Bereshit (Genesis) 31:20-55 – The last meeting between Yaakov and Lavan: On neutral ground

Bereshit (Genesis) 31:20 records that Yaakov “stole” Lavan’s heart since he fled from Lavan’s house in Haran without telling Lavan that he was leaving. The following verse, 31:21, then records that in this flight Yaakov crossed the river, which is commonly understood to mean the Euphrates. Why did Yaakov not inform Lavan that he was leaving? This seems to be acting in a sneaky manner. If Yaakov had really changed his character during his stay in Lavan, then he should not have been sneaky, but should have left in an open manner. Also, why do we need to know that Yaakov crossed the Euphrates?

Afterwards, 31:22 records that after three days Lavan learned that Yaakov had fled. Lavan then chased down Yaakov and caught up to Yaakov by the hills of Gilead, 31:23. This led to the final encounter between Lavan and Yaakov, 31:26-55, which began by Lavan questioning Yaakov, why had he fled without telling him, 31:26-28.

Yaakov’s answer to Lavan was that he was worried that had he informed Lavan that he was leaving, Lavan would have stolen his wives, i.e. forced Rahel and Lea, Lavan’s daughters, to remain in Haran, 31:31. We see later on that Lavan did claim “ownership” of Yaakov’s wives, 31:43, but why was Yaakov not worried that Lavan would steal his wives on the hills of Gilead? Did Yaakov think that Lavan would not have chased him down? Or, did Yaakov think that he could get to the land of Israel before Lavan chased him down? Was Yaakov surprised by the sight of Lavan?

Seforno (on 31:31) suggests that in Haran, Lavan had many supporters, and hence he could have forced Rahel and Lea to stay in Haran, but on the hills of Gilead, Lavan did have enough men to impose his will on Yaakov. This approach seems to be based on the idea that Yaakov was not sure that G-d would physically protect him from Lavan in Haran, which I doubt. Also, most likely, Lavan had taken enough men with him on the hills of Gilead to impose his will, just that he was stopped by G-d’s intervention, 31:24, as could have happened in Haran.

My guess is that Yaakov was pretty sure that Lavan would chase him down, because the Torah records, from the perspective of the narrator, that Yaakov had stolen Lavan’s heart by running away, 31:19, and there is no reason to believe that Yaakov was unaware of this reaction. If this is true, then Yaakov could not really have hidden from Lavan. Even had he gotten to the land of Canaan, Lavan would still have tracked his down. It is even possible that Yaakov waited for Lavan on the hills of Gilead. The logic would be that Yaakov was not worried about Lavan since G-d had already assured him that He would be with him, 31:3, and for Yaakov it was better to finish with Lavan before having to deal with Esav. How then did Yaakov gain by meeting Lavan on the hills of Gilead instead of being in Haran?

My thought is that had Yaakov stayed in Haran he would have been subject to the laws of Haran, and then legally Lavan would have been able to keep Rahel and Lea in Haran. We see the importance of the local jurisdiction of Haran after Lavan switched Rahel and Lea on the marriage night, 29:23. It was clear that Yaakov had been working for Rahel, but still Lavan said the law in this place (Haran) was that Yaakov had to marry Lea first, 29:26. Even on the hills of Gilead, Lavan claimed that everything that Yaakov had, including Yaakov’s wives, really belonged to him, 31:43.  Lavan was making this claim since he was applying the laws of Haran despite the fact that he was outside of Haran. Thus, Yaakov wanted to leave Haran’s jurisdiction, which is the importance of 31:21 that he passed over the Euphrates, which meant leaving Haran’s jurisdiction, and then Rahel and Lea would legally stay with their husband, Yaakov, instead of their father, Lavan.

Bereshit 5:3,4 – Longevity and the aging process in the Torah

Bereshit 5:3 records that Adam had a child when he was 130 years old, something that is not possible in the 21st century. 5:4 then records that Adam lived another 800 years afterwards. This also is not physically possible. The remainder of chapter 5 lists ten more individuals who also lived extremely long lives. Similarly, 11:10-32 lists nine more individuals who had extremely long lives. The people listed in chapter 11 lived less years than all the people listed in chapter five, except for Chanoch (5:23), but still eight of them lived more than 200 years, which again does not seem possible. Afterwards the lifespans continued to decrease, but still the Torah lists many people who lived longer than humanely possible in the 21st century, Sara, 127 years (23:1), Avraham, 175 years (25:7), Yishmael, 137 years (25:17), Yitzhak, 180 years (35:28), Yaakov, 147 years (47:9, 48:28), Levi and his descendants’, 137 years, 133 years and 137 years, (Shemot 6:16-20), Aharon, 123 years (Bemidbar 33:39) and Moshe lived 120 years (Devarim 31:2). Yosef also lived 110 years (Bereshit 50:26), which also seems incredible for the period of the Torah.

The Rambam (Moreh 11:47) writes, apparently in reference to all the people who had long lives in the Torah, that only these people lived so long, as the other people who are not named as having long lives, lived regular lives. The Rambam suggests that the long lives of these individuals could have been due to their diet and behavior or due to a miracle. The Ramban (on 5:4) rejects this approach and claims that the people listed in chapters five and eleven were not unique in their lifetime. He notes that if the Rambam’s suggestion of diet and behavior was correct, then many people should have followed their behavior. Also, he claims that not all of these people were worthy of G-d making them miracles. It seems to me that even the Ramban relies on miracles for the long lives of the patriarchs. The Ramban also seems to claim that until the period of the sin of the Tower of Bavel people would naturally live long lives, which again appears to be impossible.

A different approach is that the years listed in the Torah are not full solar years. Ha-Ketav Ve-haKabbalh (on 5:5) notes that some people claim that the years in chapter five are based on a one-month lunar cycle which he rejects. Beck (1967, pp. 25-29) suggests that a year in the Torah is a six-month period, and then the lives of the patriarchs would be half of what is recorded in the Torah.

My guess is that the years in the Torah are similar to our years, that the Rambam is correct that only those people who are listed as having had a long life, had a long life and that this was a miracle that G-d did for them. It is not clear why it was necessary for these people to have long lives, and my guess is that it is a literary way of marking a large passage of time with a relatively limited number of people.

In addition, with regard to the people who had long lives, it must be that their aging process was a much slower process than our aging in the 21st century. David Tzvi Hoffmann (1969, p. 383, introduction to chapter 25) follows this idea when discussing how old was Avraham when he had more children apparently after Sara had died, 25:2. He writes that even though Avraham was officially 140 then (if these children were born right after Yitzhak married Rivka), he was really 56 years ago. This calculation would be that 140/175, his present age divided by the age when he died, equals 0.8 and 0.8*70 = 56. Thus, he claims Avraham was able to father the children recorded in 25:2. While I think Avraham had the ability to father the children recorded in 25:2 due to a special blessing from G-d (see our discussion on 24:1, “To be virile again”), it must be that Hoffmann is correct that the aging process for the people who had very long lives in the Torah was at a proportional rate.

I think that even by the early years of the people who had long lives in the Torah that their development was at a slow pace, and then they reached puberty later than modern people. Thus, the youngest age that people in chapter five began to have children was 65. In chapter 11, the aging process had quickened to some extent compared to the people in chapter five, as the youngest age that people had children in chapter 11 was twenty-nine years (11:24), and their life span had shortened from between 400 years to 148 years, but still their aging was slower than people in modern times. Afterwards by the age of the patriarchs until, and including, Moshe, the development and aging of the people with long lives were proportional to a person who lived seventy/ eighty years.

Thus, Sara was considered beautiful when she came to Egypt (12:11,15), even though she was sixty-five years old, since she had not yet aged that much because she was going to live until 127, 23:1. Hence, she was around 35 years old based on a lifespan of seventy years. This slower proportional aging is also why the Torah had to tell us that Sara had stopped menstruating when she was 89/90, 18:11, which should have been obvious, but with proportional aging, one might have thought that at 89/90 (17:17), which was proportional to 49 years ((89/127)*70), that she was still menstruating, but she was not.

Avraham was equivalent physically to a 30-year-old ((75/175)*70) when he left Haran and fought with the four kings and not to a seventy-five year old (12:4), which in antiquity and today was/is possible, but it is very unlikely for a seventy five year old to have the strength to fight a war. In addition, Sara thought that there was a good possibility that Avraham would be able to have a child with Hagar even though he was 85 years old then, since if it was not possible, she would not have been willing for him to have another wife, 16:1-3. Also, Avraham agreed to her proposal and did not claim that he could not have a child when he was 85 since really he was physically around 34 years old (86/175)*70).

14 years later, when Avraham was officially 99 years old, both Avraham and Sara doubted whether Avraham could father another child, 17:17,24; 18:10,12; 21:1-7. 18:11 (also 21:2), which is information provided by the “narrator” records that Avraham and Sara were old when they were told that Sara was to have a child, but also adds the phrase “and advancing in years.” This phrase is qualifying the previous word, that they were old, that while they were getting older, they were not necessarily not “functioning” and then the verse continues to inform us that Sara was post-menopausal since, as mentioned above, this was not obvious. Yet, according to this theory of proportionate aging, Avraham was then equivalent to being 40 years old (99/175)*70), so why did Sara and Avraham doubt that he could have a child? Maybe Avram and Sara were considered old even in their 40s, since in those days, life expectancy was around 40, even for people who did not die at childhood. In addition, maybe Avraham’s and Sara’s doubt that Avraham could have a child just “six years” after fathering Yishmael was because they did not think that a person at Avraham’s age (physically equivalent to 40 years) would be able to recover sufficiently from the circumcision, which G-d had just commanded him to do, 17:10-14, and he had done, 17:23,24, to have a child. Maybe then, Avraham’s ability to have Yitzhak was due to a miracle. 

This idea of proportionate aging could also explain why Yishmael seems to have been small when he and Hagar had to leave Avraham’s house, even though he was 14-years-old, 21:14-20. Also, while Yishmael was officially 13 years old when he was circumcised this would have been equivalent to being six and a half (17:25; 25:17 (13/137)*70).

In addition, with this idea, Yitzhak was in modern terms around 15.5 years old when he married Rivka, (25:2, (40/180)*70)) and Yaakov was in modern terms around 40 years old when he married Lea and Rahel ((84/147)*70).

Also, with this understanding, Yosef was not mentally or physically 17 years old (37:2) when he tattled on his brothers, but around 12 years in modern terms, and he was equivalent to an 18-year-old ((28/110)*70) when Potifar’s wife tried to seduce him, 39:7-12. This might explain why Reuven also refers to him as the child, 37:30 and 42:20. This would also mean that when Yaakov sent Yosef to look for his brothers in Shekhem, 37:13, Yosef was equivalent to a ten-year old in modern times, which might be considered as being too young for such a mission. However, as we explain in our discussion on 37:3-14, “Yaakov's parenting,” Yaakov accepted that the dreams of Yosef were a prophecy, and hence he probably felt that Yosef would be protected.

This slow aging process might also help explain the conversation between Pharaoh and Yaakov when they met, 47:8,9. First, Pharaoh asked Yaakov how old he was since he knew that Yosef was not aging in the normal manner. Secondly, this proportional aging can explain why Yaakov knew that he would not reach the lives of his father and grandfather since he knew at 130 years that he was aging faster than they had been aging at the same age, 47:9. 

The net result is that since the long lifespans recorded in the Torah of various people was a miracle, the miracle was also that the development and the aging process of the different people were also a slower process than in modern times, and starting in the time of the patriarchs, the development and aging process of the people with long lives was proportional to the lifespan of each person.

Bibliography:

Beck, Samuel, 1967, From Sinai to Navo, Jerusalem: Raphael Chayyim Hacohen Publishing.

Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1969, Commentary on Genesis, Bnei Brak: Nezach.

Bereshit 28:11- Yaakov going to Haran: The wealth test

28:11 (also 28:18) records that one night when Yaakov was on his way to Haran he used a rock as a pillow.  This surely must have been uncomfortable, and this indicates that he did not have a pack with him with any clothing which could have been used as a pillow.  We know that Esav had at least two pairs of clothing (27:15), so presumably Yaakov also had at least two pairs of clothing. Why did Yaakov not use some of his clothing as a pillow?

During the night, Yaakov had an amazing dream, 28:12-15, and when he awoke in the morning, he made a vow. However, Yaakov made several conditions to the vow, one of which was that G-d would give him food and clothing, 28:20. This condition implies that Yaakov was lacking both items.

Later, when Yaakov was returning home he prayed to G-d before meeting Esav, and in the prayer he mentioned that when he left the land of Israel, all he had was his walking stick, 32:11.

These three verses (28:11, 28:20 and 32:11) indicate that Yaakov left home with nothing, and raises the question, why did his parents, Yitzhak and Rivka, not give Yaakov at least some clothing when he left to go to Haran?

One might answer that Yitzhak did not offer Yaakov any assistance since Yitzhak was angry at Yaakov for lying to him and tricking him (27:18-30). However, the Torah never informs us that Yitzhak desired to punish Yaakov for tricking him. When Yitzhak first realized that he had been tricked, he trembled that he had been fooled, but he still said that Yaakov was to be blessed, 27:33. A few seconds later, Yitzhak stated that Yaakov had tricked him, 27:35, but he made this statement matter-of-factly with no apparent anger. Afterwards, Yitzhak gave Yaakov another set of blessings, 28:3,4.

Rashi (on 29:11) quotes from Bereshit Rabbah (70:12) another answer. According to this approach, really Yitzhak and Rivka gave Yaakov lots of material assistance when he left home, but Elifaz the son of Esav was sent by Esav to kill Yaakov. When Elifaz caught up with Yaakov, Yaakov convinced him to rob him of everything (except his staff?) since a poor person can be considered as if he was dead. If this did happen, then it must have occurred almost immediately when Yaakov left home since it seems that Yaakov's dream was on the very first night that he left home.

Ibn Ezra (on 25:34) suggests a third answer that Yitzhak was generally poor even though he inherited great wealth from Avraham (25:5) and became wealthy from his planting (26:13). One of his proofs is the fact that Yaakov came penniless to Haran since he argues that surely Yitzhak or Rivka would have helped Yaakov out if they could have. However, were they so poor not to give Yaakov anything?

Ramban (on 25:34) strongly disagrees with Ibn Ezra, as nothing in the Torah indicates that Yitzhak lost his wealth. Ramban notes that G-d thrice blessed Yitzhak, 25:11; 26:3,24 and what kind of blessing could it have been if Yitzhak was to lose all his wealth? Instead, Ramban suggests a fourth answer that Yitzhak did not want to give Yaakov money when Yaakov went to Haran in order not to increase Esav’s hatred of Yaakov. Yet, Yitzhak had told Esav that Yaakov was to be blessed, 27:33, and had given Yaakov another set of blessing, 28:3,4, which Esav was aware of, 28:6. It is unlikely that letting Yaakov take some clothing would have enraged Esav even more.

My guess is that Yitzhak purposely sent out Yaakov with nothing and did not allow Rivka to supply Yaakov as a test whether Yaakov was truly to be the blessed son. After Yitzhak realized that Yaakov had tricked him, he stated that Yaakov was still to be blessed, 27:33, and he gave Yaakov another blessing, 28:3,4. However, after initially desiring to bless Esav, and then being lied to by Yaakov, Yitzhak must have wondered if Yaakov really deserved to be blessed. Yaakov’s leaving to go to Haran was an opportunity for Yitzhak to test whether Yaakov was truly to be the blessed son. The test was that Yitzhak sent Yaakov away with nothing to see if Yaakov could succeed and flourish completely on his own. It seems that G-d even responded to this test by making Yaakov fabulously successful, 30:43.

I discussed this idea in my synagogue, Yakir Efrayim in Modiin, and some people (including my son Binyamin) questioned me whether a father would really act in this way. One friend, Efrayim Chotam, even called this idea akedat Yaakov. Yet, Yitzhak had experienced the real akedah when G-d tested Avraham, 22:1, and also Yitzhak knew (saw?) that his father sent out his brother Yishmael, with almost nothing, 21:14. Thus, this idea of testing a son by sending him away with nothing would not have seemed foreign or bizarre to Yitzhak. (Later Yaakov would act similarly, also sending out his son, Yosef, 37:14, though in a different context, see our discussion on 37:2-14, "Parenting" https://lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2013/11/bereshit-372-14-va-yeshev-parenting.html)

Bereshit 30:25 - 31:16 (Va-yetse) - Yaakov's and Lavan's financial agreement: Gambling

Bereshit 30:25,26 record that Yaakov told Lavan that he wanted to return home to the land of Canaan. Lavan responded by noting that he had been blessed due to Yaakov, and then he offered for Yaakov to name his salary in order that Yaakov would continue working for him, 30:27,28.  Yaakov said no, but then Lavan pressed him to make an offer, 30:29,30. Yaakov then told Lavan to separate from his flock all the animals that had spots, and Yaakov would tend all the remaining goats and sheep, i.e. those that were non-spotted (white sheep and black goats).  Yaakov's salary would then be all the spotted offspring that were born from the non-spotted flock that he would watch, 30:31-33, see comments of Ibn Ezra on 30:32-36. Lavan agreed to the deal, 30:34-36. Yaakov then took peels of bark (branches?) and placed them in front of the flocks that he watched, 30:34-42, and he became very successful, 30:43. However, Lavan's sons thought that Yaakov had gotten rich at their and their father's expense, 31:1. Were Lavan's sons correct? Did Lavan and his sons lose from their deal with Yaakov and did Yaakov cheat them?

The claim that Yaakov cheated Lavan is based on the idea that when they made their deal Yaakov had some special knowledge of breeding of the animals that Lavan was unaware of.  Thus, it is argued that Lavan expected to get many more animals from their deal, but due to Yaakov's actions Lavan got fewer animals than he expected and they tended to be the feeble ones.  (Note, the claim of feeble animals is based on how one interprets 30:42.) Furthermore, it is argued that if Yaakov had a plan how to breed the animals he should have disclosed this plan to Lavan when they made the deal.  The Maharam of Rothenburg (on 30:42, 1215-1293, Germany) accepted these accusations, and claimed that because Yaakov gave the appearance of using deceit, he was punished by his troubles with his sons. 

A modern commentator, J.P. Fokkelman (1991, p. 160) raises the stakes. He notes that Yaakov's success was due to G-d (31:9-12), and hence, "When finally, Lavan appears to be the victim, it is only because of the miraculous corrections of the flock by Providence. And if we should like to regard Lavan as the one deceived (instead of, for example, as one punished) then one thing is certain; it is no longer Yaakov who deceived him but G-d himself."

I believe that this reading of the text that Yaakov cheated Lavan is a complete misunderstanding of the deal between Yaakov and Lavan.  Twice, Lavan told Yaakov to name his wages.  Yaakov had the stronger bargaining position since he wanted to leave and Lavan was pressing him to stay because Lavan recognized that he had been blessed due to Yaakov. Yaakov should have asked for a significant sum of money and/ or a very large percentage of profits, but instead he asked for an indeterminate percentage of the offspring of the flock.  He did not even start with a "signing bonus" of some amount of flock or gold or silver.  At a minimum he should have asked for a fixed percentage of the flock and at least 50% of the flock, but instead he asked to receive the spotted offspring which I believe were approximately 25% of the offspring.  Yet, this was a risk since the number of spotted offspring is not fixed each year.  Why did Yaakov not simply ask for 25% of the offspring? Why did Yaakov make such a strange offer, when he should have received much more?

The answer is that Yaakov had two goals in the negotiations. One he did not want to get anything from Lavan (30:31) since he did not want Lavan to claim ownership of his flock.  Thus, he did not ask for Lavan to give him some amount of flock to begin with.  (Regardless, later Lavan would make this claim, 31:43!) Two, Yaakov wanted there to be incontrovertible proof that his flock was his and not Lavan's, 30:33. Thus, Yaakov wanted that all his flock would have spots, speckles or stripes, which would be proof that these animals were his.  The goal was that Lavan would not be able to cheat him again after Lavan had tricked him by switching Lea for Rahel.  Yaakov was not that concerned about how much sheep and goats he would initially get from working for Lavan because he knew that once he owned some sheep and goats, then their numbers would increase naturally.

Why did Lavan accept Yaakov's offer? The deal looked great to Lavan. Lavan had been willing to pay almost anything to have Yaakov continue working for him, and instead all he had to pay was some indeterminate amount of offspring which usually amounted to just 25% of the offspring.  Furthermore, depending of Lavan's knowledge of genetics, Lavan might have even thought that Yaakov was going to get nothing.  Did Lavan know that if non-spotted sheep and goats mate, they can still have spotted offspring? (The gene for spotted offspring is a recessive gene.) Yaakov knew this as he had learned this information from tending Lavan's sheep for fourteen years.  If Lavan did not know this information, then he should have told Yaakov that Yaakov would receive no sheep or goats from the deal, but Lavan was not concerned about Yaakov's welfare.

In any event, even if Lavan understood basic genetics, he must have wondered why Yaakov offered such a weird deal, when Yaakov could have received a much larger percentage of the flock and a fixed percentage.  Thus, Lavan realized that Yaakov had a plan how he could profit from this deal, as Yaakov had even stated during the negotiations that he wanted to succeed (30:30).  Did Lavan know of this trick of placing the bark peels in front of the animals? This was a universal folk belief so probably yes, but he was not bothered by this trick since it does not work and Lavan knew that.

Accordingly, Lavan was gambling when he agreed to Yaakov's offer. Lavan knew that Yaakov had a plan to increase his number of offspring, but Lavan was gambling that Yaakov's plan would not work. Lavan was not deceived when he made the deal.  He knew that it was possible that Yaakov would receive more animals from the deal than from a fixed percentage, but Lavan gambled that he would be the one who would get the better of the deal. 

In the end, Yaakov was correct about the genetics but incorrect about how to stimulate breeding, while Lavan was correct that the strips of bark had no effect on the animal's breeding but incorrect about the genetics.  Thus, Yaakov received some of the offspring, and from this base he was able to build up his wealth. Yet, this was not the end of the story.

31:8 records that Yaakov told Rahel and Lea that Lavan had changed the wages many times, but G-d had saved him from Lavan's tricks. Lavan had changed the wages that Yaakov would only receive the offspring with speckles and not with stripes or spots, or that Yaakov would only receive the offspring with stripes and not with speckles or spots. What was the point of this change in wages?  Why did Lavan just not change the wages to a fixed percentage? Also when did Lavan change the wages?

In the first year or two of the deal, Yaakov began to receive some of the offspring and this upset Lavan since he thought that Yaakov was not going to receive anything when the non-spotted flocked mated.  However, instead of accepting that non-spotted flock can have spotted offspring, he began to think that the trick of the peeled bark was working. Thus, he changed the wages in order that the trick could not work.  The peeled bark could only "cause" spotted animals, but it could not "determine" the type of spots.  Lavan began to change the wages to certain types of spots in order that the trick would fail and then Yaakov would work again for nothing.

At this point, G-d intervened, as indicated in 31:8,9, that G-d made sure that the offspring would be born based on the new mark as chosen by Lavan.  It could be that G-d caused all of the offspring to be born with the particular mark chosen by Lavan, or maybe just all the offspring that were to have marks were born with the particular mark chosen by Lavan.  These two possibilities depend on how one understands the words ya-tzel in 31:8 and he-tzil in 31:16. If the words mean that G-d took Lavan's flock, then G-d intervened that all the offspring would be marked.  However, Speiser (1964, p. 244) suggests that the words should be understood as salvaged.  G-d then salvaged from Lavan those animals that Yaakov was entitled to based on their initial deal, and G-d did not allow Lavan to gain from changing the initial terms.    

Why did G-d intervene at this point? Hoffmann (1969, on 30:39) writes that it was to punish Lavan for how he treated Yaakov for not paying him wages during the first fourteen years that Yaakov worked for Lavan.  I would vary this idea that now G-d intervened since Lavan was attempting to take advantage of Yaakov by changing the conditions of the deal.  

It is not even clear if Lavan lost from the deal.  By the first stage of the deal, before Lavan started to change the wages, Lavan was still getting the majority of the offspring, approximately 75% of the offspring.  Also, there is no indication that the blessing he received from G-d, which he acknowledged before the deal, 30:27, stopped after the deal was made. Even by the second stage of the deal, when Lavan began to change the wages, if he did start to lose, then this would serve him justly since he was trying to cheat Yaakov.  However, if G-d intervened to just change the animals that were to be born with marks that they would have the particular mark fixed by Lavan, then it is possible that even in the second stage of the deal, Lavan was still benefiting from the deal.

31:1 records that that Lavan's sons complained that Yaakov took everything from their father, Lavan. Is this complaint credible?  Lavan's sons were probably jealous of Yaakov. Yaakov had initially come to their house penniless, and they would have begrudged any success by Yaakov. They viewed Yaakov' success as being a zero sum game, that any success that Yaakov had lowered their wealth and income. They were unaware that Lavan had been blessed due to Yaakov and hence due to Yaakov they were much richer than had Yaakov never came to their house. In addition, they probably were unaware of Lavan's offer to Yaakov to name any wage, and Lavan's attempts to cheat Yaakov. 

The fact that the complaint came from Lavan's sons indicates that Lavan knew that he was not cheated. Later Lavan accused Yaakov of stealing his gods, 31:30, but he did not claim that Yaakov stole his animals.  Lavan did claim that all of Yaakov's flocks were really his, 31:43, but this was clearly a falsehood since Yaakov deserved to be paid something for watching Lavan's flocks, and in the same breath, Lavan also claimed that Yaakov's wives belonged to him and not to Yaakov! A proof that Lavan did not lose from the deal is that if Lavan was really losing from deal, then he would have ended the deal and not just attempted to change the wages. 

Accordingly in the deal between Yaakov and Lavan for Yaakov to watch Lavan's flocks, Yaakov's offered to work at a much lower wage than he was worth since his goal was that Lavan could not claim ownership of his future flock and in order that he should not be cheated by Lavan.  Yaakov did not cheat Lavan. Instead it was Lavan who gambled and then attempted to cheat Yaakov, but G-d intervened to save Yaakov. In addition, while Lavan did not gain as much from the deal as he desired, it is unlikely that he lost from the deal.

Bibliography:

Fokkelman, J.P. 1991, Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis, second Edition, JSOT Press.

Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1969, Commentary on Genesis, Bnei Brak: Nezach.

Speiser, Ephraim Avigdor (1902-1965), 1964, Genesis: The Anchor Bible, Garden City: New York: Doubleday & Company.

Berreshit 28:15-22 – Yaakov's vow after waking up from his great dream: On the run

Bereshit 28:15 record that when Yaakov was running away from Esav, he had a dream in the middle of the night in which G-d promised to watch over him and ensure that he would return safely to the land of Israel. 28:20-22 then records that Yaakov made a vow that if G-d would protect him and if he would return safely home, then he would make a “house of G-d.” Yaakov’s vow is surprising since it repeats some aspects of G-d’s promise in the dream. Why did Yaakov make this vow after he had already been promised the conditions of the vow?

Bereshit Rabbah 70:4 quotes two approaches to understanding the vow from R. Aibu and R. Jonathan. One opinion maintains that the narrative is recorded out of order, that really Yaakov made the vow before he heard the dream, while the other opinion suggests that Yaakov was worried that he would sin and then he would not be worthy of receiving the promises of the dream.

Abravanel proposes a third answer that because the promises were conveyed in a dream, Yaakov was not sure if the promises were a real prophecy or a regular dream that had no meaning. Thus, the conditions of the vow were to learn that the promises were a prophecy and not a dream.

There are two proofs for Abravanel’s approach. One, J.P. Fokkelman (1991, pp. 66,67) points out that in the morning Yaakov was attempting to recreate the dream. Yaakov built a masseva, pillar, 28:18, and not an altar, since in the dream the sullam was depicted as being musav towards the land, 28:12. Furthermore, Yaakov poured oil on the top of the masseva since in the dream the top of the sullam reached the heavens. These attempts to recreate the dream were to actualize it that it was not just a dream.

A second proof is that Yaakov really had two reactions to the dream. 28:16,17 record that Yaakov woke up immediately from this powerful dream and he stated that he was in a place of G-d. Afterwards, 28:18 records that he got up in the morning, built the pillar and made the vow. It seems that the dream startled Yaakov. He woke up in the middle of night immediately after hearing/ seeing the dream, and then he was sure that the dream was a true prophecy. However as it was nighttime, there was nothing for him to do, so he probably stayed awake for a while thinking about the dream. After several hours, he began to doze off, and then in the morning when he woke up a second time, he was no longer sure whether the dream was a true prophecy or just a regular dream. 

A possible reason why Yaakov was in doubt concerning the prophecy is because he doubted whether he was really worthy of receiving his father’s blessings. After he tricked his father and had to run away, he might have thought that really Esav was to be the chosen brother. The last element of the conditions of the vow was that G-d would be his G-d, 28:21. Yaakov was in doubt whether G-d accepted him, and hence the fulfillment of the conditions of the vow would tell Yaakov that he was truly the chosen brother and that G-d had accepted him.

Bibliography:

Abravanel, Yitzhak (1437-1508), 2007, Commentary on Bereshit, Jerusalem: Horev.

Fokkelman, J.P. 1991, Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis, second Edition, JSOT Press.

Bereshit 29:18-30 (Va-yetse) – Yaakov's marriages : The switch

Bereshit 29:18-30 records that Yaakov agreed to work seven years for Rahel, but on the night of the wedding Lavan switched Rahel and Lea and Yaakov ended up initially marrying Lea. How did this occur? To answer this question, we need to speculate as to the reasons for the actions of the four participants, Lavan, Lea, Rahel and Yaakov.

Why did Lavan not keep his deal with Yaakov? In 29:26, Lavan claimed that the younger daughter could not be married before the older daughter. It is difficult to accept this argument at face value since Lavan had initially agreed that Yaakov would Rahel. Maybe he thought that Lea would have gotten married in the seven years so there would have been no problem with Yaakov marrying Rahel. However, if this was really the custom Yaakov should have known about it as he had lived in the area for seven years, and certainly Rahel would have know of the custom. However, maybe Yaakov knew the custom but he thought that his deal with Lavan nullified the custom. Yet, then Yaakov should have made this claim when Lavan told him of the custom of the area.

Another possibility is that Lavan was punishing Yaakov for stealing the blessings from his older brother. Many have noted (see Nehama Leibowitz, 1976, pp. 323,324) that Lavan's reference to older and younger, echoes Yaakov's conflict with Esav. Yet, why should Lavan care that Yaakov tricked Esav? Maybe, he thought that Yaakov was a whippersnapper he needed to be taught a lesson. It is also possible that Lavan realized that Yaakov was a good worker and he wanted to get Yaakov to work for another seven years. However, he could not have known that Yaakov would have agreed to work more years. Yaakov could have demanded Rahel and left.

The most likely explanation is that Lavan was afraid that Lea would never marry. (James Kugel, 1997, p. 221, quotes this idea in the name of Ephraem, a 4th century commentator of Syriac Christianity.) The idea here would be that Lea was not attractive and Lavan just wanted her to be married without any concern whether she would be happy in the marriage. According to this idea, Lavan's reference to the younger and older was just to stop Yaakov from complaining since Yaakov could not complain of being tricked once he had tricked his father.

Why did Lea participate in tricking Yaakov? She had to be a willing participant, but she must have guessed that this would not endear herself to Yaakov. Also, she was hurting her sister? Maybe that was the point, she was jealous of her sister and acted to spite her sister. Maybe she just wanted to be married and she also thought this was her only chance to be married. Maybe her father forced her to go to Yaakov’s tent and then she was too embarrassed to tell Yaakov. More likely, she really loved Yaakov and even though he did not love her, she thought that with time she would win Yaakov’s love.

Did Rahel agree to be switched? Rashi (on 29:25) quotes Megillah 13b that Rahel and Yaakov had arranged special signs and that Rahel gave these signs to Lea in order that Lea would not be embarrassed. This would mean that in the end she agreed to the switch. Maybe she also thought that Lea could not marry and she wanted to help her. Yet, this is unlikely, if she really loved Yaakov. My guess is that Lavan had her locked up and she was physically unable to contact Yaakov. (James Kugel, 1997, p. 219, quotes this as the opinion of the Testament of Issachar 1:10-13.)

Why was Yaakov fooled? It clearly was dark which meant that he could not see Lea, but still how could he not have recognized the different voices? Torah Temimah (on 29:25, footnote #4) writes that that Rahel and Lea were exactly the same including their voices except for their eyes. This is a strong assumption, as even sisters who do not look alike can have similar voices. Yet, one would still have to say that Lea’s mannerism, behavior and even what she said would not have tipped off Yaakov.

Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 1:300-301, 2006) writes that Yaakov had been drinking at the party that Lavan made because certainly Lavan would have encouraged him to drink. Yet, this does not accord with Yaakov's character, and it is unlikely that would have allowed himself to get drunk. 

Bekhor Shor suggests that maybe he did not speak too much with Rahel during the seven years, but this seems unlikely. Bekhor Shor, Hizkuni and Radak also speculate that maybe Yaakov and Lea did not speak during the night because of modesty. Yet, on the wedding night, they would not speak at all? 

Nosson Scherman (1993, p. 151) quotes Rav Aharon Kotler that Yaakov had “his spiritual antenna” which told him that he was with the partner who was destined for him and that is why he detected nothing wrong. This cannot mean that he knew it was Lea since 29:25 records that Yaakov was surprised in the morning, va-hene, see Rashbam (on 29:27). Does it mean that due to his spirituality he was oblivious to what was happening? This also does not accord with Yaakov’s character. In addition, if he realized that this was what was meant to be, why was Yaakov upset that he was tricked, he should have thanked Lavan!

My guess is that Yaakov was worried that with the marriage he would have to return to face Esav. Fokkelman (1991, p.128) notes the same words used in 27:44 and 29:20 "a few days," teaches us that Yaakov was expected to return home after he had married Rahel and worked the seven years. Yaakov's fear of returning to face Esav is why he initially agreed to work for seven years, and why after the switch he agreed to work another seven years. These years delayed him from having to return to face his brother. Thus, Yaakov had very mixed emotions that night. He was getting married, but the marriage meant that he was to return home. Accordingly, he was pondering his future, uninterested in small talk, and certainly Lea would not have spoken on her own. Possibly he had doubts as to the identity of his wife, but due to his mixed emotions he was absorbed in his own problems and did not bother to investigate. This would make this situation parallel with Yitzhak who had doubts whether he was really blessing Esav but continued nevertheless. Maybe Lavan knew that Yaakov was worried about returning to face Esav, and this gave him the confidence to pull his ruse.

Bibliography:

Fokkelman, J.P. 1991, Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis, second Edition, JSOT Press.

Josephus, Flavius, 2006, Jewish Antiquities, London: Wordsworth Editions.

Kugel, James L. 1997, The Bible As it Was, Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Scherman, Nosson, 1993, Art Scroll/ Stone Edition Chumash, Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications.

Bereshit 28:12,13 (Va-yetse) – Yaakov's dream when running away from Esav - Stairway to heaven

Bereshit 28:12 records “Yaakov dreamt of a ladder, sullam, which was set up on the earth with its top reaching the heavens, and angels of G-d, malakhim, were ascending and descending on it.” Sarna (1989) writes that “the word sullam, is unique in the Bible, which makes its etymology uncertain. It may derive “from the stem s-l-l, which means to cast a mound, or it may be connected with Akkadian simmiltu, steps.” Thus it is possible that Yaakov saw a ramp or a stairway to heaven.

What was the meaning or message of this dream? Why was there a need for a dream at all? Why did G-d not speak directly to Yaakov? Furthermore, what is the significance of the sullam with malakhim going up and down? How was the vision in the dream related to what G-d told Yaakov?

James Kugel (1997, p.211) quotes several early interpretations of the dream. Philo (20 BCE–50 CE) explains that the dream was to give Yaakov a lesson for his own life that the path of human affairs goes up and down subject to unstable and shifting happenstance. This would be appropriate to Yaakov at that time since then he was on the down path of life as he was on the run from Esav. A book called the Ladder of Jacob (first century) writes that Yaakov saw the future exile of his descendants and their redemption afterwards. This interpretation was not relevant to Yaakov’s life but depending on when the book was written it might have had more relevance to the readers of the book. Targum Neophyti (the dating here is unclear, though Kugel claims that it was the end of the 1st century) explains that really the angels were going down and up to see Yaakov because he was such a righteous man. This would then be a confidence boost to Yaakov, that even though he was on the run, angels wanted to see him. This seems far-fetched, and Kugel notes that the Christians incorporated this idea.

N. Leibowitz (1976, Va-yetze 1) discusses two Midrashic interpretations of the dream. First, she quotes Midrash Tanhuma (medieval compilation of Midrash) that Yaakov saw the history of the world, the rise and fall of the Babylonians, the Media, the Greeks, and Edom (Rome). The symbolism of G-d standing at the top shows that G-d is in control of the history of the world. (This explanation also appears in Vayikra Rabbah 29:2 (redacted approximately 5th century) and is quoted by Ramban on 28:12.) N. Leibowitz notes that this explanation does not accord with plain sense of the text since it has nothing to do with Yaakov fleeing his brother.

She prefers the explanation of Rashi, on 28:12, who quotes a different Midrashic interpretation from Bereshit Rabbah 68:12 (compiled end of 4th or early 5th century). The Midrash is bothered why 28:12 first records that the angels went up and then went down, but if the angels were from heaven, then they should have first gone down and then up. (Rashbam, on 28:12, argues that according to the simple sense of the text this not a question since people normally first refer to going up and then to going down.) The Midrash answers that the angels that were ascending were angels that regularly accompanied Yaakov but could not leave the land of Israel, while the descending angels were the new contingent of angles who would accompany him outside of Israel.

N. Leibowitz argues that this explanation accords perfectly with the text since when Yaakov was returning to Israel, 32:3 record that angels again met him. I am surprised that she thinks this. The most that one can infer from the text is that angels periodically met Yaakov but not that angels accompanied him all the time. Furthermore, when Yaakov had this dream he was not on the border of Israel so why did the angels of Israel have to leave him? Finally, where do we get this idea that some angels cannot leave Israel while others can? My guess is that this idea is an ex post explanation, meaning that we determine the behavior of angels to explain the text.

Other commentators explain that the dream was a way of teaching philosophy or religion beliefs. The most prominent example is Rambam (Moreh I:15, see also II:12), who argues that the angels were prophets, messengers of G-d, who went up to learn some lessons, and then descended to teach these lessons to people. However, Abravanel wonders why G-d was teaching Yaakov philosophical lessons at that particular moment? Were the lessons related to Yaakov leaving his home?

Abravanel explains that Yaakov was having doubts whether he did the right thing in stealing the blessings from Esav. Thus, in the dream, G-d reaffirmed to Yaakov that he was to receive the blessings. The sullam was to symbolize the Bet ha-Mikdash, as it was a place to reach G-d. The angels symbolize that they would ascend with the sacrifices and prayers, and the angels coming down symbolize the acceptance of these sacrifices and prayers. While I agree that Yaakov probably was concerned about the propriety of his actions with his father and brother and G-d’s speech in the dream was then to give him self-confidence, still I cannot accept his understanding of the sullam and the angels. If Yaakov was to know of the Bet ha-Mikdash why did he not dream of it or at least of an altar with sacrifices going up? Also, do angels accompany every sacrifice and prayer?

If we accept the idea of the Abravanel that Yaakov was unsure of his previous actions, then the vision in the dream should express these doubts. The idea of the sullam, ladder or stairway, shows the idea of ascending and descending. Yaakov saw figures, which can be construed as messengers of G-d, going up to the heavens and away from the heavens. The ones going to heaven were getting closer to G-d, while the ones going down were moving further away from G-d. Yaakov’s doubt was where was he on the sullam, with the people going up or the people going down? If he was truly destined to receive the blessings of Avraham then he would have been with the figures going up the ladder, but if he was not to receive these blessings then he would have been with the figures going down the ladder. The vision of the ladder in the dream was Yaakov’s self-conscious and not a message from G-d. 28:13 then records that G-d interposed in the dream, which transformed the dream to a type of prophecy. G-d re-assured Yaakov that even though he was leaving the land of Israel, he was destined to receive the blessings of Avraham.

Bibliography:

Kugel, James L. 1997, The Bible As it Was, Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Bereshit 31:17-42 – Rahel, Lavan, Yaakov and the terafim: A MacGuffin (McGuffin)

Bereshit 31:17-21 record that Yaakov left Haran, and that Rahel stole her father’s terafim. Lavan chased down Yaakov and then searched for the terafim, which he did not find, 31:22-35. After Lavan gave up looking, Yaakov gave an impassioned speech about how hard and honestly he had worked for Lavan, 31:36-42. This incidence raises several questions: What were the terafim? Why did Rahel steal them? What is the significance of the terafim?

What were the terafim? There are at least three opinions. One approach is that the terafim were a type of family idols. Another approach is that the terafim were items that were used for divination. Finally, a third approach is that the terafim were ancestor figurines, see Van der Toorn (1990).

Why did Rahel steal the terafim? Rashi (on 31:19) quotes from the Midrash that it was to stop her father from worshipping idols. Ibn Ezra (on 31:19) questions this approach because why then did Rahel take the terafim with her instead of burying them? Was there not enough time to dispose of the terafim?

Ibn Ezra (on 31:19, also see Rashbam on 31:19) writes that Rahel stole the terafim in order that Lavan would not have been able to use the terafim to follow them. This accords with the Ibn Ezra’s belief in astrology, but if true, Rahel’s plan failed completely since Lavan seems to have had no trouble catching up to Yaakov.

Gordon (1937) and Speiser (1964, pp. 250,251) note that a case in Nuzi laws (documents from a town in present day Iraq 14, 15th centuries BCE) shows that family gods could be a sign of property rights within the family. With this idea, Rahel took the terafim to be able to make a claim for these rights. (They also claim that from the Nuzi laws that Yaakov had a status of an adopted son with regard to Lavan, but I doubt this since an adopted son would mean that Yaakov would have had to stay with Lavan, and theoretically Yaakov always intended to leave Lavan.)

Moshe Greenberg (1962) doubts this archeological approach since we never hear that Rahel or Yaakov made such a claim, and we see that Yaakov separated from Lavan apparently forever . However, prior to Rahel taking the terafim, she did state that Lavan had mistreated her and her sister by not giving them their dowry (31:15), so then she could have taken the terafim to later be able to make a claim to get her due rights. However, after Lavan and Yaakov made their treaty, 31:52, then they relinquished any financial claims on each other, which would explain, according to this archeological approach, why Rahel (or Yaakov) could not have used the terafim to later stake any claim on her father’s property.

Greenberg suggests (see also Kass, 2003, pp. 436-439), based on a quote from Josephus (not on this incident), that Rahel was following a common custom that a person would take their household gods with them when travelling, presumably for good luck or to worship. Yet, even if Rahel wanted the terafim to worship them, did she have to take her father’s idols? Were these the only idols in the family? More likely, if she always believed in these idols, then she would have her own idols. Why did she have to take her father’s idols? Was Lavan’s idol the most important idol?

Benno Jacob (1974, p. 210) notes the possibly that Rahel took the terafim to take revenge on her father. With this idea, Rahel’s motive might have been to get back at Lavan for ruining her life by switching her and Lea or for taking her dowry. With the former idea, she had retained her desire for revenge all the years (13) since the wedding.

What is the significance of the terafim? Alfred Hitchcock described a technique that he called MacGuffin (McGuffin), which he used in his movies. The technique is that the plot of the movie revolves around some item, which the characters care deeply about, but the item itself has no real importance. The crucial issue is the interaction of the characters, but not the item that the characters claim to care about.

The terafim are a MacGuffin. The characters care deeply about the terafim, but the terafim are not important since Rahel could have stolen gold or an animal from her father. The importance of the terafim is that when Lavan searched and could not find the terafim, this caused Yaakov to be indignant, and this indignation led to Yaakov’s passionate speech about his working conditions with Lavan, 31:36-42. Previously, in his dealings with Lavan, Yaakov meekly accepted whatever Lavan said as by his marriage and working conditions, 29:15,26-28,27. However, this search, which was so degrading, caused a "breaking point" in Yaakov, that finally he spoke his mind. From this speech, we learn about the transformation in Yaakov’s character in Haran from trying to trick people to being upright and honest. Yaakov had come to Haran after stealing the blessings from Esav, and his stay in Haran was not only to escape from Esav and to find a wife, but also it was a form of redemption for Yaakov. In the speech, Yaakov stressed that he was extremely honest in his work with Lavan even when he was continually being cheated by Lavan.

A possible proof for the insignificance of the terafim is that when Lavan catches up to Yaakov, he gives a speech as to how Yaakov should not have run away, 31:26-30, and then he apparently ends with an acceptance that he has to let Yaakov go since G-d told him not to hurt Yaakov. Only after this concession, Lavan mentions about the terafim, 31:30. Sarna (1989, p. 218) writes that this reference to the terafim at the end of the speech is because “after having emotionally disarmed his opponent by lulling him into a false sense of relief, Lavan then proceeds to deliver the ‘coup de grace’ in the form of the most serious charge of all: theft of his gods.” Sarna’s reading seems backwards to me. After Lavan acquiesced, involuntarily, to Yaakov leaving, the terafim are just an afterthought. The crucial issue for Lavan was Yaakov and his family leaving Lavan and not the terafim since even if Lavan had found the terafim, Yaakov would have left Lavan since Lavan was unable to do anything to Yaakov. Instead, the terafim were just a prop for the reader (and Yaakov’s family?) to learn about Yaakov’s changed work ethic.

Bibliography:

Gordon, Cyrus, H. 1937, The story of Jacob and Laban in the light of the Nuzi tablets, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 66, pp. 25-27.

Greenberg, Moshe, 1962, Another look at Rachel’s theft of the teraphim, Journal of Biblical Literature, 81, pp. 239-248.

Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1974, The first book of the bible: Genesis, commentary abridged, edited and translated by Earnest I. Jacob and Walter Jacob, New York: Ktav Publishing House.

Kass, Leon, 2003, The Beginning of wisdom, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Speiser, Ephraim Avigdor (1902-1965), 1964, Genesis: The Anchor Bible, Garden City: New York: Doubleday & Company.

Van der Toorn, Karel, 1990, The nature of the biblical teraphim in the light of the cuneiform evidence, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 52, pp. 203-223.