פרשה: ויצא · עלייה: חמישי (הוד)

הסר משם, "Remove from there, etc." It is evident from Laban's words that Jacob would own only the speckled and spotted sheep and goats as well as the brown ones amongst the sheep; the ankle-striped ones would not be part of his share. From the following verse it appears, however, that Laban also took the ankle-striped ones for himself. Why did he do this?

It appears that according to the agreement Jacob made he did not want Laban to take the ankle-striped animals. If Laban were to take those Jacob would also have to separate them from the white sheep and he, Jacob, would not be left with white animals which could respond to the stratagem he employed later when the animals were in heat. All his efforts would then have been in vain. It had not occurred to Jacob to deceive Laban in any way whatsoever. He thought that the sight of ankle-striped ones would cause the flocks to become heated and to cause also the speckled and spotted animals to give birth. When you read verse 40 you will find confirmation of what I have said. Crafty Laban was aware of all these implications and took every type, i.e. the עקוד, נקוד וטלוא. In addition he removed every animal that had some white on its pelt. In this way Jacob's potential wages were reduced to almost nothing. This is why Jacob had to resort to the stratagem with the rods; he therefore also took some of the ankle-striped ones for himself. When Laban removed the mother animals he had thereby proved that he considered them as basically Jacob's (the new generation). Proverbs 5,22: "he will be caught in the ropes of his sin" is applicable to what Laban tried to do in this paragraph.

פני הצאן אל עקוד, the flocks facing the ankle-striped, etc. Perhaps the reason that only the ankle-striped ones are mentioned here is that the sheep would react more rapidly at the sight of that colour pattern than towards the striped or speckled ones.

וישת לו עדרים, he set aside droves for himself. This was designed so that these flocks should never look at any other varieties than the ones with the skin pattern Jacob had chosen. In this way they would automatically give birth to young ones of that same skin pattern. If that were not so Jacob would have to give to Laban all those young sheep or goats which were not speckled or striped.

והיה בכל יחם הצאן, it would be that every time the flocks were in heat, etc..We must understand why Jacob did all this. Granted that originally when he placed those partially peeled rods he was forced to resort to this stratagem out of a feeling of self-preservation, this was no longer the case after he established his own flocks. His continuing to resort to these stratagems would appear to have resulted in his acquiring more than half the total profit whereas under normal circumstances the shepherd is supposed to take one third of the profits as we have explained on 29,15 on the verse הכי אחי אתה.

Perhaps the flocks described as המקושרות did not give birth only to ankle-striped lambs etc.; in that event Jacob would not have benefited excessively. He probably did not benefit to the extent of two thirds, the amount permissible when dealing with growing animals. Perhaps Jacob only tried to reimburse himself for what Laban had already robbed him of.

וירא יעקב…ויאמר ה׳ אל יעקב. Jacob saw, etc….G'd said to Jacob. We need to analyse how these two verses are connected to one another.

The intent of the verse is to explain the two separate considerations which preceded Jacob's flight from Laban. Unless both considerations had prompted him Jacob would not have departed without informing Laban about this first. Or, he might have waited a few days to see if Laban's attitude towards him would undergo a change for the better. After all, Jacob was a free man, he was not Laban's slave and the latter could not have prevented his departure by legal means. In view of what he heard Laban's sons say Jacob was afraid that Laban would steal all his wealth. Jacob himself said in 31,31 that he had feared that Laban would steal his daughters back from him. Had he not received a prophetic vision to leave he would not have been in a hurry to take such a step. He would have attempted to secure Laban's goodwill. We therefore need both these verses to explain Jacob's behaviour.

ויאמר להן ראה אני פני אביכם, He said to them: "I look upon the face of your father, etc." Jacob invited his wives to give him a reasonable sounding explanation for their father's recent hostility topwards him. In the event that his wives would justify their father's attitude by the fact that Jacob had become wealthier than their father, Jacob added "G'd was with me." He told them that his new wealth was a blessing by G'd not the result of competing with their father.

ואביכן התל בי, "and your father deceived me, etc." What precisely was the deception which Laban was guilty of? If it was עברת הדרך, this should be called robbery.

Perhaps Laban noticed already the first time that it was unusual for most of the flocks to give birth to animals with the skin patterns which he had allocated to Jacob. As a result he tried to be clever and changed the designation of the animals which were to be Jacob's as soon as the animals were in heat, before they actually gave birth. If that is what happened the description of his trick as התול, deception, instead of as robbery would be accurate.

אם כה יאמר, "If he said thus, etc." Although the original condition had been that Jacob should take the spotted and speckled ones, he did not honour his word but agreed to give him only one of these two.

Another reason is that originally the ankle-striped ones had not been included in the agreement at all. Laban therefore argued that those certainly were not part of Jacob's share. The fact that Laban did not admit the truth can be seen from the fact that he had removed this category of animal, whereas later on he negotiated with him about exchanging them for animals with a different skin pattern. This kind of wheeling and dealing was repeated no fewer than ten times. All the while the original conditions remained legally valid.

The reason the Torah describes this as in the future, i.e. ואם כה יאמר, instead of אם כה אמר, may be support for my theory that Laban hastened to change the terms of the agreement as soon as the animals were in heat and conceived, but before they actually gave birth again. Clearly Jacob's success was not due to his own machinations but only to G'd's intervention on his behalf.

העתודים…עקודים, נקודים וברודים. the ankle-striped ones, the spotted ones and the blotch-striped. We need to know what precisely was the category described as ברודים. Unless that category was also part of the original agreement between Laban and Jacob, why did the angel show Jacob that category in his dream?

I have seen an explanation by Ibn Ezra (30,39) who identifies the ברודים with the טלואים. He does not offer any proof for his contention. Furthermore, from a close look at Jacob citing such examples as: אם כה יאמר עקודים יהיה שכרך, it is clear that Jacob took for himself only either עקודים or נקודים. Why would he have the ewes mounted by categories of rams which were not his share at all?

The reason therefore appears to be that Laban was not only a swindler but he also had תרפים, charms that supposedly revealed to him many hidden things. Midrash Tanchuma describes Laban as consulting these charms which would reveal to him what developed inside the animals' wombs and the appearance of the fetuses [much like what we learn nowadays through the ultrasound examinations Ed.]. In view of this Jacob was stymied every which way through these תרפים. This is why G'd had to interfere on Jacob's behalf. It is important to appreciate that the skin patterns of the animals to be born was determined at the time they were in heat; these skin patterns were not subject to change afterwards except through miraculous intervention by G'd. Such a miracle was one of upsetting natural laws in a very basic manner. G'd does not ligthly engage in the performance of this kind of miracle. We know this from statements of our sages in Sotah 2 and Shabbat 23. G'd therefore acted with particular adroitness so as not to have to upset the laws of nature unduly. He did this by causing three categories of rams to mount the ewes when they were in heat. As a result each of the female animals contained the sperm of three different types of rams, each potentially fertilising the ewes they had mounted and causing them to have its particular skin pattern. This stymied the power of the charms. The charms could not then reveal to Laban which skin pattern would ultimately result at the time these ewes gave birth. Since Laban and Jacob had agreed that the skin pattern of the animals to be born would determine which belonged to Jacob, Laban did not know in advance what skin pattern would emerge. This matter is not as far-fetched as you may think since we know of certain birds that can change colour in order to adapt themselves to their environment so that it helps camouflage them against predators. G'd simply employed a natural process such as the birds employ for themselves and made it operate with these sheep and goats. When the Torah speaks about ברודים, it refers to a kind of טלוא as stated by Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah. Perhaps this particular variety of טלוא contained more white speckles, similar to white pellets of hail (ברד).

כי ראיתי את בל אשר לבן עשה לך. "For I have seen all that Laban is doing to you." The angel explained to Jacob the reason G'd performed this miracle, that G'd had observed the evil machinations of Laban and how the latter had employed the idols (תרפים) to help him cheat Jacob. There had been no other way to save Jacob from Laban's trickery except by miracle.

The angel also hinted to Jacob that the result of all of Laban's machinations were meant for Jacob to retain. This is why the Torah did not write: כל אשר עשה לך, "all that he is doing to you." The verse may be read thus: "all that Laban is doing--is yours." You are not a thief by keeping all these animals that are born with these skin patterns; the G'd who judges fairly has taken from the one and given to the other (the victim).

העוד לנו חלק ונחלה, "Do we still have a share or an inheritance in our father's house?" When Rachel and Leah mentioned both חלק and נחלה they referred to two things. They referred to their maternal inheritance seeing that their mother had already died; they also referred to a potential inheritance from their father and concluded that they had no prospect of either. They cited as proof the fact that their father had considered them as strangers already at the time he had sold them. Their father had not considered them as his children for some time already. As a result, even though according to the laws of the Gentiles daughters stand to share in the inheritance, they felt they did not have such a chance.

When Rachel and Leah added: ויאכל גם אכול את כספנו, "he also consumed our wages," this refers to both the money of the marriage settlement of their mother and the value of the labour Jacob performed for fourteen years in order to marry them.

אשר הציל, who has saved, etc. They viewed G'd as having saved the money that their father had stolen from them. The expression הצלה is appropriate when used about saving stolen goods from the robber. When the Torah quotes Leah and Rachel as saying לנו, ours, they meant משלנו, "he stole it from us."