכל WE CANNOT — give them water because the stone is a heavy one. וגללו AND THEY ROLL AWAY — This word is rendered in the Targum by ויגנדרון “and they will roll away” (whilst in Genesis 5:3 it is rendered by an Aramaic participle) because the verb has here a future meaning.
While he was yet speaking with them, Rachel came with her father's sheep; for she tended them.
verse value 1906
Insights
Verse structure: 11 words, 41 letters. The shortest word is "that" (כִּ֥י, 2 letters) and the longest is "with·the·flock" (עִם־הַצֹּאן֙, 6 letters). 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "which" (root אשר, 313x in Genesis); "came" (root בוא, 213x in Genesis); "of·her·father" (root אב, 196x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'with·them', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 8 words. Full calculation: עוֹדֶ֖נּוּ [still] (136) + מְדַבֵּ֣ר [speaking] (246) + עִמָּ֑ם [with·them] (150) + וְרָחֵ֣ל [Rachel] (244) + בָּ֗אָה [came] (8) + עִם־הַצֹּאן֙ [with·the·flock] (256) + אֲשֶׁ֣ר [which] (501) + לְאָבִ֔יהָ [of·her·father] (48) + כִּ֥י [that] (30) + רֹעָ֖ה [a·shepherdess] (275) + הִֽוא [she] (12) = 1906.
Onkelos
While he was still speaking with them, Rachel arrived with her father's flock, for she was a shepherdess.
Ramban
FOR SHE WAS A SHEPHERDESS. The intent of this is to relate that Laban’s sheep had no shepherd other than Rachel, since her father turned over the flock to her alone. She alone tended them all the days, and Leah did not go with the flock at all. The matter was thus unlike that of the daughters of Jethro, where all seven daughters tended the flock simultaneously, as it is said, And they came and drew water. Perhaps due to Leah’s eyes being tender, the rays of the sun would have hurt her, or because Leah was older and of marriageable age, her father was more concerned about her. Jethro however was honored in his community and he was the priest of the country, and he was confident that people would be afraid of approaching his daughters. It may be that Laban was more modest than Jethro for Abraham’s family was proper and modest, but Rachel was yet young and there was no concern for her. This is the sense of the verse, And Jacob kissed Rachel. here. It may be as Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that where the Hebrew word for “kissing” is followed by the letter lamed — [as here: Vayishak Yaakov l’Rachel, instead of the word eth] — it means not on the mouth, but that he kissed her on her head or on her shoulder.
Ibn Ezra
"And Rachel came" — [the word ba'ah here is] mil-'el [accented on the penultimate syllable], and it is a past-tense verb.
Sforno
כי רועה היא, she is familiar with the finer points of successfully locating pastures for her flocks.
Or HaChaim
עודנו מדבר עמם, While he was still talking to them, etc. According to the text this is incorrect. The Torah should have written that the shepherds were still talking to him. Perhaps the reason the Torah phrased it thus is that the whole story is meant to tell us what happened to Jacob, not what happened with the shepherds. On the other hand, the Torah may have meant to tell us that Rachel arrived while Jacob was engaged in speaking to the shepherds before the shepherds had replied to him at all. The Torah did not want to interrupt the sequence of the conversation and that is why the shepherds' reply was recorded first. עם הצאן אשר לאביה, with her father's flocks. The Torah means to tell us that Rachel tended all her father's flocks. This proves the truth of Jacob's statement in 30,30 that prior to his arrival Laban possessed only meagre possessions. On the other hand the Torah may imply that Rachel was so competent a shepherdess that Laban did not need anyone in addition to her to tend his sheep. This idea is suggested by the Torah's comment כי רעה היא, for she was a shepherdess. Another reason why the Torah emphasised Rachel's being a רעה may have been that Laban, who was a pastmaster at employing charms, was convinced that Rachel possessed such charms and that employing her would ensure his future prosperity. Had he not been aware of that quality in his daughter he would not have demeaned himself by sending her out with the flocks. The Torah may want to teach us yet another lesson in this verse. It describes Rachel as באה, arriving, carefully avoiding that she had left, יצאה, from somewhere before she could arrive. This was testimony to Rachel's chasteness. She did not leave her father's house for frivolous purposes. The words כי רעה היא may also be translated as "although she was a shepherdess." In that case the Torah would tell us that Laban did not prosper until Jacob arrived; all his flocks could be managed by his young daughter although she was very skilled at her trade.
Chizkuni
ורחל באה עם הצאן אשר לאביה כי רועה היא, “and Rachel arrived with the flocks that belonged to her father;” the reason that her older sister did not tend the flocks was that due to her sensitive eyes the air on the field was harmful for her condition. Besides, it was one way of honouring her status as being the older one that she did not have to leave the house to go to work. (according to Pessikta zutrata she was already of marriageable age.)
Tur HaArokh
כי רועה היא, “for she was a shepherdess.” The Torah meant that Lavan had only one daughter who was the shepherdess, as opposed to Yitro who had seven daughters all of whom were tending flocks. The reason why Rachel was the only daughter of Lavan who was entrusted with his flocks was that her sister Leah’s eyes were weak so that she could not perform the tasks expected from a shepherd or shepherdess. It is also possible that Lavan did not want to send Leah to the well where she would meet with the male shepherds, seeing she was older than her sister and should not go about unchaperoned. Yitro, on the other hand, was a highly respected and prominent personality, and no one would have dared molest his daughters sexually. It is also possible that Lavan, who was of the same family as Avraham, observed stricter standards of modesty than did Yitro, and therefore he would not let a girl above a certain age go out alone to where she was apt to meet men.
And it came to pass, when Jacob saw Rachel the daughter of Laban his mother's brother, and the sheep of Laban his mother's brother, that Jacob went near, and rolled the stone from the well's mouth, and watered the flock of Laban his mother's brother.
verse value 5378
Insights
Verse structure: 24 words, 91 letters. The shortest word is "the·mouth·of" (פִּ֣י, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·the·flock·of" (וְאֶת־צֹ֥אן, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 182: Jacob, Jacob. 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "daughter·of·Laban" (בַּת־לָבָן֙), "and·the·flock·of" (וְאֶת־צֹ֥אן), "and·rolled" (וַיָּ֤גֶל). The root לבן appears 3 times in this verse. 16 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·it·was" (root היה, 313x in Genesis); "as" (root אשר, 313x in Genesis); "Jacob" (root יעקב, 180x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'his·mother', dividing the verse into phrases of 12 and 12 words.
Onkelos
And it came to pass, when Jacob saw Rachel the daughter of Laban his mother's brother, and the flock of Laban his mother's brother, that Jacob drew near and rolled the stone from the mouth of the well and watered the flock of Laban his mother's brother.
Rashi
ויגש יעקב ויגל JACOB STEPPED NEAR AND ROLLED [THE STONE]- as easily as one draws the stopper from the mouth of a bottle — thus showing you how strong he was. (Bereishit Rabbah 70:12)
Sforno
כאשר ראה יעקב את רחל, until he had met Rachel Yaakov had not been interested to get involved in the problem of rolling the rock off the top of the well. He had been afraid that if he helped the three shepherds would only be concerned with watering their own flocks without waiting around to assist any other shepherds.
Or HaChaim
ויהי כאשר ראה יעקב את רחל, It was when Jacob saw Rachel, etc. The reason that the Torah repeats three times that Laban was the brother of Jacob's mother is to emphasise that everything Jacob did was only because Laban was his mother's brother and he tried to honour his mother by carrying out her instructions. Another reason for the Torah to repeat this information was so that bystanders who observed Jacob- a recently arrived total stranger- doing Rachel such a great favour (removal of the stone on the well) would know that he was motivated only by family considerations. This is why Jacob spelled out his reasons and as soon as he laid eyes on Rachel he mentioned that she was the daughter of Laban who was his mother's brother. This is also why he displayed concern about the flocks of his uncle. When he kissed Rachel he did not repeat this statement since he had already made plain that Rachel was his cousin. Besides, the very fact that he started crying was explanation enough that he had come face to face with a relative. When the Torah repeats that "Jacob watered the flocks of Laban," the message may be that he did this only because Laban was his mother's brother. Otherwise, -in line with what we learn in Avodah Zarah 67- there was no call to do favours to the Gentiles, seeing that we know from Proverbs 14,34: "(even) the kindness done for us by the Gentile nations are a form of sin."
Rabbeinu Bahya
ויהי כאשר ראה יעקב, “it happened that as soon as Yaakov looked, etc.” We find that in this verse the Torah repeats the expression אחי אמו, “brother of his (Yaakov) mother” repeatedly. This is partly in order to explain why Yaakov was so concerned with helping to water the flocks as he had pity on Rachel, Lavan’s daughter. Whatever Yaakov did, whatever feat of strength he performed, he did not perform for the sake of Lavan but for the sake of his mother Rivkah. This is why every time the Torah had to mention the name of wicked Lavan, it contrasts him with his sister, Yaakov’s mother. Yaakov remembered his mother who had advised him to go to Lavan. There is yet another reason for the repeated mention of the words אחי אמו, brother of his mother.” Whenever a person hears or sees an object he desires, he is suddenly capable of performing tasks which he cannot perform in order to secure something which his heart does not covet. The reader of this passage could be forgiven if he had thought that seeing Yaakov was taken with Rachel’s beauty he desired her physically and this is what gave him the strength to move the rock single-handedly. The Torah refers time and again to the fact that Lavan was the brother of Yaakov’s mother in order to make us aware that physical passion had nothing to do with Yaakov’s sudden burst of strength in moving the rock. The Torah was so concerned not to create the impression that Yaakov’s sudden burst of strength was inspired by passion that instead of writing: “as soon as Yaakov set eyes on Rachel he rolled the rock, etc.,” Ithe Torah wrote instead (in a somewhat clumsy style) ”it was when Yaakov saw Rachel the daughter of Lavan, the brother of his mother, and the flock of Lavan the brother of his mother, Yaakov approached and rolled the rock etc.” ויגש יעקב ויגל את האבן מעל פי הבאר, “Yaakov approached and rolled the rock from the top of the well.” Yaakov clearly displayed superior physical strength seeing that at least three shepherds had been unable to move that rock with their combined efforts. When you consider in addition that Yaakov must have been tired both from the long journey and from Torah study, which traditionally weakens a person physically, (compare Isaiah 28,29 where the word תושיה is applied to Torah seeing its study weakens the body of a person, Sanhedrin 26) his feat was even more remarkable. Yaakov had spent the last 14 years studying in the academy of Ever (even though this detail has not been recorded in the written Torah). We find that when Yitzchak his father commanded Yaakov: “arise and go to Padan Aram and take for yourself from there a wife” (28,2), that he understood that the meaning of the word אשה also included another element, something Yitzchak had not spelled out to him. The hidden meaning of the word אשה was that it referred to Torah. King Solomon in Proverbs 31,10 already alluded to this meaning of the word אשה, when he headlined his last paragraph with the words אשת חיל מי ימצא, “who can find a woman of valour?” He described such a “woman” as עטרת בעלה “the crown of her husband” in Proverbs 12,4. Our sages, when commenting on Deut. 33,4 where Moses described the Torah as מורשה קהלת יעקב, “as an inalienable possession handed down from generation to generation,” that the word ought not merely be read as מורשה, but as מאורשה, something a Jew is betrothed to. In other words, Torah is to us what a wife is to a husband. Keeping this thought in mind, Yaakov decided to fulfill the implied command of his father first and instead of proceeding directly to Lavan he stayed at the Yeshivah for 14 years. The number of years he must have stayed there can be arrived at by comparing the age at which he met Pharaoh (130), [he lived in Egypt for 17 years and died at 147 years of age.] When you deduct 22 years during which he had not seen Joseph who had been 17 years of age at the time of his abduction, this made Yaakov 91 years old at the time Joseph had been born. Joseph was born after Yaakov had stayed at Lavan’s for 14 years. This means he was 77 years of age when he came to Charan. Yitzchak dispensed the blessing when he was 123 years of age, i.e. when Yaakov was 63 years old (compare Rashi who said that when one approaches within 5 years of the age at which either parent died it is time to make arrangements concerning one’s own death. The Talmud Megillah 17 arrives at the same conclusion). All of this supports the view that the only way to account for an obvious discrepancy in dates supplied by the Torah is to conclude that Yaakov studied Torah for 14 years before arriving at Lavan’s house.
Tur HaArokh
את רחל בת לבן אחי אמו, “Rachel, daughter of Lavan, the brother of his mother.” The words “the brother of his mother,” appear three times in this verse. Apparently Rachel told Yaakov first that her father was a swindler, and that it would be a mistake on the part of Yaakov to live in his house. Yaakov replied to her that seeing that her father was a brother of his mother, he was aware, and would know how to protect himself against trickery on the part of her father.
And Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice, and wept.
verse value 1758
Insights
Verse structure: 6 words, 25 letters. The shortest word is "and·kissed" (וַיִּשַּׁ֥ק, 4 letters) and the longest is "his·voice" (אֶת־קֹל֖וֹ, 5 letters). 6 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Jacob" (root יעקב, 180x in Genesis); "and·lifted" (root נשא, 47x in Genesis); "Rachel" (root רחל, 44x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'Rachel', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 3 words. Full calculation: וַיִּשַּׁ֥ק [and·kissed] (416) + יַעֲקֹ֖ב [Jacob] (182) + לְרָחֵ֑ל [Rachel] (268) + וַיִּשָּׂ֥א [and·lifted] (317) + אֶת־קֹל֖וֹ [his·voice] (537) + וַיֵּֽבְךְּ [and·wept] (38) = 1758.
Onkelos
And Jacob kissed Rachel, and he raised his voice and wept.
Rashi
ויבך AND HE WEPT- because he foresaw by the Holy Spirit that she would not be buried with him in the cave of Machpelah (Genesis Rabbah 70:12). Another explanation is: he wept because he came with empty hands. He thought: Eliezer, my grandfather’s servant, had with him rings, bracelets and all good things, whilst I have nothing with me (Genesis Rabbah 70:12). This was because Eliphaz Esau’s son pursued Jacob by his father’s order to kill him, and overtook him. But because Eliphaz had been brought up on Isaac’s lap, (cp. Deuteronomy Rabbah 2:13) he withheld his hand. He said to him (Jacob), “But what shall I do as regards my father’s order?” Jacob replied, “Take all I have and you can say that I am dead for a poor man may be accounted as dead" (Nedarim 64b).
Sforno
And cried in a loud voice. He was pained that he did not merit marrying her in his youth so that by now he would have had grown up children.
Rabbeinu Bahya
וישק יעקב לרחל, “Yaakov kissed Rachel, etc. The reason the Torah referred to Rachel as קטנה, “small,” is that she was still a minor and Yaakov could not consummate marriage vows with her. This was the reason Lavan was not worried to hand his flocks to her instead of to his already adult daughter Leah who was liable to be molested by the male shepherds on account of her age. We should also note that Yaakov did not kiss Rachel on the mouth but on the head or the shoulder, suggesting that there was no sexual element in that kiss (Ibn Ezra). וישא את קולו ויבך, “he raised his voice and cried.” This was customary when family members met. According to Bereshit Rabbah 70,12 quoted by Rashi, Yaakov’s weeping was prompted by his having a vision of Rachel not being buried with him in the cave of Machpelah. Another Midrash attributes this weeping to Yaakov’s reflecting on his arrival as a potential suitor empty-handed, whereas Eliezer, his father’s servant at the time when he met Rivkah was loaded with precious gifts. According to that version, the reason that Yaakov was penniless was that Esau’s son Eliphaz whom his father had dispatched to kill him had settled for leaving him penniless, reasoning that a poor man is like a dead man. (Sefer Hayashar).
And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother, and that he was Rebekah's son; and she ran and told her father.
verse value 2116 — אָבִ֙יהָ֙ = 18 (chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 49 letters. Notable word values: "her·father" (אָבִ֙יהָ֙) = 18, chai, 'life'. Verse gematria: 2116 = 46². The shortest word is "for" (כִּ֣י, 2 letters) and the longest is "son·of·Rebekah" (בֶן־רִבְקָ֖ה, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 12: he, he. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "son·of·Rebekah" (בֶן־רִבְקָ֖ה). The root נגד appears 2 times in this verse. 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "her·father" (root אב, 196x in Genesis); "Jacob" (root יעקב, 180x in Genesis); "for" (root כי, 167x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'he', dividing the verse into phrases of 10 and 3 words. Full calculation: וַיַּגֵּ֨ד [and·told] (23) + יַעֲקֹ֜ב [Jacob] (182) + לְרָחֵ֗ל [Rachel] (268) + כִּ֣י [for] (30) + אֲחִ֤י [brother·of] (19) + אָבִ֙יהָ֙ [her·father] (18) + ה֔וּא [he] (12) + וְכִ֥י [and·that] (36) + בֶן־רִבְקָ֖ה [son·of·Rebekah] (359) + ה֑וּא [he] (12) + וַתָּ֖רׇץ [and·ran] (696) + וַתַּגֵּ֥ד [and·told] (413) + לְאָבִֽיהָ [to·her·father] (48) = 2116.
Onkelos
And Jacob told Rachel that he was the son of her father's sister, and that he was the son of Rebecca; and she ran and told her father.
Rashi
כי אחי אביה הוא HE WAS HER FATHER’S BROTHER — near kin to her father, as (Genesis 13:8) “for we are men, brothers (אחים)” (i. e. near kin). A Midrashic explanation is that he meant: if he (Laban) intends to practice deceit upon me then I am his brother (a match for him) in deception; if, however, he is an honest man then I, too, am the son of his sister, the pious Rebekah (Genesis Rabbah 70:13). ותגד לאביה AND SHE TOLD HER FATHER, because her mother was dead and she had no one to tell except him (Bereishit Rabbah 70:13).
Ramban
AND SHE TOLD HER FATHER. Rashi comments: “Her mother was dead.” And so it is stated in Bereshith Rabbah 0:12. But according to the plain meaning of Scripture, Rachel related it to her father in order to inform him of the arrival of his relative and so that he should go forth to meet him and honor him. For, as regards her mother, what was Jacob to her and what could she do for him? However, Rebekah did show her mother the jewels which Eliezer gave her, as is the custom of maidens.
Ibn Ezra
"And Jacob told Rachel" — this is out of sequence; the sense is that Jacob had already told Rachel, and only afterward [did] "he kissed [her]." There are many such instances.
Sforno
כי אחי אביה הוא, the Torah adds this at this point to justify his kissing Rachel and her allowing herself to be kissed by him. וכי בן רבקה הוא, he mentioned Rivkah to Rachel although Rachel did not know Rivkah at all. He did so because he wanted her to tell Lavan about who exactly Yaakov was.
Or HaChaim
ויגד יעקב לרחל כי כי אחי אביה הוא, Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother, etc. This means that Jacob told Rachel that his relationship to her was based on two elements. 1) There was a biological relationship, i.e. he was a blood relative of her father; 2) there was a spiritual relationship between them inasmuch as he was a son of Rebeccah who was known far and wide for her righteousness. Righteous people are considered as all related to one another. He may have hinted at something we learned in Megillah 13 where we are told that Rachel told Jacob that her father was a swindler. Jacob told Rachel that he could match her father since he was of the same family. Having said so Jacob became afraid that Rachel would form a bad impression of his character; he therefore added that he was the son of Rebeccah who had employed wiles only in order to help justice and righteousness to prevail. This is the deeper meaning of Kohelet 7,12 that "(applied) wisdom preserves the lives of its possessors." He would never employ trickery for nefarious purposes something that would result in the destruction of its perpetrators.
Chizkuni
ויגד יעקב לרחל, “Yaakov told Rachel;” He must have identified himself already previously, or he would not have dared kiss her as is reported in verse 11. Now he told her more details about himself. כי אחי אביה הוא, “that he was a brother of her father.” After having told her this, he kissed her. Another exegesis of this sequence: Yaakov first told Rachel that he was the brother of her father in order that she should not feel insulted that he had been fresh enough to kiss her. ותגד לאביה, “she told her father.”[This is already the second time that Bethuel is described as alive; I do not understand why our author has claimed that he died before Lavan ever came to Charan, as he did on verse 5. Ed.] When Rivkah had a similar experience with Eliezer, she is reported as relating her encounter to her mother, as she did not know precisely who Eliezer was. Daughters normally keep their mothers’ company, not their father’s.
Rabbeinu Bahya
כי אחי אביה הוא, “that he was her father’s brother.” Yaakov meant that he was related to Rachel’s father. We know that uncle and nephew describe themselves as brothers from 13,8 where Avraham told Lot “for we are brothers.”... According to Bereshit Rabbah 70,12 Yaakov told Rachel that when it came to duplicity he was her father’s equal and knew how to take care of himself seeing he was biologically related to him.
Tur HaArokh
ויגד יעקב לרחל כי אחי אביה הוא, ”Yaakov told Rachel that he was the brother of her father.” According to Ibn Ezra, the Torah now fills us in on something Yaakov had told Rachel already earlier in their conversation, before he had kissed her. ותרץ ותגד לאביה, “she ran home and told her father.” Rashi explains that the reason she told her father, not her mother, as when Rivkah had encountered Eliezer, was that her mother had died already. Nachmanides writes that we do not need to resort to Rashi’s explanation and assume that Rachel was a semi-orphan. Seeing that Yaakov was a relative of her father’s and not of her mother’s, it was natural that she would bring this news first to her father. Rivkah, running to her mother was natural, as she wanted to entrust the jewelry she had received to her mother’s safe keeping.
And it came to pass, when Laban heard the tidings of Jacob his sister's son, that he ran to meet him, and embraced him, and kissed him, and brought him to his house. And he told Laban all these things.
verse value 5420
Insights
Verse structure: 16 words, 86 letters. The shortest word is "Laban" (לָבָ֜ן, 3 letters) and the longest is "all·the·things" (אֵ֥ת כׇּל־הַדְּבָרִ֖ים, 10 letters). 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "news·of" (אֶת־שֵׁ֣מַע), "son·of·his·sister" (בֶּן־אֲחֹת֗וֹ), "and·embraced·him" (וַיְחַבֶּק־לוֹ֙). The root שמע appears 2 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·it·was" (root היה, 313x in Genesis); "these" (root אלה, 301x in Genesis); "and·brought·him" (root בוא, 213x in Genesis). First appearance of the root חבק ("and·embraced·him") in Genesis. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·his·house', dividing the verse into phrases of 12 and 4 words.
Onkelos
And it came to pass, when Laban heard the news of Jacob the son of his sister, he ran to meet him, and embraced him and kissed him, and brought him into his house; and he recounted to Laban all these matters.
Rashi
וירץ לקראתו HE RAN TOWARDS HIM — thinking that he was laden with money, for the servant of that household (Eliezer) had come there with ten camels fully laden (Bereishit Rabbah 70:13). ויחבק AND EMBRACED HIM — When he saw that he had nothing with him, he thought, “Perhaps he has brought gold coins and they are hidden away in his bosom!” וינשק לו HE KISSED HIM — he thought, “Perhaps he has brought pearls (or precious stones, in general) and they are in his mouth!” (Genesis Rabbah 70:13) ויספר ללבן HE TOLD LABAN that he had come only because he was forced to do so by his brother, and that all his money had been taken from him.
Ibn Ezra
"All these things" — [that is,] the words of the blessing [that Isaac had given him].
Sforno
את שמע יעקב, that he had succeeded in single-handedly rolling the rock off the top of the well. ויספר ללבן, in order to inform Lavan that he had not come to him because he needed to look for a livelihood, but rather to that he was escaping from the wrath of his brother and that his mother had commanded him to go to Lavan and to stay there for a while.
Or HaChaim
ויהי כשמוע לבן, And as soon as Laban heard, etc. The word ויהי, as usual, introduces a negative element. Here too Laban formed evil intentions as soon as he heard about Jacob's arrival. Bereshit Rabbah 70,13 suggests that Laban searched Jacob bodily under the guise of hugging him and kissing him. When the Torah describes that Laban heard that Jacob "was the son of his sister," this means that Rachel had not told her father that he was her father's brother, only that he was the son of Rebeccah. This is why Laban entertained thoughts of tricking him. When the Torah reports that Laban brought Jacob into his house this was also because he thought that maybe Jacob's wealth was following some distance behind him. He wanted to keep Jacob around pending arrival of his possessions. ויספר ללבן את כל הדברים האלה. He told Laban all that happened. The word בואו in this verse may refer to Jacob explaining how Eliphaz had pursued him and robbed him of his possessions. It is also possible that the reason Jacob told Laban everything- seeing Rachel had told him that her father was a swindler- was in order to convince him that there was no point in trying to swindle him as he had himself gotten the better of Esau by obtaining both the birthright and the blessing. He also told Laban of his having single-handedly moved the stone on top of the well to show that he possessed physical strength. He went on to tell Laban that he had watered his flock to show him that he harboured friendly feelings toward him.
Chizkuni
ויספר ללבן את כל הדברים האלה, “he told Lavan in detail about all these events;” i.e. how he had acquired the birthright and subsequently the blessing, in order that Lavan would agree to give him Rachel in marriage. He also told him that he had been forced to flee from his brother Esau in order to explain why he had arrived emptyhanded.
And Laban said to him: "Surely you are my bone and my flesh." And he remained with him the space of a month.
verse value 2376 — לוֹ֙ = 36 (double-Chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 11 words, 38 letters. Notable word values: "to·him" (לוֹ֙) = 36, double chai. Verse gematria: 2376 is divisible by 18, the value of chai ('life'). The shortest word is "to·him" (לוֹ֙, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·said" (וַיֹּ֤אמֶר, 5 letters). 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "my·bone" (עַצְמִ֥י), "and·my·flesh" (וּבְשָׂרִ֖י), "month" (חֹ֥דֶשׁ). 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·said" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "with·him" (root עם, 87x in Genesis); "you" (root אתה, 73x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'you', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 4 words. Full calculation: וַיֹּ֤אמֶר [and·said] (257) + לוֹ֙ [to·him] (36) + לָבָ֔ן [Laban] (82) + אַ֛ךְ [only] (21) + עַצְמִ֥י [my·bone] (210) + וּבְשָׂרִ֖י [and·my·flesh] (518) + אָ֑תָּה [you] (406) + וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב [and·stayed] (318) + עִמּ֖וֹ [with·him] (116) + חֹ֥דֶשׁ [month] (312) + יָמִֽים [days] (100) = 2376.
Onkelos
And Laban said to him, "Indeed you are my kinsman and my own flesh." And he stayed with him a month's time.
Rashi
אך עצמי ובשרי SURELY THOU ART MY BONE AND MY FLESH — Really, I have no reason to take you into my house, since you have brought nothing with you; but because of our relationship I will put up with you for “the space of a month”. Thus, indeed, he did, but even this was not for nothing, for he tended Laban’s sheep.
Ibn Ezra
"A month of days" — I have already explained this.
Sforno
אך עצמי ובשרי אתה, even though you are no doubt able to make a living without me by undertaking to look after the flocks or in some other manner, the fact remains that you are my flesh and blood and it is therefore appropriate that you should stay under my roof. וישב עמו, during which time he looked after Lavan’s livestock. The expression ישב implying more than just being a tourist, a visitor in someone’s house for an extended period is found elsewhere also, as for instance in Exodus 2,21 when Moses is described as ויואל משה לשבת את האיש, where it means not merely that Moses agreed to stay at the house of Yitro but that he undertook to become a shepherd for him. When Lavan, in verse 19 of this chapter asks Yaakov שבה עמדי, he did not merely offer hospitality but meant that Yaakov would continue to mind his flocks. The fact that Lavan himself refers to Yaakov working for him without wages makes it clear that during the first 30 days he was not merely sitting around, but had been more than earning his keep.
Or HaChaim
ויאמר לו…אך עצמי ובשרי אתה, He said to him…"after all you are of my bone and flesh, etc." The word אך which is always a diminutive here serves to restrict the identification of Jacob with Laban. On the one hand Laban considered Jacob as his bone (self), on the other hand, he was well aware of the difference between them. Laban represented darkness rather than light. Perhaps he wanted to specify that all they had in common was flesh and bone. וישב עמו חודש ימים. He stayed with him for a month. He waited for a whole month, hoping that Jacob's possessions might arrive during that period. When he realised that there was no hope of that he had to decide how to relate to Jacob. Inasmuch as Laban had wanted Jacob to work for him from the moment he set eyes on him, he concealed this from him for a period of thirty days during which time Jacob worked without compensation. After that time he arranged working conditions with him for reasons which I shall explain later. During those thirty days he wanted to see if Jacob would prove to be an asset to him, if he would be successful. As a result of all this he had made a servant of Jacob from the very day he arrived; this is why he used the expression ועבדתני חנם, "you have already served me without compensation." Laban had satified himself during that month that Jacob was very successful in his work.
Chizkuni
אך עצמי ובשרי אתה, “Lavan said that legally speaking he should not have given Yaakov shelter, just as his other relatives had not protected him and forced him to flee after he had cheated his brother on two separate occasions. However, “seeing that you are my own flesh and blood, I will make an exception and not kick you out.” וישב עמו חדש ימים, “he stayed with him for a month.” The Torah uses this opportunity to teach us for how long a person must practice hospitality with his relatives. (Bereshit Rabbah 70,14) An alternate exegesis: When Lavan had heard what Yaakov had done to Esau, he was afraid to hire him until he had at least assured himself of his skills and suitability.
Kli Yakar
“Indeed you are my bone and flesh.” Since it says And he told Laban all these matters but the text does not specify which matters, which things he told him — and it should have said “all that happened to him” — rather, it must be that he told him those things that Esau had spoken in his heart, when he said Let the days of mourning for my father draw near, and I will kill my brother. And he needed to explain to him for what reason [Esau] wanted to kill him, which was because of the birthright and the blessings. Therefore Laban said to him Indeed you are my bone and flesh — with the word indeed/only [ach] he excluded Esau, because the rich has many friends while all the brothers of the poor hate him. According to this, [he was saying] “you are wealthy, and therefore only you alone are my bone and flesh, but not Esau, and therefore you need not fear him because he is not my relative.” Another explanation: Since he [Laban] saw nothing with him [Jacob], for he came empty-handed, if so, you don’t have the closeness that wealthy people share, rather only the closeness of flesh and blood alone. Another explanation: After he [Jacob] told him [Laban] how he deceived Esau by taking the birthright, [Laban] said Indeed you are my bone and flesh — you are a deceiver like me, therefore it is fitting to draw you close to me, for you are just like me.
Tur HaArokh
אך עצמי ובשרי אתה, “after all, you are of my own flesh and bone.” The word אך usually denotes an expression of pain, regret, i.e. in this instance: “how sad it is that you are penniless; but seeing you are my flesh and bone, etc.” Alternately, Lavan meant: “although seeing that you deceived your brother, and I should by rights keep my distance from you, the fact that you are my own flesh and blood causes me to deal with you differently.”
And Laban said to Jacob: "Because you are my brother, should you therefore serve me for nought? tell me, what shall your wages be?"
verse value 2743
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 47 letters. Verse gematria: 2743 is divisible by 13, the value of echad ('one') and ahavah ('love'). The shortest word is "to·me" (לִּ֖י, 2 letters) and the longest is "what·are·your·wages" (מַה־מַּשְׂכֻּרְתֶּֽךָ, 8 letters). 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "is·it·because·my·kinsman" (הֲכִי־אָחִ֣י), "and·should·you·serve·me" (וַעֲבַדְתַּ֖נִי), "for·nothing" (חִנָּ֑ם). 10 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·said" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "to·Jacob" (root יעקב, 180x in Genesis); "is·it·because·my·kinsman" (root אח, 164x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'for·nothing', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 3 words. Full calculation: וַיֹּ֤אמֶר [and·said] (257) + לָבָן֙ [Laban] (82) + לְיַעֲקֹ֔ב [to·Jacob] (212) + הֲכִי־אָחִ֣י [is·it·because·my·kinsman] (54) + אַ֔תָּה [you] (406) + וַעֲבַדְתַּ֖נִי [and·should·you·serve·me] (542) + חִנָּ֑ם [for·nothing] (98) + הַגִּ֥ידָה [tell] (27) + לִּ֖י [to·me] (40) + מַה־מַּשְׂכֻּרְתֶּֽךָ [what·are·your·wages] (1025) = 2743.
Onkelos
And Laban said to Jacob, "Because you are my kinsman, should you serve me for nothing? Tell me, what shall your wages be?"
Rashi
הכי אחי אתה This is a question: — IS IT BECAUSE THOU ART MY BROTHER THAT THOU SHOULDST SERVE ME FOR NOUGHT? ועבדתני is the same in sense as ותעבדני THAT THOU SHOULDST SERVE ME. So, too, in the case of every verb in the past tense, if one adds as prefix a ו it may change the verb to the future.
Ramban
IS IT BECAUSE THOU ART MY BROTHER, THAT THOU SHOULDEST SERVE ME FOR NOUGHT? Scripture did not relate that Jacob served Laban. It is possible that from the time Scripture stated, And he watered the flock of Laban his mother’s brother, here. the flock never left his care, for when he saw that Rachel was a shepherdess, Jacob had compassion for her and desired that she no longer tend the sheep. So, out of his love for her, he tended them. It is also possible to say that Laban spoke with cunning. First he said to him that he is his bone and his flesh, here. and that he will have compassion for him as a man has compassion for his own bone and flesh, but when he saw that Jacob tarried there, supporting himself from Laban’s belongings, he said to him, “Is it because thou art my brother, that thou shouldest serve me for nought? For I know that you will henceforth serve me for you are an ethical man, and you will not support yourself from the property of others. Nor do I desire that the labor you perform for me be free without full compensation. Therefore tell me what you want for your hire, and I will give it.” Jacob then discerned Laban’s mind, and he told him that he would serve him for seven years for Rachel. Undefined, “serving” here means tending the sheep, for this is what was needed and this was the subject of their conversation.
Ibn Ezra
"Your wages" — [this word is] on the pattern of "the tale of the bricks" (Exodus 5:8).
Or HaChaim
ויאמר לבן.הכי אחי אתה, Laban said: "Because you are my brother, etc." Who had told Laban that Jacob would serve him for free? Assuming that Jacob indeed did not ask for wages, so what? Why should it bother Laban? If Laban did not want to become the beneficiary of gifts, i.e. שונא מתנות יחיה, this is most unlikely as we see Laban enjoy even stolen goods. He must certainly have been willing to accept legitimately acquired gifts willingly! Surely we must understand his question as one that was designed to pay Jacob less than his labour was worth. Maimonides writes in Hilchot Shluchin Ve Shutafim chapters six and eight that when a shepherd has not made an agreement with the owner of the flock before he accepted the position he receives one third of the profit of stationary goods (items that do not need his special daily care) and two thirds of mobile goods such as calves and young asses which need to be fed, etc., by the shepherd. Laban was afraid that Jacob's silence on the subject of wages indicated that he expected to be recompensed according to this rate. He thought Jacob expected to receive one third of the increase of the adult animals and two thirds of any increase in the ones not yet fully developed. Laban would have been quite right to continue to let Jacob work for free if the latter had been the average fool not bothering to make a contract. However, since Jacob had already spelled out to Laban that he was no fool, i.e. that he was just as capable of tricking Laban as the latter was in the habit of tricking others, he told him we have to make an agreement precisely because "you are my brother (in the art of trickery)." He challenged Jacob by saying "surely you do not want me to believe that you will work for me for free?" Laban therefore wanted to clarify at once what conditions Jacob expected him to meet.
Rabbeinu Bahya
הכי אחי אתה, “because you are my brother, etc.” the word הכי which Lavan used here was not really a question in this instance. Rather, it was an affirmation. We have a similar use of that word when Esau exclaimed (27,36) הכי קרא שמו יעקב, “indeed his name is ‘the crooked one.’” Onkelos translates the word there as יאות, “it is fitting.” ועבדתני חנם, “and you have served me for free.” The meaning of the verse is that “you are most certainly my brother and so far you have served me without compensation for a whole month, as the Torah had testified in verse 14 “he stayed with him for a month.” Lavan implied that if Yaakov wanted to stay on for a longer period he should tell him what kind of compensation he expected to receive for his labour. Yaakov replied: “I will serve you for seven years.” This is most amazing. What prompted Yaakov to mention right off that he would serve Lavan for seven years? If Lavan had suggested to him that he should serve seven years to secure Rachel’s hand in marriage, it would have been appropriate for Yaakov to try and make a better deal, suggesting a shorter period of service such as two or three years maximum. What could possibly have prompted him to volunteer such a lengthy period of service? Perhaps Rachel was only five years old at that time and Yaakov needed to wait for seven years until he could consummate marriage to her as she would not biologically be able to conceive children before that time. The reason that he said ברחל בתך הקטנה “for Rachel your daughter who is a minor”, a fact which was well known, is that he implied “I cannot marry her now as she is too young. This is why I am willing to wait for seven years during which time I will remain in service with you.” He also implied that though Rachel was old enough to have intercourse with already at this time, he would not indulge his libido if he did not have a reasonable chance that such intercourse would result in his wife’s pregnancy. Marriage to him meant to fulfill the commandment to raise a family. Rashi writes that the reason Yaakov was so specific in saying “Rachel your younger daughter,” was that as far as Yaakov was concerned his uncle Lavan was a confirmed swindler, and he was afraid that at the end of the period Lavan would present him with a girl from the street whose name was Rachel. This is why he had to say: “your daughter.” The reason he had to add the words “the younger one,” was to prevent Lavan from presenting him with Leah saying: “she is my daughter.” The Torah teaches us that all of Yaakov’s precautions notwithstanding, he was outwitted by Lavan and Lavan still gave him Leah without his being aware of it at the time.
Tur HaArokh
הכי אחי אתה ועבדתני חנם?, ”do you have to serve me without recompense just because you are my family?” Nachmanides points out that the Torah had not even mentioned that Yaakov “served” Lavan, It is possible, that as soon as Yaakov had met Rachel, he had taken over her former duties of tending Lavan’s flocks. He did so because he had fallen in love with her. It is also possible that Lavan had immediately spoken to him with deceitful intent, saying that seeing he was family, he would provide for him as a family member. After a month had passed, he suggested to Yaakov that surely as a moral individual he would not expect Lavan to continue doing this without Yaakov compensating him. Since he did not want him to have to be in the service of people unrelated to him by blood, and he also could not afford to feed him for an indefinite period without Yaakov compensating him, he suggested that Yaakov work for him and that he tell him what he expected in the way of wages. Yaakov realized what was on his mind, and suggested that he would work for Lavan for 7 years in order to receive Rachel’s hand in marriage. The עבודה that the Torah refers to here, is simply the tending of Lavan’s sheep. Lest we think that this was an easy vocation, Yaakov in Genesis 31,38-42 describes in detail what extreme discomfort was involved when one took one’s responsibilities in this regard seriously, as he did. Some commentators believe that what Lavan had in mind was to appoint Yaakov as what is known in halachah as שומר שכר, a paid guard, someone who is responsible for the items entrusted to him, being liable for theft, loss from a variety of causes, as opposed to an unpaid guard who is liable to make restitution for any loss only when negligence or worse can be proved against him.
Now Laban had two daughters: the name of the elder was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel.
verse value 2462 — לֵאָ֔ה = 36 (double-Chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 9 words, 33 letters. Notable word values: "Leah" (לֵאָ֔ה) = 36, double chai. The shortest word is "name" (שֵׁ֤ם, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·to·Laban" (וּלְלָבָ֖ן, 5 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "and·to·Laban" (וּלְלָבָ֖ן). The root שם appears 2 times in this verse. 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "name" (root שם, 180x in Genesis); "daughters" (root בת, 92x in Genesis); "and·to·Laban" (root לבן, 58x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'daughters', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 6 words. Full calculation: וּלְלָבָ֖ן [and·to·Laban] (118) + שְׁתֵּ֣י [two] (710) + בָנ֑וֹת [daughters] (458) + שֵׁ֤ם [name] (340) + הַגְּדֹלָה֙ [the·older] (47) + לֵאָ֔ה [Leah] (36) + וְשֵׁ֥ם [and·the·name·of] (346) + הַקְּטַנָּ֖ה [the·younger] (169) + רָחֵֽל [Rachel] (238) = 2462.
Onkelos
Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the elder was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel.
Or HaChaim
וללבן שתי בנות, And Laban had two daughters, etc. The Torah meant to inform us that both daughters were well known, the elder as Leah and the younger as Rachel so that Laban could not pretend afterwards that their names were different. Jacob stipulated that he would serve Laban for his smaller daughter Rachel in order to remove all possible doubt about whom he had in mind. When the Torah described Leah as גדולה, this was not a relative term, but she was tall in her own right not merely by comparison to Rachel, apart from the fact that she may have been a year or two older than her sister. Rachel too was of below average height not only because of her age.
Rashbam
וללבן שתי בנות, the Torah interrupted Yaakov’s narrative by telling us that seeing that Lavan had only two daughters and the younger one appealed to Yaakov, he asked her father for her hand in marriage.
And Leah's eyes were tender; but Rachel was of beautiful form and fair to look upon.
verse value 3305 — לֵאָ֖ה = 36 (double-Chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 8 words, 34 letters. Notable word values: "Leah" (לֵאָ֖ה) = 36, double chai. The shortest word is "Leah" (לֵאָ֖ה, 3 letters) and the longest is "shapely·of·form" (יְפַת־תֹּ֖אַר, 6 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "tender" (רַכּ֑וֹת), "shapely·of·form" (יְפַת־תֹּ֖אַר). The root יפה appears 2 times in this verse. 7 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "was" (root היה, 313x in Genesis); "and·the·eyes·of" (root עין, 79x in Genesis); "Rachel" (root רחל, 44x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'tender', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 5 words. Full calculation: וְעֵינֵ֥י [and·the·eyes·of] (146) + לֵאָ֖ה [Leah] (36) + רַכּ֑וֹת [tender] (626) + וְרָחֵל֙ [Rachel] (244) + הָֽיְתָ֔ה [was] (420) + יְפַת־תֹּ֖אַר [shapely·of·form] (1091) + וִיפַ֥ת [and·beautiful·of] (496) + מַרְאֶֽה [sight] (246) = 3305.
Onkelos
And Leah's eyes were beautiful, but Rachel was fair of form and beautiful in appearance.
Rashi
רכות TENDER — She thought she would have to fall to the lot of Esau and she therefore wept continually, because everyone said, “Rebekah has two sons, Laban has two daughters — the elder daughter for the elder son, the younger daughter for the younger son” (Genesis Rabbah 70:16). תאר FORM — this denotes the shape (outline) of the face, just as the verb formed from the same root in (Isaiah 44:13) “he marks it out (יתארחו) with a pencil” old French compas. מראה OF BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE — this denotes the beauty of her features (a good complexion).
Ibn Ezra
"Tender" — [understood] in its plain sense. Some have asked: why were [her eyes] so? Because they supposed that Hashem's thoughts are like their own thoughts, and that it is fitting for all created beings to have forms that are equal [i.e., identical]. Ben Efraim said that the word lacks an alef, and its meaning is 'long' — but he was the one who lacked [an alef]. "Fair of form" — like "and the border curved" (Joshua 15:9); [meaning that] every limb — such as the nose and the mouth — was beautiful. And "appearance" — all of her was beautiful. Or "appearance" refers to what is seen of the face.
Sforno
יפת תאר, possessed of beautiful features, as described in Isaiah 44,13 ובמחוגה יתארהו. ויפת מראה, her skin looked very healthy. Colour is something which attracts closer inspection by the sense of sight.
Or HaChaim
ועיני לאה רכות, Leah's eyes were soft, etc. It is not customary for the Torah to reveal physical blemishes of such righteous people as our matriarchs. Therefore, the meaning of this comment must be to tell the reader that Laban could never have claimed that Rachel was Leah or vice versa because even their eyes were totally different. Leah was not only not as beautiful as her sister Rachel, but she suffered from a blemish, i.e her eyes were not attractive. Since Leah and Rachel were so different from one another in their external appearance Laban had no way of cheating on Jacob by palming off the wrong daughter on him. יפת תואר ויפת מראה. Both her face and her body were beautiful. Beauty may expresses itself in two ways. 1) Every individual feature is beautiful by itself; We have examples of this by Solomon in his Song of Songs where he describes the beauty of different parts of the anatomy. 2) There is such a thing as an overall beauty of both the facial features and the body. The Torah describes Rachel as blessed with both these kinds of beauty. The expression יפת תואר may also be understood as "objectively beautiful," whereas the expression יפת מראה may refer to the impression Rachel made on those who looked at her.
Rabbeinu Bahya
ועיני לאה רכות, “and Leah’s eyes were soft.” Rabbi Avraham [Ibn Ezra] commented on this that someone called Ben Efrayim said that the word רכות really should have been spelled with the letter א, meaning ארוכות. I can only comment that his own name should have been spelled without the letter א. [In other words, his comment is without foundation.]
Tur HaArokh
ועיני לאה רכות, “Leah’s eyes were sensitive;” according to Onkelos, this is a compliment, Leah’s eyes being round and lustrous like those of a young and beautiful calf. Targum Yonathan omits the comparison with a calf. Apparently, when the Torah points out Leah’s eyes as being beautiful, this is in contrast to the remainder of her physical features which were not attractive. Other commentators who view the comment as describing a flaw, feel that the Torah was at pains to point out that Leah’s only physical flaw were her eyes. Her sister Rachel, however, was flawlessly beautiful.
And Jacob loved Rachel; and he said: "I will serve you seven years for Rachel your younger daughter."
verse value 2802
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 43 letters. The shortest word is "seven" (שֶׁ֣בַע, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·loved" (וַיֶּאֱהַ֥ב, 5 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "I·will·serve·you" (אֶֽעֱבׇדְךָ֙), "your·daughter" (בִּתְּךָ֖). The root רחל appears 2 times in this verse. 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·said" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "Jacob" (root יעקב, 180x in Genesis); "years" (root שנה, 169x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'Rachel', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 7 words. Full calculation: וַיֶּאֱהַ֥ב [and·loved] (24) + יַעֲקֹ֖ב [Jacob] (182) + אֶת־רָחֵ֑ל [Rachel] (639) + וַיֹּ֗אמֶר [and·said] (257) + אֶֽעֱבׇדְךָ֙ [I·will·serve·you] (97) + שֶׁ֣בַע [seven] (372) + שָׁנִ֔ים [years] (400) + בְּרָחֵ֥ל [Rachel] (240) + בִּתְּךָ֖ [your·daughter] (422) + הַקְּטַנָּֽה [the·younger] (169) = 2802.
Onkelos
And Jacob loved Rachel, and he said, "I will serve you seven years for Rachel, your younger daughter."
Rashi
אעבדך שבע שנים I WILL SERVE THEE SEVEN YEARS — These are the “few days” of which his mother had spoken to him (27:44)): “And thou shalt tarry with him a few days”. You can see that this is so, for it is written (v. 20) “And they (the seven years) were in his eyes (i.e. according to his view) the few days” of which his mother had spoken (Genesis Rabbah 70:17). ברחל בתך הקטנה (literally, for Rachel, thy daughter, the younger one) — What reason was there for mentioning all these detailed descriptions of Rachel? Because he (Jacob) knew that he (Laban) was a deceiver. He said to him, “I will serve thee for Rachel”: and should you say that I mean any other Rachel out of the street, therefore I say “your daughter”. Should you say, “I will change Leah’s name and call her Rachel”, I say “your younger one”. In spite of this, however, all these precautions did not avail, for he did actually deceive him (Genesis Rabbah 70:17).
Sforno
אעבדך שבע שנים ברחל, there can be no question that a righteous man such as Yaakov would not have the audacity to marry a woman and to found a family unless he were able to support her and to provide her with the requirements specified in Exodus 21,10 as spelled out in Yevamot 19. “a man is allowed to marry several wives provided he can look after them financially.” There is therefore no reason to believe that Lavan, who was himself a man of means, would give his daughters to sons-in-law who were unable to provide for them in the manner they had been accustomed to. If all this is so, how do we explain Yaakov’s referring to the time when he crossed the river Yabbok on his way to his uncle as having only his walking staff? (Genesis 32,10)? What Yaakov meant when he said this was that at the time he referred to he had not owned any livestock, nor any profession with which to earn his livelihood. The reason he offered to work for Lavan for 7 years was to use his work in lieu of a cash dowry he would pay her father for her hand in marriage, something that was customary in those days. Lavan’s daughters themselves referred to their father having sold them into marriage in Genesis 31,15. They were modest enough to know that Lavan had taken advantage of Yaakov by demanding an exorbitantly huge amount as dowry from him. We know also from Exodus 22,16 that a father used his daughter as a source of augmenting his income and when the value of such “merchandise” had been reduced through rape or seduction of the daughter (loss of virginity) he is entitled to financial compensation by the man who seduced his daughter (when he refuses to give her to the seducer in marriage in exchange for a regular dowry). בתך הקטנה, although she was very young at this time, within the seven years of Yaakov’s service for her she would mature and be able to be a wife for him in the full meaning of the word.
Or HaChaim
ויאהב יעקב את רחל. Jacob loved Rachel. The reason the Torah mentions her name again is to tell us that Jacob did not love Rachel on account of her beauty but on account of the fact that she was the life-partner destined for him. Alternatively, we may approach the verse by citing Shabbat 25 where we are told that a Torah scholar should have an outwardly attractive wife so as to minimise temptations by the evil urge. Even though Jacob was on a spiritually far higher level and did not present much of a target for the evil urge, it is prudent to take whatever precautions against the evil urge that are feasible. אעבדך שבע שנים, "I shall serve you for seven years, etc." This צדיק had a habit of humbling himself by using the number seven. When he bowed down to Esau later on he is also reported as having done so seven times (Genesis 33,3). This is the mystical connection with Proverbs 24,16: "the righteous will rise even if he falls seven times." Perhaps he wanted to demonstrate that he considered Rachel worth more than the maximum servitude that a Hebrew servant serves with his master (Exodus 21,2). ברחל בתך הקטנה, for your smaller daughter Rachel. "For Rachel, and not for Leah; for your daughter and not another girl called Rachel; for the small one, and not someone whose name you have changed. הקטנה, the one who is the small one now and not someone whose name you may change."
Chizkuni
ויאהב יעקב את רחל, “Yaakov loved Rachel;” he already had set his eyes on her with a view to wedding her. אעבדך, “I will serve you;” the letter ב in this word is vocalised with a chataph kametz, an abbreviated vowel kametz. (Not in our editions of the chumash). שבע שנים, “for seven years.” He should not have offered to serve Lavan for more than a year or maximum two years. Yaakov felt that Lavan would not give him a beautiful girl such as Rachel for a relatively cheap price. He also wanted Rachel to know how highly he prized her as a wife to be. This is why he volunteered seven years of work. ברחל בך הקטנה, “for your small daughter Rachel.” The use of the word: “the small” one, instead of “the younger one,” implied that her father did not think very highly of her. This is why she was assigned the duties of a shepherd. He volunteered to perform the duties that she had been assigned previously by being a shepherdess. An alternate exegesis: why did he add the word: ברחל. Who did not know that this was her name? Yaakov reasoned that if he were to marry Lavan’s older daughter, Esau would have another complaint against him by claiming that he had not only stolen his birthright, but also the woman designated for him as the firstborn son of Rivkah. [This seems very weak, as the Torah had already told us that Yaakov was in love with Rachel from the moment he met her. Ed.]
Tur HaArokh
אעבדך שבע שנים ברחל בתך, “I will serve you for seven years in return for your daughter Rachel.” Under normal circumstances it is not good manners, is inappropriate, to serve for a woman. The only reason that Yaakov agreed to this arrangement was that his father had commanded him not to marry a Canaanite woman but to marry one of Lavan’s daughters. He therefore told Lavan that if he would not give him Rachel as a wife now, he would not violate his father’s command by marrying some other local girl, but would serve for Rachel for seven years. The reason why he offered to wait seven years for consummation of this arrangement may have been that at the time Rachel was so young that he could not expect to have children from her at her tender age. ברחל בתך הקטנה, “for your younger daughter Rachel.” He did not want to marry Leah, seeing she was the older of the two and therefore was meant for his older brother Esau. It would have been impolite to speak about her directly; this is why he chose to add the words “your younger daughter.”
And Laban said: "It is better that I give her to you, than that I should give her to another man; abide with me."
verse value 3859
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 40 letters. The shortest word is "to·you" (לָ֔ךְ, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·said" (וַיֹּ֣אמֶר, 5 letters). Words sharing gematria 406: her, her. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "that·I·give" (תִּתִּ֣י), "from·giving" (מִתִּתִּ֥י). The root נתן appears 2 times in this verse. 10 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·said" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "to·a·man" (root איש, 153x in Genesis); "that·I·give" (root נתן, 150x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'another', dividing the verse into phrases of 10 and 2 words. Full calculation: וַיֹּ֣אמֶר [and·said] (257) + לָבָ֗ן [Laban] (82) + ט֚וֹב [better] (17) + תִּתִּ֣י [that·I·give] (810) + אֹתָ֣הּ [her] (406) + לָ֔ךְ [to·you] (50) + מִתִּתִּ֥י [from·giving] (850) + אֹתָ֖הּ [her] (406) + לְאִ֣ישׁ [to·a·man] (341) + אַחֵ֑ר [another] (209) + שְׁבָ֖ה [stay] (307) + עִמָּדִֽי [with·me] (124) = 3859.
Onkelos
And Laban said, "It is better that I give her to you than that I give her to another man; stay with me."
Or HaChaim
ויאמר לבן טוב תתי אותה לך, Laban said: "better that I give her to you, etc." We need to understand what Laban meant by this comparison. Why would he be justified in making such a comparison between Jacob and someone else when no one else had been willing to serve for Rachel? Perhaps Laban simply told a lie making Jacob believe that he had a competitive offer for Rachel by another suitor willing to serve for her. Besides, how could Laban have the nerve to describe letting Jacob marry Rachel as a gift, i.e. תתי? Did not Jacob contract to work for seven years thus paying for her worth? We also need to understand Laban's last words שבה עמדי, "stay with me." It is clear from Laban's very words that he intended to trick Jacob by giving him Leah, as he indeed did later on. This is why he engaged in this kind of statement. He meant that it is better that he would give Rachel to him as in such a case Jacob would not be able to argue that he had not received his purchase. After all, we observe Jacob argue later: "Did I not serve for Rachel?" We will explain all of this later. Laban wanted Jacob to understand that he would receive Rachel as an absolute gift. As to the seven years of service Jacob would perform, this was only the justification for giving Rachel to him rather than to another suitor. Laban could have given Rachel to another man who did not perform labour for him, i.e. מתתי אותה לאיש אחר. Laban did not agree that Rachel's worth could be purchased by seven years of labour. When he added: שבה עמדי, he made the eventual marriage to Rachel conditional on Jacob remaining with him all the seven years. Laban was not content to allow Jacob to perform this service for him away from his presence. He also phrased it so cunningly that it could mean that Jacob was to remain with Laban all his life. Acording to Shemot Rabbah 1,33 Yitro made a similar condition when he gave his daughter Tzipporah to Moses. Laban had no need to make Jacob take an oath since the matters he and Laban had discussed could be acquired legally by an exchange of words. Yitro, on the other hand, may have made Moses swear in order to forestall Moses moving away if Tzipporah would be willing to move away with him. The above mentioned thoughts all crossed Laban's mind to be used in the event that he would later on have a disagreement with Jacob. This is why G'd warned him in Genesis 31,24 not to speak to Jacob. Jacob did not pay heed to Laban's intention at this time because Laban spoke to him in terms of endearment. Jacob interpreted Laban's words to mean: "there is certainly no one around who is better suited than you that I would prefer to give my daughter to! All you have to do is to stay around!"
Rabbeinu Bahya
.טוב תתי אותה לך, “it is good that I give her to you.” Rabbeinu Chananel understands Lavan’s words as follows: “even though giving her to someone else would be preferable, seeing that a woman should not be without a man, nor a man without a wife, [and a delay of seven years is very long, Ed.] I agree.” He bases his commentary on Talmud Jerusalem Berachot 9,1 and Genesis 2,18. Lavan expressed his agreement that Yaakov was the better of two good choices as son-in-law. We encounter the use of the word... טוב מ also in a different context where it refers to the better one of two bad choices. In Kohelet 5,4 we read טובים היו חללי חרב מחללי רעב, “the ones who were killed by the sword are better off than those killed by famine.” On a third occasion we find the expression... טוב מ as comparing a good alternative with a bad alternative. We read in Kohelet 4,13 טוב ילד מסכן וחכם ממלך זקן וכסיל. “A poor and wise child is preferable to an old but foolish king.” The expression also occurs when it clearly contrasts two positives but gives preference to one of them. We read in Proverbs 15,17: “better a dish of vegetables served lovingly than a fatted ox served grudgingly.” [The author continues with more examples which I have decided to skip. Ed.]
And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed to him but a few days, for the love he had to her.
verse value 2476
Insights
Verse structure: 11 words, 50 letters. The shortest word is "seven" (שֶׁ֣בַע, 3 letters) and the longest is "in·his·eyes" (בְעֵינָיו֙, 6 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "in·his·love" (בְּאַהֲבָת֖וֹ). 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·were" (root היה, 313x in Genesis); "Jacob" (root יעקב, 180x in Genesis); "years" (root שנה, 169x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'years', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 6 words. Full calculation: וַיַּעֲבֹ֧ד [and·worked] (92) + יַעֲקֹ֛ב [Jacob] (182) + בְּרָחֵ֖ל [Rachel] (240) + שֶׁ֣בַע [seven] (372) + שָׁנִ֑ים [years] (400) + וַיִּהְי֤וּ [and·were] (37) + בְעֵינָיו֙ [in·his·eyes] (148) + כְּיָמִ֣ים [like·days] (120) + אֲחָדִ֔ים [few] (63) + בְּאַהֲבָת֖וֹ [in·his·love] (416) + אֹתָֽהּ [her] (406) = 2476.
Onkelos
And Jacob served for Rachel seven years, and they seemed to him like a few days, because of his love for her.
Ibn Ezra
"And Jacob served for Rachel" — [the preposition b- means] on account of Rachel.
Sforno
ויהיו בעיניו כימים אחדים, he considered himself as having struck a good bargain, considering Rachel as worth far more than seven years of his labour. באהבתו אותה, on account of how much he loved her.
Or HaChaim
ויעבד יעקב ברחל, Jacob served for Rachel, etc. The reason the Torah mentions ברחל is that Jacob made a public announcement at the time that his service with Laban was for Rachel and that her hand in marriage was the wages Laban had agreed to pay him in return for his service. A major reason he made this public pronouncement was to make it clear that he did not serve for Leah.
Chizkuni
ויהיו בעיניו כימים אחדים, “these seven years went by for him as if they had been only a few days.” Yaakov considered having to work for seven years in order to marry Rachel, as cheap at the price, as if he had paid only the equivalent of a few days’ wages for her. This reflected how much he was in love with her. If Lavan had demanded a higher price, he would also have been willing to pay it. While engaged actively in labouring, however, he felt the opposite way and could not await the time when he would finally be united with her.
Rabbeinu Bahya
ויהיו בעיניו כימים אחדים, “they were in his eyes as if only a few days.” We would have expected these years as appearing extremely long in Yaakov’s eyes. However, we must not look at the Torah’s description as referring to the waiting period Yaakov underwent; the Torah refers to the amount of labour Yaakov performed. Viewed from that angle Yaakov did not measure the time in months or years but in days. We find confirmation of this when at the end of the period he said to Lavan “give me my wife for my days have been completed (29,21). He was careful not to say: “my years.”
Tur HaArokh
ויהיו בעיניו כימים אחדים באהבתו אותה, “they were in his eyes like a few days because of his love for her.” According to our yardsticks such a long wait is extremely difficult. The Torah reports that after the seven years were over, in retrospect, these seven years appeared as if they had been only a few days, as he was so in love with Rachel that he considered the price he had to pay as cheap.
And Jacob said to Laban: "Give me my wife, for my days are filled, that I may go in to her."
verse value 1910
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 42 letters. The shortest word is "for" (כִּ֥י, 2 letters) and the longest is "my·wife" (אֶת־אִשְׁתִּ֔י, 6 letters). 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "my·wife" (אֶת־אִשְׁתִּ֔י), "are·fulfilled" (מָלְא֖וּ), "that·I·may·come·in" (וְאָב֖וֹאָה). 10 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·said" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "to·her" (root אל, 242x in Genesis); "that·I·may·come·in" (root בוא, 213x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'my·days', dividing the verse into phrases of 8 and 2 words. Full calculation: וַיֹּ֨אמֶר [and·said] (257) + יַעֲקֹ֤ב [Jacob] (182) + אֶל־לָבָן֙ [to·Laban] (113) + הָבָ֣ה [give] (12) + אֶת־אִשְׁתִּ֔י [my·wife] (1112) + כִּ֥י [for] (30) + מָלְא֖וּ [are·fulfilled] (77) + יָמָ֑י [my·days] (60) + וְאָב֖וֹאָה [that·I·may·come·in] (21) + אֵלֶֽיהָ [to·her] (46) = 1910.
Onkelos
And Jacob said to Laban, "Give me my wife, for my days of service are completed, and I will go in to her."
Rashi
מלאו ימי MY DAYS ARE FULFILLED — which my mother told me to remain with you. And another explanation is: MY DAYS ARE FULFILLED for I am now eighty-four years old and when shall I beget twelve tribes? That is what he meant by adding “that I may go in unto her”; for surely even the commonest of people would not use such an expression. But he said this because his mind was intent upon having issue (to fulfil his mission of rearing children who would carry on the religious traditions of his fathers) (Genesis Rabbah 70:18).
Ramban
FOR MY DAYS ARE FULFILLED. This means “the time which my mother told me to remain away from home.” Another explanation is: For my days are fulfilled — “I am now eighty-four years old and when shall I beget twelve tribes?” These are the words of Rashi.
Sforno
ואבאה אליה, let us make the consummation of the wedding immediately after the betrothal, i.e. the chuppah. He wanted to skip as many of the formalities in order to achieve his purpose of building a family with her.
Or HaChaim
ויאמר יעקב הבה לי אשתי, Jacob said: "hand me over my wife, etc." The reason that Jacob added the (uncouth sounding) words "so that I can have physical relations with her," something that even an uneducated person would not say, much less a person of Jacob's learning and sensitivity, can be explained by reference to Maimonides in chapter five of his Hilchot Ishut. If someone declares to his bride to-be: "you are betrothed to me in exchange for certain work I shall perform for you and he performs this work, this is not a valid form of betrothal since the compensation the bride receives (the work) is considered as a loan only, and one cannot acquire a bride by means of a loan." This is why Jacob said: הבה, "hand over!" Up until he had completed the work contracted for, Rachel had not even been his betrothed. Jacob was aware that he had not acquired Rachel by means of the value of the work he performed for Laban. As a result he could acquire her only by means of having physical relations with her. He therefore had to ask Laban to make this possible by handing her over, i.e. ואבא אליה. There is another way to solve our problem. We know that both Rachel and Leah told Jacob later on that their father considered them as strangers whom he had sold (Genesis 31,15). Concerning the laws of purchase of properties or slaves Maimonides writes in Hilchot Mechirah chapter 7 that if one acquires either slaves or real estate by means of a loan such a purchase is valid even if no money changes hand at the time. When Jacob said to Laban הבה את אשתי he meant that inasmuch as Rachel had already become his wife at the beginning of his servitude because he thought that he had "bought" her (in accordance with Maimonides), there was no need for actual money to change hands. The words הבה לי were not to be understood as the final act in the acquisition of Rachel as a wife, but were to be the prelude to his fulfilling his marital duties with a woman already his wife. He added the words ואבא אליה to preclude any pretense by Laban that Rachel was not yet his legally acquired wife.
Chizkuni
כי מלאו ימי, “for my days of labouring (for her) have been completed.” seven full years had passed. Another exegesis of this line: he hinted that the time had come for him to start his family seeing that he was already 84 years old, and was approaching old age. Use of the term in that sense is found also in Jeremiah 6,11, i.e. זקן ומלא ימים.
Rabbeinu Bahya
ואבא אליה, “so that I may sleep with her.” Nachmanides comments on this: This does not appear to be a respectful reference to one’s wife, especially when mouthed by righteous people. The true meaning of the verse is as if the Torah had written: ואבואה אליה, “let me join her.” He did not want to take Rachel as a wife and to leave Lavan at once but he wanted to marry her and complete whatever little time was left in his contract. He explained to Lavan that he had no reason to worry that Yaakov would leave him prematurely and would abandon the herds. Thus far Nachmanides. Perhaps one may understand Yaakov’s words somewhat differently. The words the Torah quotes him as saying do not reflect Yaakov’s libido speaking. Yaakov spoke rationally. From an intellectual perspective [as was man’s perspective before he ate from the tree of knowledge, Ed.] there is no difference between the various organs of the human body; all serve a useful purpose. Yaakov did not view his genitals as different in any way from the way he viewed his arms or his legs. Each organ had to perform specific functions. Seeing that the patriarchs were on such a high moral level we need not be surprised if words spoken by them had no erotic connotation as they would have had if spoken by ordinary individuals. The same applied to our four matriarchs Rachel and Leah. When we find them quarreling about who would enjoy Yaakov’s company on a certain night, this had nothing to do with the sexual act as an activity for its own sake. They had prophetic knowledge (Bereshit Rabbah 72,5) concerning the fact that Yaakov would father twelve tribes from four wives; they competed as to who would bear how many of these children for him. This was the reason that Leah said to her sister in 30,15: “is it not enough that you have taken my husband, etc.?” As a result Rachel told Leah that seeing that her concern was to bear more of the twelve tribes, she agreed that Yaakov should spend this particular night with her although it was not her turn. When Leah said to Yaakov: “come to me this night for I have hired you,” etc. (30,16), this did not reflect her desire for physical union with him as such, but it merely meant that she had made a special effort to bear more of his children. The patriarchs and the matriarchs were concerned primarily with Mitzvah performance. Therefore, when Yaakov said concerning Rachel ואבואה אליה, he practically prophesied, as all utterances by the patriarchs may be viewed as in that category. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 72,3 were so convinced of this that they attributed the fact that Rachel was not buried in the cave of Machpelah with her husband Yaakov to her foregoing his company for even one night. By volunteering to miss that opportunity to conceive a child from Yaakov on the night she made the deal with Leah about Reuven’s dudaim (the aphrodisiac plant Reuven had found) she was punished. She should have treasured Yaakov’s company more. On the other hand, we are taught in that same Midrash that Leah who did treasure the company of her husband bore two more sons for Yaakov as a result of the deal she made. Issachar was born to Leah as a reward for her giving Rachel the dudaim of her son Reuven in order to secure an extra opportunity to conceive a child from her husband. This is also why the Torah (30,16) does not describe Yaakov as sleeping with Leah בלילה ההוא, but בלילה הוא, the difference being that the word הוא is a reference to G’d whereas the word ההוא simply means “that, “ i.e. “on that night.” Leah realised this when she said: “this is my reward from G’d” (30,18) when Issachar was born. When she used the word שכרי for “my reward,” this is the same word as the Torah used when she traded the dudaim for time spent with Yaakov. She meant that her reward was exactly in keeping with her purpose in trading the dudaim for an extra opportunity to conceive a child. A similar use of that word occurs in Isaiah 40,10 הנה שכרו אתו ופעולתו לפניו, “his reward is with Him, his recompense before Him.” The prophet speaks about the reward being appropriate to the good deed. Furthermore, the words “G’d listened to Leah” (verse 17) are evidence that she must have prayed for this child. There is a tremendous lesson in this apparently insignificant detail of Leah’s and Rachel’s lives. On the one hand, Rachel was punished for doing something perfectly normal, namely securing an aphrodisiac which would help her conceive seeing that she did not have any children yet and paying for it by giving up her husband’s company for one night. On the other hand, Leah, who already was blessed with four children, was so anxious to have more that she traded that very aphrodisiac for a night with Yaakov without artificial stimuli to help her conceive. Leah was rewarded as opposed to her sister Rachel although both her and Rachel’s actions were designed to bring about the same result. In the final analysis, the Torah demonstrates that both women were bent on performing a מצוה.
And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast.
verse value 2373
Insights
Verse structure: 6 words, 29 letters. The shortest word is "Laban" (לָבָ֛ן, 3 letters) and the longest is "all·the·men" (אֶת־כׇּל־אַנְשֵׁ֥י, 8 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "all·the·men" (אֶת־כׇּל־אַנְשֵׁ֥י). 6 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "all·the·men" (root איש, 153x in Genesis); "and·made" (root עשה, 152x in Genesis); "Laban" (root לבן, 58x in Genesis). Full calculation: וַיֶּאֱסֹ֥ף [and·gathered] (157) + לָבָ֛ן [Laban] (82) + אֶת־כׇּל־אַנְשֵׁ֥י [all·the·men] (812) + הַמָּק֖וֹם [the·place] (191) + וַיַּ֥עַשׂ [and·made] (386) + מִשְׁתֶּֽה [a·feast] (745) = 2373.
Onkelos
And Laban gathered all the people of the place and made a feast.
Daat Zkenim
ויאסוף לבן... ויעש משתה, Lavan assembled the people from Charan and arranged a feast. Lavan was a swindler, and that is why he is always referred to by our sages as “Lavan the swindler.” He planned to make Yaakov drunk in order to deceive him so that he could not tell the difference between Rachel and Leah. If we needed proof for this interpretation, we only need to look at when he gave Rachel to Yaakov a week later, when he did not spend a penny on making a celebration.
Targum Yonatan
And Laban gathered all the men of the place, and made them a feast. Answering he said to them, Behold, seven years since Jakob came to us the wells have not failed and the watered places are multiplied: and now come, let us counsel against him cunning counsel, that he may remain with us. And they gave him cunning counsel that he should take Leah to him instead of Rahel.
And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in to her.
verse value 1811
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 39 letters. The shortest word is "his·daughter" (בִתּ֔וֹ, 3 letters) and the longest is "Leah" (אֶת־לֵאָ֣ה, 5 letters). Words sharing gematria 19: and·brought, and·came. The root בוא appears 2 times in this verse. 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·it·was" (root היה, 313x in Genesis); "to·him" (root אל, 242x in Genesis); "and·brought" (root בוא, 213x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·him', dividing the verse into phrases of 8 and 2 words. Full calculation: וַיְהִ֣י [and·it·was] (31) + בָעֶ֔רֶב [in·the·evening] (274) + וַיִּקַּח֙ [and·took] (124) + אֶת־לֵאָ֣ה [Leah] (437) + בִתּ֔וֹ [his·daughter] (408) + וַיָּבֵ֥א [and·brought] (19) + אֹתָ֖הּ [her] (406) + אֵלָ֑יו [to·him] (47) + וַיָּבֹ֖א [and·came] (19) + אֵלֶֽיהָ [to·her] (46) = 1811.
Onkelos
And it came to pass in the evening that he took his daughter Leah and brought her to him, and he went in to her.
Or HaChaim
ויהי בערב, It was in the evening, etc. Laban caused great pain by deceiving such a righteous man as Jacob; the exchange resulted in a dilution of the hold holiness exerted on earth. You are well advised to study what the Zohar סתרי תורה on Parshat Vayetze item 176 has to say on the subject. According to the Zohar, Laban's having switched Leah for Rachel was the cause that the sanctity of the birthright became downgraded. Originally both monarchy and priesthood would have been the share of the firstborn just as the firstborn receives a double portion of the inheritance from his father. When Jacob slept with Leah he intended to impregnate Rachel (since he was not aware of his partner's real identity). This meant that his marital relations with Leah at the time were not totally pure. As a result the sanctity that he could have achieved by this union if his partner had truly been his intended bride, the sanctity he hoped to create, was diluted, was significantly reduced. ויקח את לאה, he took Leah. Perhaps Leah did not intend to deceive Jacob but was forced by her father Laban to go through with this charade. It is also possible that Laban managed to persuade her. Unless one of these two reasons is correct the Torah did not need to write "he took," but could have simply written: "he brought his daughter Leah to him." ויבא אותה, he brought her. Laban was careful to do this personally; this was part of the deception. He did not allow time for the deception to be discovered. It would have been very unbecoming for the bridegroom to have demanded at that moment that Leah (Rachel) identify herself. ויבא אליה. He had marital relations with her. The reason that Jacob did not notice that the woman beside him was not Rachel was that a righteous man of his calibre did not engage in actions that would arouse him before performing the commandment of marital intercourse in order to produce children. There was no one who could match Jacob in this kind of piety. The Torah itself testifies in Genesis 49,3 that he was able to say of himself that Reuben was the product of the first time he emitted semen, i.e. ראשית אוני. Look at our commentary on that verse. He joined Leah without engaging in what is called "foreplay" in our parlance. Even after completing intercourse with Leah Jacob did not recognise her since everything took place in darkness as required by halachah (compare אור החיים 240).
And Laban gave Zilpah his handmaid to his daughter Leah for a handmaid.
verse value 2767
Insights
Verse structure: 8 words, 31 letters. The shortest word is "to·her" (לָ֔הּ, 2 letters) and the longest is "Zilpah" (אֶת־זִלְפָּ֖ה, 6 letters). The root שפחה appears 2 times in this verse. 7 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·gave" (root נתן, 150x in Genesis); "his·daughter" (root בת, 92x in Genesis); "Laban" (root לבן, 58x in Genesis). First appearance of the root זלפה ("Zilpah") in Genesis. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'his·maid', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 3 words. Full calculation: וַיִּתֵּ֤ן [and·gave] (466) + לָבָן֙ [Laban] (82) + לָ֔הּ [to·her] (35) + אֶת־זִלְפָּ֖ה [Zilpah] (523) + שִׁפְחָת֑וֹ [his·maid] (794) + לְלֵאָ֥ה [Leah] (66) + בִתּ֖וֹ [his·daughter] (408) + שִׁפְחָֽה [maid] (393) = 2767.
Onkelos
And Laban gave her Zilpah his maidservant, to Leah his daughter, as a maidservant.
Or HaChaim
ללאה בתו שפחה. for his daughter Leah as a maidservant. Why did the Torah have to mention that Leah was Laban's daughter? Surely we know this by now! If it was sufficient to write: "Laban gave her his maidservant Zilpah," why did the Torah have to add "to Leah his daughter" at the end of the same verse? Besides, why did the Torah write שפחה, maidservant, instead of לשפחה, as a maidservant? We must explain this by referring to the tradition that Zilpah and Bilhah respectively had been inherited by Rachel and Leah from their mother. This is what the Torah meant by the words "to Leah his daughter a maidservant." The Torah merely points out that the maidservant was Leah's personal property because she had inherited her from her mother. The Torah emphasises בתו, to hint that Leah had acquired this maidservant because she was Laban's daughter and the maidservant had been part of the marriage settlement, כתובה, of her mother; Leah had not purchased the maidservant in some other way. This is also why the Torah needed to write ויתן לבן, that Laban gave. Otherwise Laban's name did not need to be repeated here again as we know of whom the Torah was speaking. The Torah wanted us to know that Laban did not give his daughter a gift in the usual sense of the word.
Chizkuni
את זלפה שפחתו, “his servantmaid Zilpah;” how could the Torah describe them as servantmaids when they were actually Lavan’s daughters? (Compare Bereshit rabbah 74,13) We must therefore assume that the Torah used the terminology of the people at that time who described their daughters born by concubines as their servantmaids.
And it came to pass in the morning that, behold, it was Leah; and he said to Laban: "What is this you have done to me? did not I serve with you for Rachel? why then have you beguiled me?"
verse value 3775 — לֵאָ֑ה = 36 (double-Chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 15 words, 64 letters. Notable word values: "Leah" (לֵאָ֑ה) = 36, double chai. The shortest word is "to·me" (לִּ֔י, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·behold·she" (וְהִנֵּה־הִ֖וא, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 36: Leah, is·it·not. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "did·you·deceive·me" (רִמִּיתָֽנִי). 15 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·said" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "and·it·was" (root היה, 313x in Genesis); "you·did" (root עשה, 152x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'Leah', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 11 words.
Onkelos
And it came to pass in the morning that behold, it was Leah; and he said to Laban, "What is this that you have done to me? Did I not serve with you for Rachel? Why then have you deceived me?"
Rashi
ויהי בבקר והנה הוא לאה AND IT CAME TO PASS, THAT IN THE MORNING, BEHOLD, IT WAS LEAH —But at night it was not Leah (i. e. he failed to recognise that it was Leah) because Jacob had given Rachel certain secret signs by which they could at all times recognise one another, and when Rachel saw that they were about to bring Leah to him for the marriage ceremony, she thought, “My sister may now be put to shame”, and she therefore readily transmitted these signs to her (Megillah 13b).
Or HaChaim
ויהי בבוקר. When morning came, etc. The reason the Torah uses the word ויהי which always relates to some painful experience is simply that Jacob experienced anguish that Rachel had been denied him. והנה הוא לאה, and behold it was Leah! The reason the Torah writes הוא with the letter ו, is best explained by Bereshit Rabbah 70,12 where the local people are described as singing all night long (in Aramaic) הא ליא, הא ליא. Jacob understood only in the morning what that singing had been all about. This explanation also explains the need for the word הנה satisfactorily. מה זאת עשית לי? What is this that you have done to me? We need to understand what exactly Jacob referred to with this complaint. If it referred to the fact that Laban had tricked him, he already mentioned this by saying: "why did you deceive me?" We must therefore search for something else that Jacob complained about. Jacob did indeed complain about two matters. 1) That Laban had given him Leah instead of Rachel. 2) That he had done so in such a deceptive manner. Jacob thereby revealed that had Laban forced Leah upon him he, Jacob, would have been less concerned than now that he slept with one woman while believing he slept with another. This deception had far-reaching spiritual consequences, as we already alluded to earlier on verse 23. It is also possible that Jacob referred to the humiliation experienced by Leah who now found herself Jacob's wife and had to expect that her husband would hate her instead of love her. Jacob's question "why did you deceive me?" indicates that he had immediately decided not to divorce Leah but to keep her as a wife. He also displayed wisdom by the choice of his words, realising that what had been done could not be undone. He realised that it would not have been moral to reverse what had been done but resolved to marry Rachel also. In this manner he hoped that Laban would not now demand an even higher price for Rachel by suggesting that they make a new agreement. He complained to Laban that the latter had seen fit to achieve something by deception which he could have achieved amicably (i.e. that Jacob marry Leah also).
Chizkuni
ויהי בבקר והנה היא לאה, “and when it was morning Yaakov found out that the woman in bed with him had been Leah;” this verse teaches us a great deal about how chaste a person Yaakov was, and that he had hardly exchanged any words with who he thought was his wife while having marital relations with her. Had he been speaking with her, surely he would have known from her voice that he had been deceived. After all, he had lived in her proximity for the last seven years, and she was no stranger to him. If you were to ask that seeing that the so called marriage ceremony was clearly invalid, as the woman under the wedding canopy had not been the one with whom he thought that he had exchanged sacred vows, we would have to answer that as soon as he found this out he had relations with her for the purpose of legalising their marriage.
Rabbeinu Bahya
והנה היא לאה, “and lo and behold it was Leah.” Our sages (Megillah,13) ask the obvious question: “had she not been Leah up until now?” What did the Torah mean by writing “and here it was Leah?” They answer that Yaakov had supplied Rachel with a secret code to protect himself precisely against the duplicity practiced by Lavan under the wedding canopy when the girl’s face is veiled so the groom cannot see her. When Rachel became aware of what her father was doing, she realized that her sister was going to be publicly shamed. She therefore decided to spare Leah the embarrassment and told her of the secret code. Bereshit Rabbah 71,5 phrases it thus: “Rachel made silence her trademark (vocation); as a result all her sons were able to keep secrets, on the other hand, Leah made gratitude her trademark (vocation); as a result we find that all her sons are recorded as confessing errors and giving thanks to G’d. Binyamin, a son of Rachel knew that Joseph had been sold but he kept the secret. Saul, a descendant of Binyamin is reported in Samuel 10, 16 as ואת דבר המלוכה לא הגיד לו not telling even his uncle that Samuel had told him he would become king. [The uncle had been aware that Saul had had an interview with Samuel the Seer and titular head of the nation. The prophet had told him not to worry, that the asses had been located. Ed.] Another descendant of Rachel who was distinguished by keeping silent at crucial times was Queen Esther who obeyed Mordechai’s instructions not to reveal her identity even when such a refusal resulted in the King threatening to depose her.” (Esther 2,20). Leah’s son Yehudah confessed that he had been wrong in bringing Tamar his daughter-in-law to trial as a whore. Moreover, The Torah credits him with giving thanks to the Lord (49,8), and we find David, Yehudah’s most illustrious descendant composing innumerable hymns to G’d including Psalms 136,1 in which he asks the Jewish people to give thanks to the Lord. Another descendant of Yehudah, Daniel, was in the habit of praying to G’d as a way of giving thanks to Him (Daniel 6,11).
And Laban said: "It is not so done in our place, to give the younger before the first-born.
verse value 2691
Insights
Verse structure: 9 words, 42 letters. Verse gematria: 2691 is divisible by 13, the value of echad ('one') and ahavah ('love'). The shortest word is "so" (כֵ֖ן, 2 letters) and the longest is "in·our·place" (בִּמְקוֹמֵ֑נוּ, 7 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "it·is·not·done" (לֹא־יֵעָשֶׂ֥ה), "in·our·place" (בִּמְקוֹמֵ֑נוּ). 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·said" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "it·is·not·done" (root עשה, 152x in Genesis); "to·give" (root נתן, 150x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'in·our·place', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 4 words. Full calculation: וַיֹּ֣אמֶר [and·said] (257) + לָבָ֔ן [Laban] (82) + לֹא־יֵעָשֶׂ֥ה [it·is·not·done] (416) + כֵ֖ן [so] (70) + בִּמְקוֹמֵ֑נוּ [in·our·place] (244) + לָתֵ֥ת [to·give] (830) + הַצְּעִירָ֖ה [the·younger] (380) + לִפְנֵ֥י [before] (170) + הַבְּכִירָֽה [the·older] (242) = 2691.
Onkelos
And Laban said, "It is not done so in our place, to give the younger before the elder."
Sforno
It is not done in our place. Lavan claimed that the people would not allow him to keep his word, since it was in violation of local custom.
Or HaChaim
ויאמר לבן לא יעשה כן במקומנו. Laban said: "This is not the way things are done in our place, etc." How could Laban expect now to get away with such an explanation when he and Jacob had entered into a specific agreement that Rachel was to be given to Jacob? Why would local customs override such an agreement? Actually, Laban argued that the local inhabitants had protested what he had agreed to. Inasmuch as the inhabitants were the majority and he was only a single individual, he Laban, had to bow to their wishes. This is why he spoke about במקומנו, "in our place." He may also have argued that at the time he made the deal with Jacob there had not been a paragraph saying that he would receive Rachel as a wife without also marrying Leah. Their agreement therefore never violated the local custom that the elder daughter be married off first. It had been obvious that Jacob would first receive Leah. As soon as he had completed seven years of labour he would receive Rachel immediately after having married Leah. He, Laban, had taken it for granted that Jacob would first stay with him long enough to conform to the local custom and marry Leah. When Jacob had said: "give me my wife!" Laban had naturally understood that Jacob referred to Leah. After all, the local customs were no secret. Laban rejected the accusation that he had acted with subterfuge. Should Jacob be of the opinion that Laban differentiated between his two daughters, this was not so. He loved both equally and treated them both equally. To prove this, he would not ask a higher price for Rachel than he had been willing to accept for Leah. If Jacob was indeed so enamoured of Rachel that he could not wait another seven years, he would show his understanding by letting him have Rachel in another week, as soon as the wedding festivities in honour of Leah had been concluded, i.e. מלא שבוע זאת, when he had completed a week with this wife. In view of Laban's argument we need to understand why the extremely careful Jacob had not even considered the local customs in this matter. Jacob considered that it was Laban's duty to tell him about such customs. If Laban failed to do so it was proof he did not care about the local customs. Therefore, when he asked Laban to hand over his wife he had naturally referred to Rachel. It had been up to Laban to tell him at least at that moment that he could not hand over Rachel as long as Leah was not married, and that it was up to Jacob either to wait till Leah was married or to marry her himself. By failing to do so, Jacob maintained that Laban had lived up to his reputation as a swindler.
Fulfil the week of this one, and we will give you the other also for the service which you shall serve with me yet seven other years."
verse value 4915
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 54 letters. The shortest word is "to·you" (לְךָ֜, 2 letters) and the longest is "also·this" (גַּם־אֶת־זֹ֗את, 7 letters). 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "and·we·will·give" (וְנִתְּנָ֨ה), "also·this" (גַּם־אֶת־זֹ֗את), "for·the·service" (בַּעֲבֹדָה֙). The root שבע appears 2 times in this verse. 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "which" (root אשר, 313x in Genesis); "and·we·will·give" (root נתן, 150x in Genesis); "week" (root שבע, 117x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'this', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 10 words. Full calculation: מַלֵּ֖א [complete] (71) + שְׁבֻ֣עַ [week] (372) + זֹ֑את [this] (408) + וְנִתְּנָ֨ה [and·we·will·give] (511) + לְךָ֜ [to·you] (50) + גַּם־אֶת־זֹ֗את [also·this] (852) + בַּעֲבֹדָה֙ [for·the·service] (83) + אֲשֶׁ֣ר [which] (501) + תַּעֲבֹ֣ד [you·will·serve] (476) + עִמָּדִ֔י [with·me] (124) + ע֖וֹד [still] (80) + שֶֽׁבַע־שָׁנִ֥ים [seven·years] (772) + אֲחֵרֽוֹת [other] (615) = 4915.
Onkelos
"Complete the week of this one, and we will give you this one as well, for the service that you will serve with me yet another seven years."
Rashi
מלא שבע זאת FULFIL THE WEEK OF THIS ONE — The word is in the construct state for it is punctuated with Sheva, so that the meaning is “the seven days of this woman”, referring to the seven days of the marriage feast. Such is the statement in the Talmud Yerushalmi Moed Katan 1:7. It is impossible to say that it means an actual week, (i. e. a calendar week), so that it would mean “finish this week” in the sense “wait until this week be ended”) — for, if so, the ש should be punctuated with Patach (Rashi terms our Kametz a Patach) for the noun must be in the absolute state. Then, again, the word שָׁבֻעַ is masculine — as it is written (Deuteronomy 16:9) “Seven (שבעה) weeks shalt thou number unto thyself” (and here we should have had שָׁבֻעַ זֶה). Consequently the word שבוע can only mean “a period of seven days” old French septaine (cf. Rashi on Exodus 10:22). ונתנה לך AND WE WILL GIVE THEE — The verb is plural 1st pers. like (נרדה) (Genesis 11:7) “let us go down”, ונבלה “and let us confuse and (Genesis 11:3) ונשרפה “and let us burn": so, also here, it is a form of וְנִתֵּן “and we will give”. גם את זאת THIS ONE ALSO we shall give to you immediately after the seven days of the marriage-feast and you may serve for her after marriage with her.
Ramban
FULFILL ‘SHVUA’ (THE WEEK OF) THIS ONE. The word shvua is in the construct state for it is punctuated with a sheva. It thus means the seven days of this wife, referring to the seven days of the wedding feast. These too are the words of Rashi. But if so, [i.e., if Rashi interprets shvua as referring to the seven days of the wedding feast rather than, more simply, the seven years of labor, thus implying that the seven years of work had been completed], why did not the Rabbi [Rashi] explain the verse above, my days are fulfilled, as referring to the years of work and the condition which were completed, as Onkelos has it, (Onkelos, Verse 27.) and which is the true sense of the verse, [instead of explaining it as referring to the length of time his mother told him to remain there or to his advanced age]? For merely because the days his mother told him to remain with him were completed or because of his advanced age, Laban would not give him his daughter before the mutually agreed time, and it is enough to expect of Laban that he fulfill his condition. It is according to Onkelos, [who says that Jacob’s seven years of work had been completed], that we are bound to explain, fulfill ‘shvua’ this one, as referring to the seven days of the wedding feast for as Jacob had told him, the days of work had already been completed. So also did Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explain it. And I do not know [how the reference here could be to “the seven days of the marriage feast,” as Rashi claims], for “the seven days of the wedding feast” is an ordinance established for Israel by our teacher Moses. Perhaps we may say that the dignitaries of the nations had already practiced this custom of old, just as was the case with mourning, as it is written, And he made a mourning for his father seven days. Thus the seven-day period of mourning was already an established practice in the days of the patriarchs. And that which the Rabbis have deduced from here in the Yerushalmi and in Bereshith Rabbah,8270:18. “One must not mix one rejoicing with another,” that is merely a Scriptural intimation based upon the customary practices of the ancient ones prior to the giving of the Torah. But in our Gemara, the Rabbis did not derive it from here, [i.e., from Laban’s statement], but instead they deduced it from the verse, And Solomon held the feast etc. The verse reads: And Solomon held the feast at that time … seven days and seven days, even fourteen days. The Rabbis explain that the first seven days were a feast of dedication of the new Temple, and the second seven days were the feast of Tabernacles, and he did not combine the two festivities into one because “we must not mix one rejoicing with another.” — The explanation for this principle is stated by Tosafoth Moed Katan 8b. “For just as we must not perform religious duties bundle-wise, but pay exclusive attention to each singly, so must we turn our heart completely toward one rejoicing only, without interference from another.”Now it is possible to say that this was part of “the changing of the hire ten times” of which Jacob accused Laban. For Jacob told Laban originally that the days were fulfilled, and Laban kept quiet and gave him Leah. Later, Laban told him, “Fulfill ‘shvua’ this one, for the work period for Leah has not been fulfilled, and I gave her to you before the time I had agreed upon.” And Jacob listened to Laban and completed the days as defined by Laban, for he desired Rachel, and what could he do? Therefore, Scripture does not say at first, “And it came to pass when the days were fulfilled, and Jacob said, etc.,” [for this would have indicated mutual agreement concerning the completion of the work period, whereas Laban, as explained, claimed that that time had not yet arrived]. It is also possible to say that when the seventh year arrived, Jacob said to Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, meaning that this is the year in which the days will be fulfilled. Similarly, The aged with him that is full of days, which means, “he who is attaining his final year.” Similarly, Until the day of your consecration be fulfilled, which means, “until the seventh day in which the days of your consecration will be fulfilled.” It is possible that Jacob said, My days are fulfilled, because they were about to be fulfilled and are considered as if fulfilled. There are many similar examples in Scripture. Likewise, in the next Seder (portion of the Torah), As her soul was departing, for she died, which means, “when she was near death, and was considered as if she had already died.” And this is the meaning of the expression, that I may come unto her, here. that is to say, Jacob said, “My request is not that you give her to me and I will then leave, but rather that I marry her and complete the few days which are still obligatory upon me for now that the period is almost over, you will not be afraid that I might leave you.” Our Rabbis have given a Midrashic interpretation to the words, that I may come unto her, because it is not the ethical way to mention it in this manner, the more so with righteous people, but the intent is as I have said. Laban then told Jacob, “Fulfill the seven years of this one, Leah, for perhaps since I transgressed your will by giving you Leah instead of Rachel you will not fulfill them.” Perhaps he mentioned it in order that it be known when the days of work for Rachel begin, and then he told him, “I will give you the other daughter, Rachel, for the service which thou shalt serve with me after the wedding.” ‘VENITNAH’ (AND WE WILL GIVE) THEE. The verb is plural, as in, Let us go down, and let us confound there; And let us burn. Here too it is a form of venitein (and we will give). This is Rashi’s comment, but he did not say why an individual person [Laban] would use the plural form. Perhaps Rashi thought that this is the manner in which dignitaries speak in the Sacred Language, i.e., as if others are speaking. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said here that nitnah is in the (niphal) passive tense and the prefix vav converts it from the past to the future, thus meaning, “and it shall be given to you.”The correct interpretation appears to me to be that Laban’s words were spoken with cunning. He said to Jacob, “It is not so done in our place, here. for the people of the place will not let me do so, [i.e., to marry off the younger before the firstborn], for this would be a shameful act in their eyes. But you fulfill the week of this one, and we — I and all the people of the place — will give you also this one, for we will all consent to the matter, and we will give you honor and a feast as we have done with the first one.”
Ibn Ezra
"Complete this week" — [meaning] the seven days of the wedding feast. And "this" refers to Leah.
Sforno
ונתנה לך, then they will agree for the younger one to be given to you also.
Chizkuni
ונתנה לך גם את זאת, “we will give you this one also;” the plural mode used here shows that Yaakov had not believed that Lavan would not try to trick him and had confirmed his betrothal already then in the presence of and with the consent of the local population. The entire population of Padan Arom had been a party to this deception from the start.
Tur HaArokh
מלא שבוע זאת, “let this week pass.” According to Rashi the week in question were the seven days of celebration following the nuptials. Nachmanides writes that he has found no record of such a practice prior to Moses having instituted it for the Israelites. Perhaps in earlier times only the elite of the people observed 7 days of festivities after the wedding, just as they observed seven days of mourning after the death of prominent personages. (Compare Genesis 50,10 when Joseph decreed seven days of mourning for Yaakov) It is also possible to explain that when Yaakov entered the seventh and final year of his service, the year known as שנת מלואים, the final year, he asked Lavan to give him Rachel, arguing that now Lavan did not worry about Yaakov leaving his employ as he had so much more to gain by staying for a relatively short period. At that time Lavan refused. Now that he was about to assuage Yaakov’s feelings of bitterness of Lavan’s deception, he told him that Rachel would be given to him at the end of seven more years of service to make plain that he would have to wait until then, as if he were to give him now, on account as it were, Yaakov might not honour the terms of the contract and would abscond with both women before carrying out his duties. [the anomaly causing the commentators difficulty is that on the one hand Yaakov refers to מלאו ימי, “my days are complete,” whereas twice the Torah refers to שבוע instead of either ימים or שנים, “days, or years.” In verse 28 it is difficult to explain the word שבוע as meaning “week,” as Rashi does in verse verse 26. Ed.] ונתנה לך גם את זאת, “and we will give you also this one.” Rashi explains the word ונתנה as an active form of the word נתן in the first person plural of the future conjugation. As in Genesis 11,7 הבה נרדה ונבלה [as opposed to the third person singular passive mode with the prefix ו changing the meaning to the future tense of the same root, meaning “it will be given.” Ed.] Nachmanides writes that everything Lavan said was deceptive in nature, and when he said that it was not the custom in his town to give the younger daughter’s hand in marriage to anyone until the older daughter had been married, and that the people of the town would not let him get away with making such a precedent, as it would offend their sense of propriety, he added that if Yaakov would agree to these terms, i.e. to complete another term of service, מלא שבוע זאת, they would then honour him greatly by their making a feast for him when he would wed Rachel.
And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week; and he gave him Rachel his daughter as a wife.
verse value 3426 — ל֥וֹ = 36 (double-Chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 11 words, 41 letters. Notable word values: "to·him" (ל֥וֹ) = 36, double chai. The shortest word is "so" (כֵּ֔ן, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·gave·him" (וַיִּתֶּן־ל֛וֹ, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 408: this, his·daughter. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "and·filled" (וַיְמַלֵּ֖א). 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Jacob" (root יעקב, 180x in Genesis); "and·made" (root עשה, 152x in Genesis); "and·gave·him" (root נתן, 150x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'this', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 5 words. Full calculation: וַיַּ֤עַשׂ [and·made] (386) + יַעֲקֹב֙ [Jacob] (182) + כֵּ֔ן [so] (70) + וַיְמַלֵּ֖א [and·filled] (87) + שְׁבֻ֣עַ [week] (372) + זֹ֑את [this] (408) + וַיִּתֶּן־ל֛וֹ [and·gave·him] (502) + אֶת־רָחֵ֥ל [Rachel] (639) + בִּתּ֖וֹ [his·daughter] (408) + ל֥וֹ [to·him] (36) + לְאִשָּֽׁה [as·a·wife] (336) = 3426.
Onkelos
And Jacob did so, and completed the week of this one, and he gave him Rachel his daughter as a wife.
Or HaChaim
לו לאשה. As a wife for him. The emphasis on the word לו indicates that Rachel was to be the mainstay of Jacob's household, the עקרת הבית, seeing she was his true mate, בת זוגו.
Chizkuni
ויתן לו את רחל, “he gave him Rachel;” if you were to ask how Yaakov could legally have lived with two sisters, while both were alive, something forbidden by Jewish law, and according to tradition he kept the entire Torah laws, our sages have said that when a pagan undergoes conversion, all previous family relationships are retroactively cancelled (Yevamot 22), so that as soon as Leah became Yaakov’s wife, Rachel automatically had ceased to be her sister. A convert is considered as if a newly born person. An alternate exegesis: Leah and Rachel had been halfsisters sharing only their father. In Jewish law these family ties are dependent on the mother, not the father. Proof of this can be found in Deuteronomy 7,4; from here it is clear that the word בנך, “your son,” is a term that applies only to a son born by a Jewish mother, otherwise he would have been referred to as “her son.”
And Laban gave to Rachel his daughter Bilhah his handmaid to be her handmaid.
verse value 2919
Insights
Verse structure: 8 words, 32 letters. The shortest word is "to·her" (לָ֖הּ, 2 letters) and the longest is "Bilhah" (אֶת־בִּלְהָ֖ה, 6 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "as·a·maid" (לְשִׁפְחָֽה). The root שפחה appears 2 times in this verse. 7 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·gave" (root נתן, 150x in Genesis); "his·daughter" (root בת, 92x in Genesis); "Laban" (root לבן, 58x in Genesis). First appearance of the root בלהה ("Bilhah") in Genesis. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'his·maid', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 2 words. Full calculation: וַיִּתֵּ֤ן [and·gave] (466) + לָבָן֙ [Laban] (82) + לְרָחֵ֣ל [Rachel] (268) + בִּתּ֔וֹ [his·daughter] (408) + אֶת־בִּלְהָ֖ה [Bilhah] (443) + שִׁפְחָת֑וֹ [his·maid] (794) + לָ֖הּ [to·her] (35) + לְשִׁפְחָֽה [as·a·maid] (423) = 2919.
Onkelos
And Laban gave Bilhah his maidservant to Rachel his daughter, as a maidservant for her.
Or HaChaim
לה לשפחה. as a maidservant for her. The Torah was careful to add the word לה, as I have already explained in connection with verse 24. Alternatively, Laban made a condition that Jacob should not have any claim on Bilhah; we find in chapter 22 of Maimonides' Hilchot Ishut that if someone gives a wife a gift with the proviso that her husband should not have any claim on that gift, then the husband is not permitted to enjoy the "fruits" of such a gift (in this case Bilhah's labour, etc,). It is a principle of our sages to follow a line of exegesis which puts Laban in a bad light.
Targum Yonatan
And Laban gave to Rahel his daughter Bilhah, whom his concubine bare him, and he delivered her unto her to be her handmaid.
And he went in also to Rachel, and he loved Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.
verse value 2788
Insights
Verse structure: 11 words, 50 letters. The shortest word is "even" (גַּ֣ם, 2 letters) and the longest is "even·Rachel" (גַּֽם־אֶת־רָחֵ֖ל, 7 letters). 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "with·Rachel" (אֶל־רָחֵ֔ל), "even·Rachel" (גַּֽם־אֶת־רָחֵ֖ל), "than·Leah" (מִלֵּאָ֑ה). 10 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·came" (root בוא, 213x in Genesis); "seven·years" (root שבע, 117x in Genesis); "and·served" (root עבד, 109x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'than·Leah', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 5 words. Full calculation: וַיָּבֹא֙ [and·came] (19) + גַּ֣ם [even] (43) + אֶל־רָחֵ֔ל [with·Rachel] (269) + וַיֶּאֱהַ֥ב [and·loved] (24) + גַּֽם־אֶת־רָחֵ֖ל [even·Rachel] (682) + מִלֵּאָ֑ה [than·Leah] (76) + וַיַּעֲבֹ֣ד [and·served] (92) + עִמּ֔וֹ [with·him] (116) + ע֖וֹד [still] (80) + שֶֽׁבַע־שָׁנִ֥ים [seven·years] (772) + אֲחֵרֽוֹת [other] (615) = 2788.
Onkelos
And he went in also to Rachel, and he also loved Rachel more than Leah, and he served with him yet another seven years.
Rashi
עוד שבע שנים אחרות YET SEVEN OTHER YEARS — Scripture adds the apparently redundant word אחרות another seven years, for the purpose of comparing them to the preceding seven years. — Even as he had worked faithfully during the earlier period (not anticipating any deception on Laban’s part), so he worked faithfully during the latter period, although he (Laban) had practised this deception on him (Genesis Rabbah 70:20).
Ramban
AND HE LOVED RACHEL MORE THAN LEAH. The reason why Scripture mentions that he also loved Rachel more than Leah is that it is natural for a man to have more love for the woman with whom he first had relations, just as the Sages have mentioned with reference to women: “And she makes a firm commitment only to he who marries her first.” Thus Jacob’s loving Rachel more than Leah was unnatural. This is the sense of the word gam: [and he loved ‘gam’ Rachel than Leah].
Sforno
ויאהב גם את רחל, not only because she was his wife, and such love is natural, but because she was Rachel, because of her distinct personality and her deeds which reflected this personality. מלאה, even though since she was his first wife it would have been natural for her to capture most of her husband’s love, (Yevamot 63) Yaakov preferred Rachel.
Or HaChaim
ויבא גם אל רחל. He also slept with Rachel. The reason that the word גם, also, appears twice in this verse maybe to indicate that Jacob spent more time with Rachel than with Leah. According to Bereshit Rabbah 98,4 Jacob's bed was usually besides that of Rachel. The Torah states not only that Jacob spent more time with Rachel but that he also loved her better than Leah. This was unnatural inasmuch as familiarity usually leads to a lessening of the bonds of love. We know this from Proverbs 25,17 where Solomon advises "visit your neighbour's house sparingly, otherwise he will become fed up with you." On the other hand, we are familiar with the proverb that "absence makes the heart grow fonder." This is what is meant when Proverbs 9,17 describes "stolen waters as especially sweet." In Jacob's relationship with Rachel and Leah respectively, these psychologically sound rules did not apply. All of this is alluded to in the repeated use of the word גם.
Chizkuni
ויאהב גם את רחל מלאה, “Yaakov also loved Rachel more than (he loved) Leah.” What is the meaning of the word גם, “also,” in this verse? Normally a man’s first wife occupies a permanent place in his heart, more so than any subsequent wives he will take. The Torah tells us that whenever Yaakov spent time with Rachel, he enjoyed that “quality time,” more than when he spent time with Leah. This was so although his first experience of marital intimacy had been with Leah. This is hinted at by the word גם.
Rabbeinu Bahya
גם את רחל מלאה, “also Rachel, better than Leah.” The Torah means that whereas Yaakov did love Leah, he loved Rachel more. This was something contrary to accepted psychology prevalent in those days which claimed that a man’s greatest love is his first wife. This is the reason the Torah commenced this verse with the word גם, “also.”
Kli Yakar
And he also loved Rachel more than Leah. This implies that he loved Leah, except that he loved Rachel more than Leah. However, the verse [later] states And God saw that Leah was hated, and furthermore, what is the meaning of also [in the verse]? It appears that just as the advantage of wisdom becomes apparent through foolishness, like the advantage of light that becomes evident through darkness — for no quality’s superiority is recognized until one sees its absence and sees one thing compared to another, only then does the advantage of wisdom and light become more apparent — similarly, Jacob loved Rachel for her own inherent qualities, but beyond this love, he developed additional love for her through comparison with Leah. For when he saw one against the other, Rachel’s superiority became even more apparent. This is what is meant by he also loved Rachel — the word also comes to include the additional love that flowed to Rachel from [comparing her to] Leah. The letter “mem” in mi’Leah [than Leah] is not indicating comparison [of degree]. Some say that this additional love stemmed from Leah because Rachel gave over the [secret] signs to Leah [on her wedding night], and this act was considered righteousness on her part, therefore he increased his love for her.
Tur HaArokh
ויאהב גם את רחל, “he loved Rachel also.” Concerning Yaakov also loving Rachel, when he had loved her all along, Nachmanides explains that normally a man loves the first woman he marries, i.e. has intimate relations with. In this instance, the Torah informs us that in spite of this general rule, and Yaakov having had intimate relations with Leah, he continued also to love Rachel.
And Hashem saw that Leah was hated, and He opened her womb; but Rachel was barren.
verse value 2448 — יְהֹוָה֙ = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 8 words, 37 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָה֙) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. Verse gematria: 2448 is divisible by 18, the value of chai ('life'). The shortest word is "Leah" (לֵאָ֔ה, 3 letters) and the longest is "that·unloved" (כִּֽי־שְׂנוּאָ֣ה, 7 letters). 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 165x in Genesis); "and·saw" (root ראה, 140x in Genesis); "and·Rachel" (root רחל, 44x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'her·womb', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 2 words. Full calculation: וַיַּ֤רְא [and·saw] (217) + יְהֹוָה֙ [Hashem] (26) + כִּֽי־שְׂנוּאָ֣ה [that·unloved] (392) + לֵאָ֔ה [Leah] (36) + וַיִּפְתַּ֖ח [and·opened] (504) + אֶת־רַחְמָ֑הּ [her·womb] (654) + וְרָחֵ֖ל [and·Rachel] (244) + עֲקָרָֽה [barren] (375) = 2448.
Onkelos
And Hashem saw that Leah was hated, and He gave her sons; but Rachel was barren.
Ramban
AND THE ETERNAL SAW THAT LEAH WAS HATED. Now Leah had deceived her sister and also Jacob. For even if we were to say that she showed respect for her father, who took her and brought her in to him and she was not rebellious against him, she should have by word or sign indicated that she was Leah. All the more is this so since she feigned herself all night to be another, which was the reason why Jacob did not recognize her until he saw her in the morning. It was for this reason that Jacob hated her. But G-d, knowing that she did so in order to be married to the righteous one, had compassion upon her. And so the Rabbis said in Bereshith Rabbah:2. “When Jacob saw the deeds by which Leah had deceived her sister, he decided to divorce her. But when the Holy One, blessed be He, remembered her by giving her children, Jacob said, ‘Shall I divorce the mother of these children?’” This is the meaning of the expression, And the Eternal saw: He had compassion upon her so that Jacob should not leave her. But there are some scholars who say that in the case of two wives, one of whom is loved exceedingly, the second one, who is the less beloved, is called “hated” relative to the first, just as Scripture said, And he loved Rachel more than Leah, here. but not that he hated her. Leah however was ashamed of the matter and so G-d saw her affliction.
Sforno
כי שנואה לאה, because after his first meeting with her Yaakov recognised that Leah bore the symptoms of a woman who is unable to have children. ויפתח את רחמה, Yaakov had thought that the reason Leah had been willing to deceive him was because of her awareness of her barrenness. She remained in such a state until G’d took pity on her and opened her womb.
Or HaChaim
וירא ה׳ כי שנואה לאה, G'd saw that Leah was hated, etc. The Torah tells us here that only G'd was aware of the fact that Leah was hated; she herself only felt that she was not beloved as we shall explain by examining her own words presently. Bereshit Rabbah 71,2 sees in the word שנואה merely an allusion that Leah had been slated to become the wife of Esau who was hated (compare Maleachi 1,3 where G'd expressed His hatred for Esau). Accordingly, Leah is here called by the name of the husband originally intended for her. If Leah had not produced children the people would have seen this as proof that she was not meant to be Jacob's wife; this is why G'd opened her womb and granted her children. The Torah goes on to say that Rachel was barren to indicate that it was hoped that by making Leah fruitful Jacob's hatred towards Leah would abate when she could give him children whereas Rachel apparently could not.
Rabbeinu Bahya
כי שנואה לאה, “that Leah was hated.” This certainly does not mean that Yaakov hated Leah. [If he did, he would have had to divorce her. Ed.] The word שנואה is strictly relative and tells us that by comparison to Yaakov’s feelings for Rachel, Leah appeared as if she were hated.
Tur HaArokh
וירא ה' כי שנואה לאה, “The Lord took note of the fact that Leah was hated, etc.” According to Bereshit Rabbah, 70,2 the reason Yaakov hated Leah was that she had betrayed her sister. Seeing that G’d knew that her intentions were pure, that she wanted to be married to a righteous person such as Yaakov, He had compassion with her. Some commentators believe that we must not understand the word שנואה at face value; the Torah merely describes Yaakov’s relations with Leah by comparing them to his relations with Rachel. When looked at from that angle, Leah appeared as if she were hated. We would have to say that G’d saw that Leah was “hated,” [not just by Yaakov, but when compared to her sister who was popular, Ed] so that G’d compensated her by granting her motherhood in spite of natural biological obstacles to this.
And Leah conceived, and bore a son, and she called his name Reuben; for she said: "Because Hashem has looked upon my affliction; for now my husband will love me."
verse value 4035 — לֵאָה֙ = 36 (double-Chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 16 words, 61 letters. Notable word values: "Leah" (לֵאָה֙) = 36, double chai. The shortest word is "son" (בֵּ֔ן, 2 letters) and the longest is "will·love·me" (יֶאֱהָבַ֥נִי, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 30: for, that. 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "for·has·seen" (כִּֽי־רָאָ֤ה), "in·my·affliction" (בְּעׇנְיִ֔י), "will·love·me" (יֶאֱהָבַ֥נִי). The root כי appears 2 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "said" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "and·she·bore" (root ילד, 193x in Genesis); "his·name" (root שם, 180x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'Reuben', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 9 words.
Onkelos
And Leah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Reuben, for she said, "Because my affliction was revealed before Hashem, therefore my husband will now love me."
Rashi
ותקרא שמו ראובן AND SHE CALLED HIS NAME REUBEN — Our Rabbis explained it thus: she said, “See (ראו) the difference between (בין) my son and my father-in-law’s son who himself sold the birthright to Jacob and yet wished to kill him afterwards. This (my son) did not sell it (his birthright) to Joseph (it must be remembered that Joseph being the founder of two tribes was regarded as the first-born of Jacob’s sons since the eldest son took a double portion in the father’s property), yet he did not raise any protest to him being regarded as the first-born and not only did he not raise a protest but he even wished to take him out of the pit and so rescue him from death (Berakhot 7b).
Ibn Ezra
"Ya'ahavani" — [voweled] with a patah under the bet, like "lest the evil overtake me" (Genesis 19:19).
Sforno
בעניי, that my husband suspected me of agreeing to deceive him. As compensation for having been unfairly suspected G’d granted me male seed. (compare the reward for a woman unjustly suspected of infidelity Numbers 5,25)
Or HaChaim
ותהר לאה,…ותהר עוד. Leah gave birth.she gave birth again. I have paid attention to the meaning of the names. Normally, a name which alludes to removal of hatred should have preceded a name alluding to love. Leah seems to have reversed this sequence by proclaiming: "now my husband will love me" after the birth of Reuben, whereas after the birth of Shimon she proclaimed: "G'd heard that I am hated, therefore He has given me this one too." Another strange thing is Leah's conviction when Levi was born that "now my husband will grow attached to me." Was he then not attached to her previously? Righteous Leah had shed tears about her fate to become Esau's wife; this is why the Torah mentioned the softness of her eyes. When she now saw that she had become Jacob's wife, she realised that he was not her true בן זוג. When she had a son she attributed this to an act of mercy by G'd who had seen that she was not beloved. The righteous always live according to the imperative of our sages (Avot 1,6) to always interpret everyone else's actions favourably. It therefore did not occur to her that her husband could actually hate her. People who think in that fashion are blessed. When Leah's first son was born she assumed that all she lacked was her husband's love. It was only when her second son was born that she realised retroactively that she had erred; not only had she not been loved but Jacob had actually hated her. When she said: "G'd has heard," she meant that G'd had been aware of something that she herself had not allowed herself to become aware of. When she had her third son she concluded that her previous reasoning that she was not Jacob's intended wife had been wrong too and that she was indeed Jacob's intended wife. She felt that the time had come when her husband would recognise this fact too and that his relationship with her would change for the better. Leah also thought of the time after she and Jacob would depart this world when she said ילוה אישי, "my husband will remain attached to me." She was now convinced that their souls would not become separated in the Hereafter as she was his true soul-mate. We have been told by the Zohar Mishpatim section 102 that truly matched pairs will remain together in the Hereafter. She underlined the fact that she had borne Jacob three sons as the number three is indicative of something permanent, enduring. She also foresaw in her prophetic mind that Jacob would have four wives. Accordingly, she had fulfilled her destiny by bearing him three sons. When she bore Jacob a fourth son subsequently, she said: "this time I will thank the Lord" because up to now G'd had treated her on the basis of justice, i.e. she had borne one fourth of Jacob's sons. Now that she had borne him four sons she thanked G'd who had done more for her than was required by justice.
Rabbeinu Bahya
ותהר לאה ותלד בן, “Leah became pregnant and gave birth to a son.” In the case of all of the children born by the wives of Yaakov (except Zevulun) the Torah wrote the words ותהר ותלד, “she became pregnant and gave birth,” to show that pregnancy was followed shortly thereafter by giving birth. The Torah thereby hints that all these children were born after only seven months of pregnancy, the shortest period to make the fetus viable at birth. All of the twelve sons of Yaakov plus Dinah, with the exception of Binyamin were born during the second seven years of Yaakov working for Lavan. Let me explain why babies born after seven months pregnancy are generally viable whereas babies born after eight months pregnancy are not. At first glance this seems baffling were it not known to be a fact. Every one of the seven fixed stars [the planets according to earlier astrological concepts. Ed.] dominates the sky for one month. The order of their appearances in the sky is: שבתאי, צדק, מאדים, חמה, נגה, כוכב, לבנה, This contrasts with the order חל"ם כצנ"ש which prevailed at the time of creation during the first seven days of the universe. This is the order of the horoscopes governing the calendar months. Nissan is under the aegis of Saturn, followed by Iyar which is under the aegis of Jupiter, followed in Sivan by Venus, etc. Seeing that the cycle of these planetary rotations is completed after seven months it is natural that a baby born after seven months of pregnancy should be viable. The seventh month, dominated by the planet לבנה, moon, symbolizes life, i.e. it is the specific function of this planet to serve as key of Heaven and Earth. If however, the pregnant woman enters a month dominated by Saturn, a planet representing cold and dryness, the natural symbol of death, it is understandable why babies born when the mother’s eight’s month of pregnancy is in a month when that planet “presides,” is not viable and will die. The biological process of death is that the original drop of semen which fertilized the ovum will dry up and as such be unable to develop into life. Once the pregnancy enters its ninth month and comes under the aegis of the planet Jupiter, a planet associated with “Life” and everything good, based on the fact that most births take place after nine months of pregnancy, viability of babies born after that time is practically assured. Some babies born after or during the tenth or eleventh month of pregnancy i.e. under the aegis of Venus or the Sun will be viable. We have it on the authority of Rava in Yevamot 80 that additional months of pregnancy up to and including 12 months produce viable babies. [Rava ruled that a woman whose husband had left her 12 months prior to her giving birth is believed when she claims that the baby is her husband’s. Ed.] There is an halachic principle, that evidence to the contrary excluded, most women sleep exclusively with their respective husbands and we do not ignore this principle when deciding if a baby is a bastard unless there is specific evidence or a natural impossibility for the baby to be the husband’s. Of the seven planets mentioned, the planets Jupiter and Venus are considered as especially fortuitous influences whereas the planets Mars and Saturn are considered as especially harmful influences. Sun and Moon are considered as in charge of light and access to the portals of heaven respectively. This leaves the planet Mercury which is considered a neutral influence. When it functions in consonance with a planet which represents a good influence it reinforces that influence, whereas when it functions in consonance with a planet considered a harmful influence it reinforces that influence. ותקרא שמו ראובן, “she called his name Reuven.” All the names given to the children of Rachel and Leah were inspired by Holy Spirit assisting their mothers in naming them. The names they gave the children all alluded to certain attributes of G’d. When Leah named her first four sons she alluded to the ten emanations from the bottom up. He called the first son Reuven alluding to the attribute of Justice which corresponds to the last letter ה in the Ineffable Name. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 44,12) had said that until Avraham had that letter added to his name he was unable to have a son with Sarah. The word ראובן alludes to ראייה, “seeing, taking note of.” The faculty of seeing is derived from the attribute of Justice, and this is why the עין הרע, “the evil eye” is such a dangerous and powerful characteristic as it directs attention to the attribute of Justice, i.e. retribution. The name שמעון which is derived from שמועה, as Leah said: “for G’d has heard that I am hated,” corresponds to an attribute symbolized by the letter ו in the same four-lettered name of G’d, and the 6 directions in which it extends. When Yaakov blessed Ephrayim and Menashe, the two sons of Joseph, by saying: “they shall be to me just as Reuven and Shimon” (Genesis 48,5), he meant to protect them against this influence of the evil eye which is associated with the attribute hate. Similar considerations prevailed when naming all the rest of the twelve sons. I will go into details when we get to the relevant verses.
And she conceived again, and bore a son; and said: "Because Hashem has heard that I am hated, He has therefore given me this son also." And she called his name Simeon.
verse value 5250 — יְהֹוָה֙ = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 14 words, 63 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָה֙) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. Verse gematria: 5250 is divisible by 50, the years to the Jubilee (yovel). The shortest word is "son" (בֵּן֒, 2 letters) and the longest is "that·unloved" (כִּֽי־שְׂנוּאָ֣ה, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 440: and·she·bore, for·has·heard. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·declared" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "and·she·bore" (root ילד, 193x in Genesis); "his·name" (root שם, 180x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'also·this', dividing the verse into phrases of 11 and 3 words. Full calculation: וַתַּ֣הַר [and·conceived] (611) + עוֹד֮ [still] (80) + וַתֵּ֣לֶד [and·she·bore] (440) + בֵּן֒ [son] (52) + וַתֹּ֗אמֶר [and·declared] (647) + כִּֽי־שָׁמַ֤ע [for·has·heard] (440) + יְהֹוָה֙ [Hashem] (26) + כִּֽי־שְׂנוּאָ֣ה [that·unloved] (392) + אָנֹ֔כִי [I] (81) + וַיִּתֶּן־לִ֖י [and·gave·me] (506) + גַּם־אֶת־זֶ֑ה [also·this] (456) + וַתִּקְרָ֥א [and·called] (707) + שְׁמ֖וֹ [his·name] (346) + שִׁמְעֽוֹן [Simeon] (466) = 5250.
Onkelos
And she conceived again and bore a son, and she said, "Because it was heard before Hashem that I am hated, He has given me this one as well"; and she called his name Simeon.
Sforno
כי שנואה אנכי, and because of this hatred He has given me also this son.
Kli Yakar
“For the Lord has heard that I am hated.” Even though at the birth of her first son she said now my husband will love me, and all the more so he would not hate her, why then did she say for I am hated? Nevertheless, it appears that she thought it would be so [that he would love her] but it did not work out as she hoped. For she reasoned that since a woman is [married] only for children, and a son is undoubtedly beloved, how could the source [i.e., the mother] be hated while its waters [i.e., offspring] are cherished? Therefore she said now my husband will love me. But afterwards she saw that she had been mistaken, for logically her sister should have had the second son, so why did God give this one to me as well? It must be because it was revealed before the Holy One, blessed be He, that he [Jacob] still maintained his hatred. Therefore she said for the Lord has heard — He alone, may He be blessed, examines his heart and hears all the words that are with his heart, but I did not know this as I thought his hatred had already departed. Furthermore, it is possible that at the birth of the first son he loved her, but in between [births] the situation deteriorated and he returned to hating her. For this is the common way — during the seven days after birth, the father rejoices in his offspring, and incidentally also rejoices in the wife he took, but as days pass everything is forgotten and his love departs. And she too prophetically said Now my husband will love me — specifically now, during the time of birth and close to birth, but not afterwards. She knew this from the great distance of his heart, that this love would only be temporary. Therefore she said now. With the second son she said for I am hated, and with the third son it says therefore he called his name Levi — Jacob named him, showing that he agreed with her words and that he desired to cleave to her. But regarding the previous children, she named them names indicating love, though we had not yet seen his agreement until she bore the third son — then he revealed his mind that his hatred had completely departed.
And she conceived again, and bore a son; and said: "Now this time will my husband be joined to me, because I have borne him three sons." Therefore was his name called Levi.
verse value 5033 — ל֖וֹ = 36 (double-Chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 17 words, 66 letters. Notable word values: "to·him" (ל֖וֹ) = 36, double chai. The shortest word is "son" (בֵּן֒, 2 letters) and the longest is "that·I·have·borne" (כִּֽי־יָלַ֥דְתִּי, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 647: and·declared, called·his·name. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "will·be·joined" (יִלָּוֶ֤ה). The root ילד appears 2 times in this verse. 16 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·declared" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "sons" (root בן, 248x in Genesis); "to·me" (root אל, 242x in Genesis). First appearance of the root לוי ("Levi") in Genesis. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'sons', dividing the verse into phrases of 14 and 3 words.
Onkelos
And she conceived again and bore a son, and she said, "This time my husband will join himself to me, for I have borne him three sons"; therefore he called his name Levi.
Rashi
הפעם ילוה אישי THIS TIME WILL MY HUSBAND BECOME ATTACHED TO ME — Because the Matriarchs were prophetesses and knew that twelve tribes would issue from Jacob and that he would have four wives, she said, “From now he will have no fault to find with me, for I have assumed my full share in giving him children” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayetzei 9). על כן THEREFORE — Wherever in the case of the names given to Jacob’s sons the word “therefore” is used, that tribe had a numerous population (Genesis Rabbah 71:4), Levi forming an exception, because the Ark decimated them. קרא שמו לוי [THEREFORE] WAS HIS NAME CALLED LEVI (literally, he called his name) — Of all of them (the sons) it is written “And she called”, but of this one Scripture writes “he called!” There is a Midrashic statement in Deuteronomy Rabbah that the Holy One, blessed be He, sent Gabriel who brought him (Levi) into His presence. He called him by this name and gave him the twenty-four perquisites with which the priesthood was favoured, and because He gave him these perquisites as an accompaniment (לוהו) He called him Levi (accompanied).
Ibn Ezra
"My husband will be joined" — like "and they shall be joined to you" (Numbers 18:4).
Sforno
הפעם ילוה, I have by now acquired a tendency, a justified presumption, חזקה, of producing numerous children. Our sages in Yevamot 64 consider an occurrence thrice repeated as establishing such a presumption.
Chizkuni
ילוה אישי אלי, “my husband will be more firmly connected to me.” She meant that up until now she would take her two children one with each hand, and did not need to call on her husband’s support. Now she needed to call on his support as she could not take three children by her two hands. על כן קרא שמו לוי, “this is why he named him Levi, companion. [All the other eleven children of Yaakov were named by their mothers, Yaakov, adding a second name to the youngest whom Rachel had named ben Oni. Ed.] There is some debate about the name of Zevulun; (30,20) some commentators assume that Yaakov did not agree with Leah’s implying that he would now make his permanent residence in Leah’s tent.
Rabbeinu Bahya
.על כן קרא שמו לוי, “this is why He called his name Levi.” The word “He” refers to G’d. This is why the Torah does not write קראה, “she called,” as it had done with the first two sons of Leah. Seeing that this son belonged to G’d as the “tithe” Yaakov had vowed to give of all G’d would give him, it was up to G’d to name what belonged to Him. We had mentioned that the matriarchs had a prophetic inspiration that Yaakov would have 12 sons from four wives. Having given birth to a third son, Leah had received her fair share of sons. When Leah said after giving birth to her third son על כן ילוה אישי אלי, she was not merely referring to the attachment between Yaakov and her; rather, she used the word איש as an acronym for א=כתר, י=חכמה ש,=בינה, as indicated in the Sefer Habahir. (compare the comment in that book on Exodus 15,3 ה' איש מלחמה). Leah meant that the three emanations represented by these letters in the word איש are really part and parcel of a larger concept. This is why the descendants of Levi became teachers of Torah and wisdom in Israel as we know from Moses’ blessing in Deut. 33,10 יורו משפטיך ליעקב, “they will teach Your ordinances to Yaakov." When she gave birth to her fourth son, Yehudah, she gave thanks to the emanation בינה, the emanation from which children originate. As a result of all this we find that all the important elements were represented in the first four sons of Leah. Reuven and Shimon were allusions to G’d (His attribute with the six extremities), Levi and Yehudah being allusions to the three topmost emanations.
Kli Yakar
“Now my husband will become attached to me…” Rashi explains that he [Levi] was named so because he would be accompanied by the priestly gifts. However, the verse states that he was named Levi because now my husband will become attached to me. What appears most correct to me is that the Matriarchs spoke with divine inspiration, and when she [Leah] said at the birth of her first son now my husband will love me, the intention was because the firstborn son was born to serve God, as the divine service was performed by the firstborns. This is why Isaac loved Esau, because he was the firstborn and he thought he would perform the divine service, while Rebecca loved Jacob because she saw prophetically that the birthright would eventually return to Jacob. Similarly, Leah said now my husband will love me through the firstborn son, because there is a covenant that the firstborn will always be born to the hated wife in order to bring about love for her. This is how Abarbanel explains in Parshat Ki Teitzei regarding the verse and the firstborn belongs to the hated one (Deuteronomy 21:16). However, the Holy One, Blessed be He, knew that eventually the birthright would be taken from Reuben due to his defiling his father’s bed. Therefore, she was still hated, which is why it says because God heard that I am hated and gave me this one too. She didn’t say that this son would bring about love for any particular reason, until she gave birth to Levi, whom God named Levi because he would be accompanied by the priestly gifts in exchange for God’s service which was his responsibility. Through this reason “my husband will become attached to me and love me,” because from me was born, this time, the son who would bear the responsibility of divine service. According to this explanation, Rashi’s interpretation aligns with the plain meaning of the verse.
And she conceived again, and bore a son; and she said: "This time will I praise Hashem." Therefore she called his name Judah; and she left off bearing.
verse value 4314
Insights
Verse structure: 14 words, 57 letters. The shortest word is "son" (בֵּ֗ן, 2 letters) and the longest is "Hashem" (אֶת־יְהֹוָ֔ה, 6 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "I·will·praise" (אוֹדֶ֣ה), "and·stopped" (וַֽתַּעֲמֹ֖ד). The root ילד appears 2 times in this verse. 13 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·declared" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "and·she·bore" (root ילד, 193x in Genesis); "his·name" (root שם, 180x in Genesis). First appearance of the root יהו ("Judah") in Genesis. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'Judah', dividing the verse into phrases of 12 and 2 words. Full calculation: וַתַּ֨הַר [and·conceived] (611) + ע֜וֹד [still] (80) + וַתֵּ֣לֶד [and·she·bore] (440) + בֵּ֗ן [son] (52) + וַתֹּ֙אמֶר֙ [and·declared] (647) + הַפַּ֙עַם֙ [this·time] (195) + אוֹדֶ֣ה [I·will·praise] (16) + אֶת־יְהֹוָ֔ה [Hashem] (427) + עַל־כֵּ֛ן [therefore] (170) + קָרְאָ֥ה [called] (306) + שְׁמ֖וֹ [his·name] (346) + יְהוּדָ֑ה [Judah] (30) + וַֽתַּעֲמֹ֖ד [and·stopped] (520) + מִלֶּֽדֶת [from·bearing] (474) = 4314.
Onkelos
And she conceived again and bore a son, and she said, "This time I will give thanks before Hashem"; therefore she called his name Judah; and she ceased bearing.
Rashi
הפעם אודה NOW WILL I PRAISE [THE LORD] — because I have assumed more than my share, from now on I should praise God (Genesis Rabbah 71:4).
Ibn Ezra
"This time I will give thanks to Hashem" — the sense is: this time, now that I have four sons, I give thanks to Hashem, for I will not desire to have yet more — as if to say: I thank Hashem who has given me all this, and it suffices me. Therefore she ceased from bearing.
Sforno
על כן קראה שמו יהודה, to reflect the letters in the name which alludes to the Essence of G’d, the tetragram. Upon closer inspection we can detect elements of such allusions to G’d’s “great” name in the names of the sons Leah had born earlier also. The names mentioned both here and later in the Scriptures were not necessarily innovations, but people who had lived in former times had already been given such names. We encounter יהודית בת בארי in 26,34; there is a שמואל בן עמיהוד in Numbers 34,20, (so that Channah, wife of Elkanah had not invented a new name when making her son the prophet Samuel as she did. (Names usually were associated with an event in the lives of either parent that the parent wanted to perpetuate.)
Chizkuni
ותעמד מלדת, “she was (temporarily) unable to conceive and give birth again. Seeing that several years later Leah did give birth to Dinah, the Torah chose a word (עמידה, temporary standing still) which indicated that her inability to give birth for a while was not due to her having become too old. She was not able to conceive and give birth again until after Asher had been born.
Rabbeinu Bahya
הפעם אודה את ה, “this time I give thanks to the Lord, etc.” The word י-ה-ו-ה at this point is a reference to the first time this word appears in the list of G’d’s thirteen attributes revealed to Moses in Exodus 34,6. [Rabbi Chavell cites Torat Chayim as believing that there is an error here and that the author meant the second time this word appeared there. Ed] This was the attribute of repentance. The reason this attribute is part of Yehudah’s name is that he was the first person to publicly retract and confess a mistake he had made when he accused Tamar of being a harlot. He was not ashamed to admit his error, which is the greatest impediment to repentance. According to the Talmud in Sotah 7 Yehudah’s repentance led to Reuven’s repentance. This is why King David became one of his descendants. David is reputed to have “been elevated,” i.e. by means of his repentance, in the matter of Bat Sheva (Samuel II 23,1). David was considered outstanding because he unabashedly repented. As soon as Leah had given birth to four sons whereas Rachel had remained childless, she became progressively more jealous and she went to Yaakov asking him to give her children at least by means of his prayer since merely sleeping with her had not made her pregnant. Yaakov told her that the matter did not depend on him and that the obstacle to her becoming pregnant was G’d. Rachel then proceeded to give Yaakov her maid-servant Bilhah so that her own potential as a mother could be fulfilled vicariously through Bilhah bearing Yaakov’s child on her behalf. Rachel reasoned to herself that her name, unlike Leah or Zilpah, did not have the letter ה in it. On the other hand, Bilhah’s name had two letters ה in it. When Rachel said to her husband Yaakov: “sleep with Bilhah and she will give birth on my knees, so that I will be built up through her,” she meant that the power inherent in the first letter ה in Bilhah’s name would enable her to have a child, whereas her additional letter ה would ensure that she as her mistress would be built up through her vicariously. As a result of Yaakov sleeping with Bilhah she bore a son whom her mistress Rachel called Dan, again involving G’d’s attribute of Justice.
Tur HaArokh
הפעם אודה את ה', “this time I will give thanks to the Lord, etc.” She had now received her entire share of blessings seeing that she had born four children for Yaakov. Seeing that she considered herself fulfilled, she no longer became pregnant, ותעמוד מלדת.
Onkelos
Rashi
Sforno
Or HaChaim
Chizkuni
Kli Yakar
Tur HaArokh