Parasha: Vayetze · Aliyah: Second (Gevurah)

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.

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.

?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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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 VeShutafim 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.

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.

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.