Surf The Site
Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
31:1 VA YISHMA ET DIVREY VENEY LAVAN LEMOR LAKACH YA'AKOV ET KOL ASHER LE AVINU U ME ASHER LE AVIYNU ASAH ET KOL HA KAVOD HA ZEH
Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
31:1 VA YISHMA ET DIVREY VENEY LAVAN LEMOR LAKACH YA'AKOV ET KOL ASHER LE AVINU U ME ASHER LE AVIYNU ASAH ET KOL HA KAVOD HA ZEH
וַיִּשְׁמַע אֶת דִּבְרֵי בְנֵי לָבָן לֵאמֹר לָקַח יַעֲקֹב אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר לְאָבִינוּ וּמֵאֲשֶׁר לְאָבִינוּ עָשָׂה אֵת כָּל הַכָּבֹד הַזֶּה
KJ (King James translation): And he heard the words of Laban's sons, saying, Jacob hath taken away all that was our father's; and of that which was our father's hath he gotten all this glory.
BN (BibleNet translation): And he heard the words of Lavan's sons, saying, "Ya'akov has taken everything that belonged to our father; and from what was our father's he has made himself wealthy."
BANAV: In Genesis 30:35 it was unclear whether BANAV referred to Lavan's sons, or Ya'akov's. This clarifies that it was Lavan's.
ET KOL ASHER LE AVINU: With Esav he only managed to steal one person's inheritance; this time he has managed to do the same for many.
Earlier it was questioned if the birth of Yoseph was the reason for his asking to leave, and a few verses back the comment was made that it would have taken Ya'akov a long time to achieve this sting and build up all this wealth. All this leads to the proposing of an alternative chronology. Cheated with Le'ah, and condemned to working an extra 7 years to get Rachel, Ya'akov will have gone to Lavan at some point in that 2nd Jubilee term, to renegotiate his contract so to speak, and at that point the sting is put in place, hence his visible wealth. Several years later he gets to hear what Lavan's sons are saying about him, and as the Jubilee period comes round again, he demands his rights and then makes his getaway. See Leviticus 25 for the Jubilee laws, and especially 25:10 for the right/requirement of an indentured servant to return to his homeland.
31:2 VA YAR YA'AKOV ET PENEY LAVAN VE HINEH EYNENO IMO KITMOL SHILSHOM
וַיַּרְא יַעֲקֹב אֶת פְּנֵי לָבָן וְהִנֵּה אֵינֶנּוּ עִמּוֹ כִּתְמוֹל שִׁלְשׁוֹם
KJ: And Jacob beheld the countenance of Laban, and, behold, it was not toward him as before.
BN: And Ya'akov saw the look on Lavan's face, and palpably it was not as it had been previously.
Considering the scale of his deceit, is he really surprised?
31:3 VA YOMER YHVH EL YA'AKOV SHUV EL ERETS AVOTEYCHA U LE MOLADETCHA VE EHEYEH IMACH
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל יַעֲקֹב שׁוּב אֶל אֶרֶץ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ וּלְמוֹלַדְתֶּךָ וְאֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ
KJ: And the LORD said unto Jacob, Return unto the land of thy fathers, and to thy kindred; and I will be with thee.
BN: And YHVH said to Ya'akov, "Return to the land of your ancestors, and to your kindred, and I will be with you."
A verse for the theologians - because self-evidently it isn't YHVH who is telling him this, it's Jiminy Cricket, the voice of his conscience, or Jiminy Rivkah, the voice of his mother being remembered from last time, or maybe Jiminy Darwin, the voice of his survival instinct, which tells him that it isn't necessarily "good" that equals "fittest" in this world, but "most wily".
In fact, this is just a poetic way of saying that Ya'akov was scared for his life, and not surprising really, after what he had done. But the cycle is now complete. After all, he came here in the first place, fleeing for his life, to avoid responsibility for thieving someone else's inheritance.
Are we, in Ya'akov, dealing with tales of the deceitful, conniving, scheming, naughty goat-god: was it perchance goat-stew that he gave Esav as potage? He certainly stole the blessing dressed in goat-skin; the trick here is goat as well as sheep, as we saw in the last chapter when IZIM and TSON and KESAVIM (KEVASIM) alternated. Look up the stories of Pan and other goat-gods and see if there are any more in Ya'akov.
Does this verse then provide a template for us to apply to other verses elsewhere? If yes, it transforms our understanding of the Bible radically.
ERETS AVOTEYCHA: The problem with this is that ERETS AVOTEYCHA (ארץ אבותיך) was originally Padan Aram, where he is now, or possibly further south in Mesopotamia, at Ur; but definitely not Kena'an. But that is being pedantic. More significantly, the decision to leave is being made now, because of the ramifications of the sheep-trick, and yet the story already told us a chapter ago of his decision to return home, and that was before the sheep-trick. This second version makes much more logical sense.
31:4 VA YISHLACH YA'AKOV VA YIKRA LE RACHEL U LE LE'AH HA SADEH EL TSONO
וַיִּשְׁלַח יַעֲקֹב וַיִּקְרָא לְרָחֵל וּלְלֵאָה הַשָּׂדֶה אֶל צֹאנוֹ
KJ: And Jacob sent and called Rachel and Leah to the field unto his flock,
BN: And Ya'akov sent to summon Rachel and Le'ah to the field, to his flock.
This leaves us in little doubt that he left because he knew Lavan was onto him, and he feared the vengeance of Lavan's sons exactly as he had previously feared the vengeance of Esav.
31:5 VA YOMER LAHEN RO'EH ANOCHI ET PENEY AVIYCHEN KI EYNENU ELAI KITMOL SHILSHOM VE ELOHEY AVI HAYAH IMADI
וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶן רֹאֶה אָנֹכִי אֶת פְּנֵי אֲבִיכֶן כִּי אֵינֶנּוּ אֵלַי כִּתְמֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם וֵאלֹהֵי אָבִי הָיָה עִמָּדִי
KJ: And said unto them, I see your father's countenance, that it is not toward me as before; but the God of my father hath been with me.
BN: And he said to them, "I have seen your father's face, that it is not toward me as it was before; but the gods of my father have been with me.
A fact provable by the extent of his fertility! But that is not what he means. It becomes a kind of self-justification, "We have to leave because god told me to" is much cleaner than "my dear wives, I am in deep trouble and we are leaving".
RO'EH ANOCHI: More aural games, though this one has no particular significance. "I am a shepherd", and "I see..."
ELOHEY AVI: "the gods of my father", plural, rather than another reference to Elohim as in verses 7, 9 et al, all of which are odd anyway as it was YHVH who told him to leave (verse 3).
31:6 VE ATENAH YEDA'TEN KI BE CHOL KOCHI AVADETI ET AVIYCHEN
וְאַתֵּנָה יְדַעְתֶּן כִּי בְּכָל כֹּחִי עָבַדְתִּי אֶת אֲבִיכֶן
KJ: And ye know that with all my power I have served your father.
BN: "And you know that I have poured all my strength into working for your father.
Note the anachronistic/archaic form of Atenah (אתנה).
Note also the guilty self-justification and the passing of the word "go" to the god, with a touch of fault on Lavan - his way of looking has altered... and a complete absence of personal accountability. Psychologically as astute as any modern novel.
KOCHI: translated here as "power", but really it means "strength", and is intended to mean something physical, not mental or political.
31:7 VA AVIYCHEN HETEL BI VE HEHELIPH ET MASKURTI ASERET MONIM VE LO NETANU ELOHIM LEHARA IMADI
וַאֲבִיכֶן הֵתֶל בִּי וְהֶחֱלִף אֶת מַשְׂכֻּרְתִּי עֲשֶׂרֶת מֹנִים וְלֹא נְתָנוֹ אֱלֹהִים לְהָרַע עִמָּדִי
KJ: And your father hath deceived me, and changed my wages ten times; but God suffered him not to hurt me.
BN: "And your father has mocked me, and changed my wages ten times; but Elohim has not allowed him to hurt me...
Where has he changed his wages ten times? Once yes, and that by negotiation, but not ten times - unless we too are being cheated, by the story-teller simply leaving out key details. No, this is simply disingenuous - the adding of false witness to the list of his breaches of the Ten Commandments (and you are correct, they haven't been written yet, but those who believe the Torah was given complete at Sinai assume otherwise). But this is again the psychological novel par excellence, the methodology of the immoral and the amoral accurately described - the counterbalance to the issue of personal responsibility raised in several previous tales.
31:8 IM KO YOMAR NEKUDIM YIHEYEH SECHARECHA VE YALDU CHOL HA TSON NEKUDIM VE IM KO YOMAR AKUDIM YIHEYEH SECHARECHA VE YALDU CHOL HA TSON AKUDIM
אִם כֹּה יֹאמַר נְקֻדִּים יִהְיֶה שְׂכָרֶךָ וְיָלְדוּ כָל הַצֹּאן נְקֻדִּים וְאִם כֹּה יֹאמַר עֲקֻדִּים יִהְיֶה שְׂכָרֶךָ וְיָלְדוּ כָל הַצֹּאן עֲקֻדִּים
KJ: If he said thus, The speckled shall be thy wages; then all the cattle bare speckled: and if he said thus, The ringstraked shall be thy hire; then bare all the cattle ringstraked.
BN: "If he said thus: the speckled shall be your wages, then all the flock bore speckled; and if he said thus: the streaked shall be your wages, then all the flock bore streaked.
Akudim... Nekudim (עקדים...נקדים): English versions cannot give the play on words.
But it does rather confirm the belief that he has been stinging him for years. Or else we have to take the risk of being taken in by Ya'akov ourselves, and saying, well, maybe we just haven't heard this part of the story up till now, they agreed the streaked and speckled contract, and, and… no, we know what he has been doing. This is simply Ya'akov getting his wives on his side, because he knows their brothers will take Lavan's, and the women will be torn between the two. He is lying. He is defaming Lavan to Lavan's own daughters. His father-in-law! "Honour your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon this Earth which YHVH your god has given you!" (Exodus 20:11 and Deuteronomy 5:16). This is intended to include the in-laws.
31:9 VA YATSEL ELOHIM ET MIKNEH AVIYCHEM VA YITEN LI
וַיַּצֵּל אֱלֹהִים אֶת מִקְנֵה אֲבִיכֶם וַיִּתֶּן לִי
KJ: Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me.
BN: "Thus Elohim has taken away your father's livestock, and given them to me."
AVIYCHEM (אביכם): a scribal error? Should it not be AVICHEN (אביכן) as above? He is talking to the women, so he should use the feminine.
This further attempt at self-justification is utterly outrageous of course.
31:10 VA YEHI BE ET YACHEM HA TSON VA ESA EYNAI VA ER'E BA CHALOM VE HINEH HA ATUDIM HA OLIM AL HA TSON AKUDIM NEKUDIM U VERUDIM
וַיְהִי בְּעֵת יַחֵם הַצֹּאן וָאֶשָּׂא עֵינַי וָאֵרֶא בַּחֲלוֹם וְהִנֵּה הָעַתֻּדִים הָעֹלִים עַל הַצֹּאן עֲקֻדִּים נְקֻדִּים וּבְרֻדִּים
KJ: And it came to pass at the time that the cattle conceived, that I lifted up mine eyes, and saw in a dream, and, behold, the rams which leaped upon the cattle were ringstraked, speckled, and grisled.
BN: "And it happened that, at the time that the animals conceived, I looked up, and saw in a dream, and the he-goats leaping on the flock were streaked, speckled and grizzled.
Yes, he has reverted to that cheap face-saver of desperate men, the old "I saw it in a dream" trick (is that the same as saying "God told me"? see next verse). Can we detect laughter in his voice as he tells all this? Note that it is goats and not sheep that he speaks of: in those days were they not yet bred as quite such different animals (but still not the "cattle" of most English translations).
31:11 VA YOMER ELAI MAL'ACH HA ELOHIM BA CHALOM YA'AKOV VA OMAR, 'HINENI'
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלַי מַלְאַךְ הָאֱלֹהִים בַּחֲלוֹם יַעֲקֹב וָאֹמַר הִנֵּנִי
KJ: And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob: And I said, Here am I.
BN: "And the angel of Ha Elohim said to me in the dream, 'Ya'akov', and I said, 'Here am I.'
HA ELOHIM: reflecting verse 5, not Elohim, as elsewhere in this tale; nor YHVH. It is rare for so many versions to be present in one final redaction, but we can definitely see three in this tale, and will find a fourth in verse 13.
These dreams are all too frequent and too convenient. The words echo perfectly the opening of the Penu-El story about to come. But they also break another commandment - this time blasphemy: taking the god's name in vain.
31:12 VA YOMER SA NA EYNEYCHA U RE'EH KOL HA ATUDIM HA OLIM AL HA TSON AKUDIM NEKUDIM U VERUDIM KI RA'IYTI ET KOL ASHER LAVAN OSEH LACH
וַיֹּאמֶר שָׂא נָא עֵינֶיךָ וּרְאֵה כָּל הָעַתֻּדִים הָעֹלִים עַל הַצֹּאן עֲקֻדִּים נְקֻדִּים וּבְרֻדִּים כִּי רָאִיתִי אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר לָבָן עֹשֶׂה לָּךְ
KJ: And he said, Lift up now thine eyes, and see, all the rams which leap upon the cattle are ringstraked, speckled, and grisled: for I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee.
BN: And he said, 'Look up now, and see, all the he-goats leaping on the flock are streaked, speckled and grizzled; for I have seen everything that Lavan does to you...
So it really is all about vengeance. Yet he allows his god to be witness to, and collaborator in, his dishonesty. This is surely against all Jewish teaching.
And what about these Verudim (ברדים) that have suddenly appeared in the latter stages of the story, but which were not there when Ya'akov and Lavan set up the contract? BARAD is best known as "hail-stones", which are visible as large white spots; so too when they are on the fleeces of dark-skinned goats, and even horses (Zechariah 6:3), though there they were probably brown spots. I have kept "grizzled" because it is amusing to think of these poor little baa-lambs and see Algonquin bears; "dappled" would have been my preferred translation.
31:13 ANOCHI HA EL BEIT-EL ASHER MASHACHTA SHAM MATSEVAH ASHER NADARTA LI SHAM NEDER ATAH KUM TSE MIN HA ARETS HA ZOT VE SHUV EL ERETS MOLADETECHA
אָנֹכִי הָאֵל בֵּית אֵל אֲשֶׁר מָשַׁחְתָּ שָּׁם מַצֵּבָה אֲשֶׁר נָדַרְתָּ לִּי שָׁם נֶדֶר עַתָּה קוּם צֵא מִן הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת וְשׁוּב אֶל אֶרֶץ מוֹלַדְתֶּךָ
KJ: I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me: now arise, get thee out from this land, and return unto the land of thy kindred.
BN: "'I am the god of Beit-El, where you anointed a pillar, where you vowed a vow to me. Now get up, leave this land, and return to the land where you were born.'"
EL BEIT-EL: In a world of local gods, it is significant that this one names himself specifically as the god of Beit-El; not YHVH and not ELOHIM and not Ha ELOHIM. Does this make him El Shadai, or would that be a fifth god in this single episode?
And is this long and unnecessary speech intended to convince his wives, who might not otherwise be willing to go? Because wives are property, and all it needs is, "ladies, get packed, we're leaving" and that would have been sufficient.
SHUV EL ERETS MOLADETECHA: Is this a back-reference to 30:25 or to 31:3? The problems caused by intermingling multiple versions of a tale!
31:14 VA TA'AN RACHEL VE LE'AH VA TOMARNAH LO HA OD LANU CHELEK VE NACHALAH BE VEIT AVIYNU
וַתַּעַן רָחֵל וְלֵאָה וַתֹּאמַרְנָה לוֹ הַעוֹד לָנוּ חֵלֶק וְנַחֲלָה בְּבֵית אָבִינוּ
KJ: And Rachel and Leah answered and said unto him, Is there yet any portion or inheritance for us in our father's house?
BN: And Rachel and Le'ah answered him, saying, "Is there any portion or inheritance remaining for us in our father's house?..
RACHEL VE LE'AH: places Rachel ahead of Le'ah, which is surprising. They won't both have said it, of course, because human conversations don't work that way. The question is more important than the "who asked it", however - patrilocal versus matrilocal marriage again, and the rights, if any, that go with it, for which see the story of Tselophechad's daughters in Numbers 36. What they are really asking is implicit, but tacit: "is dad kicking us out, or are we leaving of our own volition?"
When Rabbi Yishmael established the principles for deducing laws out of the Torah, he missed one terribly important trick, fundamental to the work of all students of ancient manuscripts. No one ever passes a law out of abstract philosophising, unless it is in the midst of a revolution; all laws are reactionary to prevailing circumstances. So read in a newspaper that New York City has banned smoking in public, and you can deduce that smoking in public must previously have been commonplace, and that complaints about it must have built up over a sufficient period of time that politicians needing votes eventually saw it as an issue worth addressing. We have to learn to read the Bible in the same manner. For example, if Yechezk-El bemoans the women wailing for Tammuz at the north gate of the Temple (Ezekiel 8:14), then we can deduce that Tammuz-worship must have been to Yeru-Shala'im's orthodox Jews what passive smoking was to New York City's liberals. If Rachel and Le'ah wonder if they still have any rights left in their father's house, then we can deduce that they must have had some once, but had now either lost or forfeited them or had them taken from them. And we can ask what how and why, and we can learn ever more about the customs of the ancient world.
TOMARNAH (תאמרנה): again note the anachronism. Tomru (תאמרו) would be the more familiar grammatical form.
31:15: HA LO NACHRIYOT NECHSHAVNU LO KI MECHARANU VA YOC'HAL GAM A'CHOL ET KASPENU
הֲלוֹא נָכְרִיּוֹת נֶחְשַׁבְנוּ לוֹ כִּי מְכָרָנוּ וַיֹּאכַל גַּם אָכוֹל אֶת כַּסְפֵּנוּ
KJ: Are we not counted of him strangers? for he hath sold us, and hath quite devoured also our money.
BN: "Are we not counted by him as strangers? Because he sold us, and he has eaten up every shekel that he earned...
NACHRIYOT. We need to define this term precisely; yes, it means "strangers", but so do several other words, and particularly GER (גר), which is the one used most often in the Tanach. The essential difference between the two is that GER comes from LAGUR = "to dwell" and therefore suggests a stranger who is welcome, whereas NACHRIYOT comes from NACHAR = "to be foreign" and infers someone who is not welcome. HA GER ASHER BE SHE'ARECHA recurs frequently among the laws, making clear that they apply to the "stranger who is within your gates" as much as they do to the EZRACH (אֶזרָח), the "citizen". What Rachel and Le'ah are describing here is a state of wet-backness.
They make themselves sound like silver icons, not women - perhaps they are. Still, one has no sympathy for either Lavan or Ya'akov, ganavim (thieves) both. Except for one difference: until this moment, other than the entirely reasonable switch of wives, we have "seen" nothing to make us thing badly of Lavan; and now we are only hearing it as part of the defense of Ya'akov. Do we really believe it? This is where literary criticism takes over from theology, but it will make a good discussion group.
What do they mean by "he has eaten all our silver"? Regardless of whether men married into the women's tribe, or vice versa, Lavan has profited enormously by son-in-lawing Ya'akov; the implication is that he has been profligate with the profits made by Ya'akov's husbandry, both of the women and the goats and the sheep. But did they know before, or have they just taken Ya'akov's word for it?
My translation is deliberately colloquial on this occasion, technically flawed, because not precisely accurate, but intended to convey the emotion intrinsic to the statement.
31:16 KI CHOL HA OSHER ASHER HITSIL ELOHIM ME AVIYNU LANU HU U LE VANEYNU VE ATAH KOL ASHER AMAR ELOHIM ELEYCHA ASEH
כִּי כָל הָעֹשֶׁר אֲשֶׁר הִצִּיל אֱלֹהִים מֵאָבִינוּ לָנוּ הוּא וּלְבָנֵינוּ וְעַתָּה כֹּל אֲשֶׁר אָמַר אֱלֹהִים אֵלֶיךָ עֲשֵׂה
KJ: For all the riches which God hath taken from our father, that is ours, and our children's: now then, whatsoever God hath said unto thee, do.
BN: "For all the riches which Elohim has taken away from our father, that should have been ours and our children's. Now then, whatever Elohim has said to you, do it."
On the other hand they could simply be gloating, that while their father has squandered whatever wealth he had, they and their children still have their share in everything that Ya'akov has accrued; in which case, if Elohim has said leave, let's pack and go. This sounds flippant, but the story of the teraphim that is about to follow suggests that it is also the correct reading.
OSHER ASHER: I have discussed this double-word on several occasions previously; it connects the tribe of Asher with the Egyptian god Osher (Osiris) and with the moon goddess Asherah, which is the same name but in the feminine form. Both "happiness" and "wealth" are identified with the root word, presumably because these are the two things, besides children, that people most petition their gods for. On every other occasion, there is a legitimate question as to whether the seeming similarity is only that, and the variation of spelling makes it all mere coincidence. But not here. Here it is deliberately word-play, unignorable, even though the word ASHER is in fact the third instance of its meaning: a mere relative pronoun.
End of fifth fragment
31:17 VA YAKAM YA'AKOV VA YISA ET BANAV VE ET NASHAV AL HA GEMALIM
וַיָּקָם יַעֲקֹב וַיִּשָּׂא אֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת נָשָׁיו עַל הַגְּמַלִּים
KJ: Then Jacob rose up, and set his sons and his wives upon camels;
BN: Then Ya'akov rose up, and set his sons and his wives upon the camels.
Once again those anachronistic camels; it is much too early. Much less pretty, but more accurate, they probably travelled by donkey. And actually, given that they are shepherding a huge flock of goats and sheep, the men probably did most of the journey on foot.
31:18 VA YINHAG ET KOL MIKNEYHU, VE ET KOL RECHUSHO ASHER RACHASH, MIKNEH KINYANO ASHER RACHASH BE PHADAN ARAM, LAVO EL YITSCHAK AVIV ARTSAH KENA'AN
וַיִּנְהַג אֶת כָּל מִקְנֵהוּ וְאֶת כָּל רְכֻשׁוֹ אֲשֶׁר רָכָשׁ מִקְנֵה קִנְיָנוֹ אֲשֶׁר רָכַשׁ בְּפַדַּן אֲרָם לָבוֹא אֶל יִצְחָק אָבִיו אַרְצָה כְּנָעַן
KJ: And he carried away all his cattle, and all his goods which he had gotten, the cattle of his getting, which he had gotten in Padanaram, for to go to Isaac his father in the land of Canaan.
BN: And he carried away all his livestock, and all the wealth that he had accrued, the cattle he had obtained, which he had gathered in Padan Aram, to go to Yitschak his father, to the land of Kena'an.
MIKNEH: translated here as "cattle", because properly it means "cattle", and is used as such throughout the Tanach; but we understand that Ya'akov has been collecting sheep and goats, not cattle, so this needs to be understood in its radical form, MIKNEH from KANAH (קנה) = "to buy, purchase, obtain, acquire", in a world where people counted their wealth by their MIKNEH, regardless of whether it was sheep, goats or cattle. We already saw this in the previous chapter.
Once again he will depart running, by dead of night, with his stolen goods, from the wrath of his cheated relative; but it must have been quite some sight, for it was an immense tribe, and huge flocks, by this time. Like Mosheh fleeing Mitsrayim with the Beney Yisra-El, we have to imagine something very, very slow. Simply to keep all those animals under control, and walking rather than stopping to graze, and going in the right direction, and needing to be watered and fed and rested, in the severe heat of the Middle East...running away from Lavan is not Bonnie and Clyde in a get-away car. It could have taken several days just to travel a couple of miles.
Was Yitschak still alive? Surely not. The whole point of the blessing that Ya'akov stole was that his father was old and dying when Ya'akov left (see Genesis 27:2), and that was 20+ years ago. Yet another textual error? Yet another version?
31:19 VE LAVAN HALACH LIGZOZ ET TSONO, VA TIGNOV RACH-EL ET HA TERAPHIM ASHER LE AVIHA
וְלָבָן הָלַךְ לִגְזֹז אֶת צֹאנוֹ וַתִּגְנֹב רָחֵל אֶת הַתְּרָפִים אֲשֶׁר לְאָבִיהָ
KJ: And Laban went to shear his sheep: and Rachel had stolen the images that were her father's.
BN: And while Lavan was out shearing his sheep, Rachel stole the teraphim that belonged to her father.
TERAPHIM (תרפים): household gods. Teraphim are usually, and erroneously, called Seraphim in English, which are actually completely different (click here), and linked with Cherubim for the same no-obvious-reason. In practice they were graven images of the sort outlawed by the second commandment. David owned one - the one which Sha'ul's daughter Michal placed in her bed to form the lower half of a dummy, the upper half being made of a goat's hair quilt (1 Samuel 19:13/16) - as did Michah-Yehu (Judges 17:5 ff). Hoshe'a (Hosea 3:4) wrote that false religion would die out without them. 2 Kings 23:24, Ezekiel 21:26 and Zechariah 10:2 speak of them as divinatory instruments, household or village gods, ancestral images made of metal wood or stone. Yehudah Ha Maccabee consulted them (2 Maccabeees 12:40) and his men wore Jamnian (Yemenite) teraphim as amulets under their tunics. 1 Samuel 15:23 abominates the practice of divination. A Midrash on the story refers to mummified heads being used for divinatory purposes: these are probably teraphim. Gulgot-Yah (Golgotha), "the place of the skull", reflects this kind of teraph and its oracular usage; tradition says the skull was Adam's.
Neither Rachel here, nor Michal in the David story, are reproached for consulting teraphim; nor are the Danites who steal an oracular beast and a teraph from the house of Michah-Yehu the Ephrayimite (Judges 17:1, 18:31), as well as the young Levite priest in charge of them in order to set up a new sanctuary at La'ish. Judges 17:3/5 has Michah-Yehu's mother piously casting the teraph. At what point in Beney Yisra-El history did the teraphim become "abominations"?
The Romans had an equivalent, called Penates, which were believed brought protection and good fortune. There is a link through this connection to the name "Gad", for which see the Dictionary of Names.
The Midrash says that Rachel took them to prevent her father worshipping them, because she had converted to Ya'akov's one god. However, since we know that Ya'akov was not a monotheist, then Rachel could not have converted.
But go back for a moment to the grievances of the women about their silver and jewellery and their "inheritance". This seems to tell us that theirs was the priestess role, and so they would have required the teraphim to provide oracular prophecies etc. Had Lavan "requisitioned" them? The word TIGNOV is clearly used (and with it another commandment breached), though it may actually not have been theft at all, but rather a claiming back of what was rightly theirs. Especially if we consider Lavan to be a variation of Ha Lavanah, and as such the goddess not a man. The same verb, as YIGNOV, will also occur in the next verse (and be translated very differently in most translations!).
31:20 VA YIGNOV YA'AKOV ET LEV LAVAN HA ARAMI AL BELI HIGID LO KI VORE'ACH HU
וַיִּגְנֹב יַעֲקֹב אֶת לֵב לָבָן הָאֲרַמִּי עַל בְּלִי הִגִּיד לוֹ כִּי בֹרֵחַ הוּא
KJ: And Jacob stole away unawares to Laban the Syrian, in that he told him not that he fled.
BN: And Ya'akov outwitted Lavan the Aramaean, in that he did not let him know that he was fleeing.
The double use of GANAV (גנב) is interesting, Rachel literally, Ya'akov metaphorically. "Outwitted" is not my true choice for a translation, but borrowed for a reason that I will explain in verses 26 and 27.
But why such excitement in this verse? Is it likely that he would have told him? One does not say when one is fleeing, or the flight is undermined.
31:21 VA YIVRACH HU VA CHOL ASHER LO VA YAKAM VA YA'AVOR ET HA NAHAR VA YASEM ET PANAV HAR HA GIL'AD
וַיִּבְרַח הוּא וְכָל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ וַיָּקָם וַיַּעֲבֹר אֶת הַנָּהָר וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת פָּנָיו הַר הַגִּלְעָד
KJ: So he fled with all that he had; and he rose up, and passed over the river, and set his face toward the mount Gilead.
BN: So he fled with all that he had; and he rose up, and crossed over the river, and set his face toward the mountain of Gil'ad.
River: see below for why it must have been the Yavok (Jabbok).
GIL'AD/Gilead/Gal-Ed (גלעד): the hill country east of the river Yarden (Jordan), roughly the Golan Heights, south of the river Yavok. Song of Songs 4:1 likewise names it Gil'ad (גִּלְעָד), as in the pointed version of this verse. Hosea 6:8 mentions a city of the same name in the same region. Jebel Jelad and Jebal Jelud are two Golani peaks today, where ruined cities can be seen, and which makes me wonder if this is not a GIMEL (ג) without a DAGESH – i.e. a soft G – and if so, how many other Yehudit names should follow the same paradigm. However, see the root paragraph below, which would dispute this.
Lots of references in Deuteronomy 3:12; Joshua 12:2, 13:10; Amos 1:3. Used for the tribes of Gad and Re'u-Ven in Psalm 60:9 and 108:9, as though they were a single tribe; and for Gad alone in Judges 5:17 and 1 Samuel 13:7. Deuteronomy 34:1 includes Bashan within Gil'ad as well as much of Kena'an.
Numbers 26:29 names Gil'ad as a grandson of Menasheh by his son Machir. See also Judges 11:1, where he is the father of Yiphtach, 12:7 and 1 Chronicles 5:14.
The root in fact appears to be Gal-Ed (גל-עד), where Gal means "a heap of stones" - probably a stone circle, as connected to GIL-GAL and GIL-GUL; as in a cairn or ancient megalithic tumulus, and specifically to the great shrine of Gil-Gal, or quite probably to the many very different locations where identical Stonehenges were established. Literally a circle (Gil/על) of heaped stones (Gal/גל). ED means "witness". For an explanation of this, see the story below (v 44).
31:22 VA YUGAD LE LAVAN BA YOM HA SHELIYSHI KI VARACH YA'AKOV
וַיֻּגַּד לְלָבָן בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי כִּי בָרַח יַעֲקֹב
KJ: And it was told Laban on the third day that Jacob was fled.
BN: And on the third day Lavan was told that Ya'akov had fled.
In the last chapter we heard that Lavan had taken his flocks and put three days between himself and Ya'akov, leaving the impression, though the following verses disputed it, that Ya'akov fled during those three days. This appears to pick up that version of the story at precisely that point. And didn't the fleeing David also find his wife Avi-Gayil while her husband was squandering his wealth at a shearing-binge (1 Samuel 25)?
At the time I wondered if the 3 days was a coincidence. When the moon is in the equation, 3 days are never a coincidence. If Lavan was originally the moon god(dess), or if, as some scholars suggest, Lavan was an example of those cults in which the moon was male and the sun female, then this was the 3-day period between the final waning and the new waxing, and was the period in which the priest-king was sacrificed, descended into the underworld, returned, or was resurrected; as the Jesus death-and-resurrection shows. In that case, Ya'akov's flight may have been a way of evading sacrifice at the end of his 7-year term; or it may have been a ceremonial flight from a period in which the sacrifice had begun to be replaced by the Azaz-El – which is the Kayin flight, and may also have been the Hagar-Yishma-El flight (though this latter also contains the other form of substitution for child sacrifice, which was circumcision).
If, however, we insist on there being only one version of this tale, and all details within it god-given and therefore unequivocally correct, we need to note that this is the 2nd 3-days reference in the tale, and ask if we can read time in months from it? At a mythological-astrological level, if Lavan is the moon-god, then this makes him different from every other cult in the region, where the male is the sun and the female the moon. His stealing the teraphim from the priestesses, or their stealing them from him, could have been part of the process of switching from one cult to the other. But if he is the moon god, then his power is taken from him during the three days between the end of the old month and Rosh Chodesh, freeing Ya'akov to act with impunity.
VA YUGAD: So many hints of the goat-god (see "The Tempest" and "A Midsummer Night's Dream" and April Fool's Day et al for its residuality in our culture), it is impossible to ignore either that we are now traveling into what will become the tribal territory of Gad, that his son Gad is with him, and that the text keeps making puns on the name - YUGAD ("and it was told") on this occasion. Is the whole thing in fact a Gadite ancestor-legend?
31:23 VA YIKACH ET ECHAV IMO VA YIRDOPH ACHARAV DERECH SHIV'AT YAMIM VA YADBEK OTO BE HAR HA GIL'AD
וַיִּקַּח אֶת אֶחָיו עִמּוֹ וַיִּרְדֹּף אַחֲרָיו דֶּרֶךְ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים וַיַּדְבֵּק אֹתוֹ בְּהַר הַגִּלְעָד
KJ: And he took his brethren with him, and pursued after him seven days' journey; and they overtook him in the mount Gilead.
BN: And he took his tribesmen with him, and pursued him a full seven days' journey, and he caught up with him on Mount Gil'ad.
Seven days: the sun's time not the moon's. This is where we really witness the mythological core of the tale, rooted in the metaphors, the cosmic language. Two calendars, the solar and the lunar, in permanent disagreement, yet needing to work together, about to discover a way of, what we shall call it- intercalating harmoniously?
ECHAV (אחיו): clansmen rather than actual brothers, the latter of which we know already that he had none.
31:24 VA YAVO ELOHIM EL LAVAN HA ARAMI BA CHALOM HA LAILAH VA YOMER LO HISHAMER LECHA PEN TEDABER IM YA'AKOV MI TOV AD RA
וַיָּבֹא אֱלֹהִים אֶל לָבָן הָאֲרַמִּי בַּחֲלֹם הַלָּיְלָה וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן תְּדַבֵּר עִם יַעֲקֹב מִטּוֹב עַד רָע
KJ: And God came to Laban the Syrian in a dream by night, and said unto him, Take heed that thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad.
BN: And Elohim came to Lavan the Aramaean in a night-dream, and said to him, "Be warned not to speak to Ya'akov in a way that starts positively but ends negatively."
Which does rather restrict him! Or would, if the KJ were an accurate translation. But the Yehudit says MI TOV AD RA: "from good to bad". It is not about the options, it is about starting out with good intentions, but being unable to control his temper.
Why should Elohim take the thief Ya'akov's side through all his machinations? (I can imagine an Arami version of this same tale, in which the opposite is the case - we always have to remind us who the author is, and what the purpose of the writing).
And yet another of these convenient dreams. As we have come to understand the covenants as the inner voice of reassurance at a time of geographical upheaval, can we understand these dreams at night as the voice of Jiminy Cricket, the moral conscience speaking out of the neurotic darkness?
31:25 VA YASEG LAVAN ET YA'AKOV VE YA'AKOV TAKA ET AHALO BA HAR VE LAVAN TAKA ET ECHAV BE HAR HA GIL'AD
וַיַּשֵּׂג לָבָן אֶת יַעֲקֹב וְיַעֲקֹב תָּקַע אֶת אָהֳלוֹ בָּהָר וְלָבָן תָּקַע אֶת אֶחָיו בְּהַר הַגִּלְעָד
KJ: Then Laban overtook Jacob. Now Jacob had pitched his tent in the mount: and Laban with his brethren pitched in the mount of Gilead.
BN: So Lavan caught up with Ya'akov. Now Ya'akov had pitched his tent on the hill, and Lavan with his tribesmen pitched on Mount Gil'ad.
Meaning, I think, that Lavan has seized the high ground, physically if not morally. Exactly what Ya'akov will fear Esav doing in the next chapter.
Use of the word RACHEL (רחל) in its proper sense rather than as her name - the effect of this is quite untranslatable - as if one were telling a story about a Lancashire weaving family where the hero had married the daughter whose name was Jenny and the conversation turned to spinning wheels (an American equivalent might be a flag-making family named Ross with a daughter who was named Betsy).
Ya'akov throws back the TIGNOV at Lavan, but putting it in a very different context, so that it has nothing to do with the other's accusation of theft against him. Unusually good psychology and literary technique for this generally rather mind-simple book.
Surf The Site
Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
31:26 VA YOMER LAVAN LE YA'AKOV MEH ASIYTA VA TIGNOV ET LEVAVI VA TENAHEG ET BENOTAI KI SHEVUYOT CHAREV
וַיֹּאמֶר לָבָן לְיַעֲקֹב מֶה עָשִׂיתָ וַתִּגְנֹב אֶת לְבָבִי וַתְּנַהֵג אֶת בְּנֹתַי כִּשְׁבֻיוֹת חָרֶב
KJ: And Laban said to Jacob, What hast thou done, that thou hast stolen away unawares to me, and carried away my daughters, as captives taken with the sword?
BN: And Lavan said to Ya'akov, "What have you done, robbing my very heart, carrying away my daughters as though they were captives of the sword?..
TIGNOV: The same word now for the third time, but twice the translators have rendered it as "outwitted", and once, when Rachel took the teraphim, as "stolen". Which is correct? Answer: "stolen". Then why have the translators rendered it as... you must ask the translators, and no doubt they will have an answer.
It must be said that it was an odd thing to do, running off like that with the man's daughters. But note that it isn't the sheep that Lavan is after. See verse 30.
31:27 LAMAH NACHBE'TA LIVRO'ACH VA TIGNOV OTI VE LO HIGADETA LI VA ASHALECHACHA BE SIMCHAH U VE SHIRIM BE TOPH U VE CHINOR
לָמָּה נַחְבֵּאתָ לִבְרֹחַ וַתִּגְנֹב אֹתִי וְלֹא הִגַּדְתָּ לִּי וָאֲשַׁלֵּחֲךָ בְּשִׂמְחָה וּבְשִׁרִים בְּתֹף וּבְכִנּוֹר
KJ: Wherefore didst thou flee away secretly, and steal away from me; and didst not tell me, that I might have sent thee away with mirth, and with songs, with tabret, and with harp?
BN: "Why did you flee in secret, and rob me, and not tell me, so that I could send you away with a grand feast and songs, with tabret and with harp...
As if he was likely to have done any of this! But on the other hand, if our reading of this as a Golden Bough variant is correct, then this is precisely the deceit you would expect the priestess of the shrine to attempt, because she needs to get the champion back, so that she can sacrifice him.
TIGNOV yet again as "outwitted"; a reading which my last comment might now permit, and then apologies to the translators who I insulted above. But it only works if the scholars who insist that Frazer was an amateur and a dilettante and made it all up now apologise to him, and accept that his reading may indeed have had some historical validity.
SIMCHAH: My translation as "grand feast" recognises that this is still the word in use in the Jewish world for any grand banquet, wedding, community honouring, farewell tribute, birthday dinner: the source of Jackie Mason's joke about the woman who asks another woman if it's true that she's having an affair, and when she gets a positive answer, she then asks: so who's doing the catering. Affairs that require catering being, in Yiddish, a simchah.
TOPH VE CHINOR: Drum and harp do not make a jazz band, nor a kletzmer band, for a traditional Jewish simchah; they are two of the traditional instruments of the Temple choir, accompanying the Psalms. Do we have another hint that all this was liturgical? (in addition to any number of Psalms, cf Exodus 15:20, Job 21:12, Isaiah 5:12 et al...)
31:28 VE LO NETASHTANI LENASHEK LE VANAI VE LIV'NOTAI ATAH HISKALTA ASO
וְלֹא נְטַשְׁתַּנִי לְנַשֵּׁק לְבָנַי וְלִבְנֹתָי עַתָּה הִסְכַּלְתָּ עֲשׂוֹ
KJ: And hast not suffered me to kiss my sons and my daughters? thou hast now done foolishly in so doing.
BN: "And did not allow me to kiss my sons and my daughters? Now you have done foolishly...
Again that pun, intended or otherwise, LEVANAI (לבני) - sons (which they are not anyway; they are grandsons) - and LAVAN (לבן).
He is of course ignoring the injunction of the god from his dream.
And what about that word NESHEK (נשק), does it not also have two meanings, the one a kiss, and the other military arms? How exactly the same root came to such opposing meanings is complicated, but take it from me they do. The implied threat becomes a rather more overt one in the next verse.
31:29 YESH LE EL YADI LA'ASOT IMACHEM RA VE ELOHEY AVIYCHEM EMESH AMAR ELAI LEMOR HISHAMER LECHA MI DABER IM YA'AKOV MI TOV AD RA
יֶשׁ לְאֵל יָדִי לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמָּכֶם רָע וֵאלֹהֵי אֲבִיכֶם אֶמֶשׁ אָמַר אֵלַי לֵאמֹר הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ מִדַּבֵּר עִם יַעֲקֹב מִטּוֹב עַד רָע
KJ: It is in the power of my hand to do you hurt: but the God of your father spake unto me yesternight, saying, Take thou heed that thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad.
BN: "It is in the power of my hand to do you harm; but the god of your father spoke to me yesternight, saying, 'Be warned not to speak to Ya’akov in a way that starts positively but ends negatively'...
EL YADI (אל ידי): "the power of my hand". Which helps us understand the ancient concept of god as a natural "power" or "force" (and therefore a verb) rather than an anthropomorphism (and therefore a noun).
"The god of your father" is interesting, given who they will swear their covenant by shortly, but also the fact that they come from the same tribe, and so you would expect them to share the same god as well as the same tribal customs - but we have seen that they don't, with any of these. Presumably he means Pachad Yitschak (פחד יצחק); for which see at the foot of this page? But this confirms that, despite Av-Raham's wish to have his son marry within the tribe, the rest of the tribe follows a different god from him. So does this change the way we see LECH LECHA and Av-Ram's flight to Kena'an? Was it more like Muhammad's hejira from Mecca?
31:30 VE ATAH HALOCH HALACHTA KI NICHSOPH NICHSAPHTA LE VEIT AVIYCHA LAMAH GANAVTA ET ELOHAI?
וְעַתָּה הָלֹךְ הָלַכְתָּ כִּי נִכְסֹף נִכְסַפְתָּה לְבֵית אָבִיךָ לָמָּה גָנַבְתָּ אֶת אֱלֹהָי
KJ: And now, though thou wouldest needs be gone, because thou sore longedst after thy father's house, yetwherefore hast thou stolen my gods?
BN: "And now that you are surely gone, because you long so much for your father's house, why have you stolen my gods?"
Not his goods, but his gods! And indeed, why did Rachel steal them? It is actually a good question, even though not the one he asks.
VE ATAH HALOCH: The inference being that, given that you are leaving, what difference if this does end negatively?
ET ELOHAI (את-אלהי): when Rachel stole them they were called Terpahim, with an inference of idols without numenistic power. But to Lavan they are his gods, and most definitely plural. We must understand them as "household gods" - djinns, in today's parlance. The significance is proof that Lavan is a pagan, from a very different religious cult than Ya'akov. The problem is, he is supposedly from the same group, and Av-Ram came from there and Yitschak found his wife there etc etc. If this is so, then at what point did the Av-Rahamic tribe break religiously from the Lavanic, and why? And having done so, why seek wives there? It makes no sense. More logical the other view - that they never were family, that the whole link is either late, because they are now returning from captivity in Babylon/Aram, or another part of the Redactor's problem of how to absorb all these different tribes that never really were homogenous, in order to create the new unity of proto-Judaism?
Note also that Lavan still makes no complaint about the sheep, which is ostensibly why Ya'akov fled in such a hurry, and what caused so much alarm among Lavan's sons. It is his gods that he wants back. Not even his daughters.
31:31 VA YA'AN YA'AKOV VA YOMER LE LAVAN KI YAR'E'TI KI AMARTI PEN TIGZOL ET BENOTEYCHA ME IMI
וַיַּעַן יַעֲקֹב וַיֹּאמֶר לְלָבָן כִּי יָרֵאתִי כִּי אָמַרְתִּי פֶּן תִּגְזֹל אֶת בְּנוֹתֶיךָ מֵעִמִּי
KJ: And Jacob answered and said to Laban, Because I was afraid: for I said, Peradventure thou wouldest take by force thy daughters from me.
BN: And Ya'akov answered, and said to Lavan, "Because I was afraid. I said to myself, 'What if you try to take your daughters from me by force.'
He was asked why he had stolen the gods; his answer is a direct admission that he has stolen the daughters - not the question he was asked. And the statement in the following verse infers that he did not steal them, nor did he know that Racel had done so; if he had, he would know where they were, which is with Rachel, and he would not volunteer to give her up in this manner. Unless he is playing tricks again, knowing that Rachel has them - but the next verse states explicitly that he does not know she has stolen them. Then we have to assume yet another sloppiness in the narrative.
And why would he think that Lavan would or even could do that, if they are Ya'akov's wives, and they have agreed that Ya'akov will determine his wages and then leave with them? Does the fact that Yaakov has cheated on his contract mean he should now forfeit the whole contract, wives and all? No, they are married. Then does it relate again to the daughters' grievance about being "sold". By some manner this contract for his wages has broken a custom in the tribe, where sons join the wives' tribe, and are added to the clan-chief's possessions. But again, while this appears to worry Ya'akov, it is not what concerns Lavan. He just wants his gods back.
This stealing of the teraphim parallels the stealing of the Kiddush becher by Bin-Yamin in Genesis 44. Both its concealment and its unstated liturgical significance.
31:32 IM ASHER TIMTSA ET ELOHEYCHA LO YICHEYEH NEGED ACHEYNU HAKER LECHA MAH IMADI VE KACH LACH VE LO YADA YA'AKOV KI RACHEL GENAVATAM
עִם אֲשֶׁר תִּמְצָא אֶת אֱלֹהֶיךָ לֹא יִחְיֶה נֶגֶד אַחֵינוּ הַכֶּר לְךָ מָה עִמָּדִי וְקַח לָךְ וְלֹא יָדַע יַעֲקֹב כִּי רָחֵל גְּנָבָתַם
KJ: With whomsoever thou findest thy gods, let him not live: before our brethren discern thou what is thine with me, and take it to thee. For Jacob knew not that Rachel had stolen them.
BN: "Whoever turns out to have your gods, he shall not live. In full view of all our kinsmen, point out what of yours is here with me, and then reclaim it" - for Ya'akov did not know that Rachel had stolen them.
NEGED...VEKACH LECHA (וקח-לך...נגד): what does this actually mean? Most English translations mean nothing at all. He appears to be calling on all present from the two clans to serve as witnesses that he has stolen nothing and is happy to have the luggage searched – when we all know he has stolen hundreds of sheep (but in the manner that a man is not a thief who finds a loophole in a tax law and thereby legally evades paying taxes; he is not technically a thief, only morally so – whereas Rachel has genuinely thieved the teraphim). The measure of his vigour in calling for the death penalty suggests his understanding of the importance of these teraphim, though he himself of course would not possess any, as that would breach the 2nd commandment, on graven images, and the 3rd, on idolatry, and we know that Ya'akov is a moral, law-abiding and an honourable man.
Would he have held out the same hostage to fortune if he had even considered the possibility of one of his wives or sons being responsible? Compare this with the tale of Yiphtach's daughter (Judges 11:30-39); and also note the odd coincidence that Yiphtach's father was named Gil'ad.
Why did Rachel steal the gods: to set up a new shrine? Rachel's Tomb, near Yeru-Shala'im, operates to this day as a fertility shrine. And more importantly, note that both use the word Elohim to mean gods, rather than any specific god.
This verse, as noted above, echoes Bin-Yamin stealing Yoseph's silver cup later on - down to the very words (Genesis 44:9 et cetera). And also in a sense Sha'ul's edict over the meal before the battle, which ends up trapping Yonatan for indulging in wild honey (1 Samuel 14).
31:33 VA YAVO LAVAN BE OHEL YA'AKOV U VE OHEL LE'AH U VE OHEL SHETEY HA AMAHOT VE LO MATSA VA YETS'E ME OHEL LE'AH VA YAVO BE OHEL RACHEL
וַיָּבֹא לָבָן בְּאֹהֶל יַעֲקֹב וּבְאֹהֶל לֵאָה וּבְאֹהֶל שְׁתֵּי הָאֲמָהֹת וְלֹא מָצָא וַיֵּצֵא מֵאֹהֶל לֵאָה וַיָּבֹא בְּאֹהֶל רָחֵל
KJ: And Laban went into Jacob's tent, and into Leah's tent, and into the two maidservants' tents; but he found them not. Then went he out of Leah's tent, and entered into Rachel's tent.
BN: And Lavan went into Ya'akov’s tent, and into Le'ah’s tent, and into the tent of the two maid-servants; but he did not find them. And he went out of Le'ah’s tent and entered into Rachel's tent.
AMAHOT (אמהת): the root is IMAH (אמה) = "mother", which seems to suggest that they were "wet-nurses" rather than any other type of serving-girl. However this is not the word that is used elsewhere for "wet-nurse". MENIKTAH (מֵנִקְתָּהּ) is used for Devorah, Rivkah's wet-nurse, in Genesis 24:59 and MEYNEKET (מֵינֶקֶת) in Genesis 35:8, the same word but without the genitive ending; MEYNEKET (מֵינֶקֶת) is also used for Mosheh's mother's role when she "wet-nurses" Mosheh in Exodus 2:7.
There is a clear inference of Bilhah and Zilpah sharing a tent. Does this imply a primitive kind of harem? But a harem would usually house all the wives. Perhaps this was just convenience for the journey.
31:34 VE RACHEL LAK'CHA ET HA TERAPHIM VA TESIMEM BE CHAR HA GAMAL VA TESHEV ALEYHEM VA YEMASHESH LAVAN ET KOL HA OHEL VE LO MATSA
וְרָחֵל לָקְחָה אֶת הַתְּרָפִים וַתְּשִׂמֵם בְּכַר הַגָּמָל וַתֵּשֶׁב עֲלֵיהֶם וַיְמַשֵּׁשׁ לָבָן אֶת כָּל הָאֹהֶל וְלֹא מָצָא
KJ: Now Rachel had taken the images, and put them in the camel's furniture, and sat upon them. And Laban searched all the tent, but found them not.
BN: Now Rachel had taken the teraphim, and put them in the saddle of the camel, and was sitting on them. And Lavan felt about all the tent, but did not find them.
The difference between calling them Elohim and Teraphim - is the Yiddish word TREYF in any way connected? See verse 39, where at the very least a verbal pub is being made on this connection.
The saddle was not a saddle, but a palanquin, a sort of compartment tied on to the saddle, covered with an awning, surrounded by curtains: a howdah (see the illustration adjacent to verse 19). Or would have been, had there been camels yet at this time.
From a literary point of view this doesn't really work, since she wasn't actually on the camel in the first place? They have camped. Everyone is in their tent. Does Rachel feel a sudden urge to be alone under the howdah? Or has she taken the saddle into the tent, and is using it for a chair - the world's most uncomfortable chair if she has? And could Lavan not wait an hour, until the absurdity of her sitting there forced her to come down. This is either bad story-telling or there is something else going on.
31:35 VA TOMER EL AVIYHA AL YICHAR BE EYNEY ADONI KI LO UCHAL LAKUM MI PANEYCHA KI DERECH NASHIM LI VA YECHAPES VE LO MATSA ET HA TERAPHIM
וַתֹּאמֶר אֶל אָבִיהָ אַל יִחַר בְּעֵינֵי אֲדֹנִי כִּי לוֹא אוּכַל לָקוּם מִפָּנֶיךָ כִּי דֶרֶךְ נָשִׁים לִי וַיְחַפֵּשׂ וְלֹא מָצָא אֶת הַתְּרָפִים
KJ: And she said to her father, Let it not displease my lord that I cannot rise up before thee; for the custom of women is upon me. And he searched, but found not the images.
BN: And she said to her father, "Let my lord not be angry that I cannot stand up for you; but the manner of women is upon me." And he searched, but did not find the teraphim.
Laws governing menstruation. She was standing up only moments before, so why can she not stand up now? Is this about him becoming unclean if he touches the cushion she has been sitting on? Or is she simply having stomach cramps as women indeed do. And would she normally stand up when her dad entered her tent? She and Ya'akov clearly deserve each other - like with like!
And if she has managed to hide the teraphim in the pocket of the saddle, small enough to sit on and not be noticed, they must be very tiny artefacts.
And if she really is menstruating, truly and honestly, then she can't be pregnant - yet very shortly after this scene she is going to give birth to Ben-Oni/Bin-Yamin - and sadly the stolen teraphim will not be of any help to her.
31:36 VA YICHAR LE YA'AKOV VA YAREV BE LAVAN VA YA'AN YA'AKOV VA YOMER LE LAVAN MAH PISH'I MAH CHATA'TI KI DALAKTA ACHARAI
וַיִּחַר לְיַעֲקֹב וַיָּרֶב בְּלָבָן וַיַּעַן יַעֲקֹב וַיֹּאמֶר לְלָבָן מַה פִּשְׁעִי מַה חַטָּאתִי כִּי דָלַקְתָּ אַחֲרָי
KJ: And Jacob was wroth, and chode with Laban: and Jacob answered and said to Laban, What is my trespass? what is my sin, that thou hast so hotly pursued after me?
BN: And Ya'akov was angry, and quarreled with Lavan. And Ya'akov answered, and said to Lavan, "What have I done wrong that you are in hot pursuit of me?..
This is disingenuous, a strategy. Because: as if he doesn't know? The sheep, Ya'akov, the sheep. Classic ganav's technique though, to outface the accuser.
31:37 KI MISHASHTA ET KOL KELAI MAH MATSA'TA MI KOL KELEY VEITECHA SIM KOH NEGED ACHAI VE ACHEYCHA VE YOCHIYCHU BEYN SHENEYNU
כִּי מִשַּׁשְׁתָּ אֶת כָּל כֵּלַי מַה מָּצָאתָ מִכֹּל כְּלֵי בֵיתֶךָ שִׂים כֹּה נֶגֶד אַחַי וְאַחֶיךָ וְיוֹכִיחוּ בֵּין שְׁנֵינוּ
KJ: Whereas thou hast searched all my stuff, what hast thou found of all thy household stuff? set it here before my brethren and thy brethren, that they may judge betwixt us both.
BN: "Going through all my possessions in this manner - and what single item that belongs to you have you found? Set it here before my brethren and your brethren, that they may judge between the two of us...
In truth they too are made for each other.
31:38 ZEH ESRIM SHANAH ANOCHI IMACH RECHELEYCHA VE IZEYCHA LO SHIKELU, VE EYLEY TSONCHA LO ACHALTI
זֶה עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה אָנֹכִי עִמָּךְ רְחֵלֶיךָ וְעִזֶּיךָ לֹא שִׁכֵּלוּ וְאֵילֵי צֹאנְךָ לֹא אָכָלְתִּי
KJ: This twenty years have I been with thee; thy ewes and thy she goats have not cast their young, and the rams of thy flock have I not eaten.
BN: "In all these twenty years that I have been with you, never have your ewes or she-goats cast their young, nor have I eaten a single one of the rams from your flocks...
Use of the word RACHEL (רחל) in its proper sense rather than as her name - the effect of this is quite untranslatable - as if one were telling a story about a Lancashire weaving family where the hero had married the daughter whose name was Jenny and the conversation turned to spinning wheels (an American equivalent might be a flag-making family named Ross with a daughter who was named Betsy).
Of course what he says is not strictly true. He can hardly complain about being accused of theft after what he has done to Lavan's flocks. And he has the gall to make reference to them now, when the recognition of the "sting" is the ostensible reason for his flight.
ZEH ESRIM SHANAH: The verse may be hyperbole by Ya'akov, expressing a large block of time, or it may be literal - if literal, then we can take the period of the sting forward and assume it began at the end of the fourteen years, after the second Jubilee, and took six years to effect. Going back to the earlier discussion of this, twenty years, and the reference to 3 days between flight and discovery, appears to confirm the theory that Ya'akov served three 7-year periods as priest king. But that would only give him three consorts, so which one does not belong to the story?
Death of a Salesman!
31:39 TEREPHA LO HEV'E'TI ELEYCHA ANOCHI ACHATENAH MI YADI TEVAKSHENA GENUVTI YOM U GENUVTI LAILAH
טְרֵפָה לֹא הֵבֵאתִי אֵלֶיךָ אָנֹכִי אֲחַטֶּנָּה מִיָּדִי תְּבַקְשֶׁנָּה גְּנֻבְתִי יוֹם וּגְנֻבְתִי לָיְלָה
KJ: That which was torn of beasts I brought not unto thee; I bare the loss of it; of my hand didst thou require it, whether stolen by day, or stolen by night.
BN: "If it was killed by a wild animal, I didn't bring it to you; I bore the loss of it myself; of my own hand you required it, whether stolen by day or stolen by night...
Ya'akov throws back the TIGNOV at Lavan, but putting it in a very different context, so that it has nothing to do with the other's accusation of theft against him. Unusually good psychology and literary technique for this generally rather mind-simple book.
But even cleverer are the two plays on words. a) Lavan is searching for his TERAPHIM, his household gods; Ya'akov responds, not just that he hasn't touched the TERAPHIM, but that he hasn't touched the TEREPHA either - the latter being animals from the flock which are killed by lion or hyena on the hills. In Mosaic laws such animals are prohibited as unclean, but the Mosaic laws did not yet apply. b) Lavan is accusing him of "outwitting" him (GANAV), but also of stealing his TERAPHIM (GANAV); Ya'akov's response speaks of sheep and goats killed by stray beasts, and the implication of their indenture arrangement that for him to eat them would constitute a theft - so he turns the word GANAV on its head, twice over, and throws the accusation of theft back into Lavan's face.
The Laws on this, later in the Torah, are very specific about what happens to animals killed by wild beasts, by accident, by human hand, by sacrifice. See Exodus 22:30.
But the phrase "stolen by day or by night" is interesting, if we look at the Hammurabic Code which governed the whole Middle East at this time, and which was probably the source for the Mosaic Code. A shepherd was entitled to night-time rest, except for lambing; he could not be held responsible for damage caused by preying beasts, if he could show he had taken reasonable precautions; he was required to give a receipt for the animals in his care, could use a certain number for food, had no responsibility at all for those killed by lions or lightning. He was expected to return more than he was given, on the grounds that most ewes twin-birthed; anything lost through carelessness had to be repaid tenfold. Ya'akov's "by day or by night" infers he has covered losses beyond his legal requirement; we can therefore read a level of bitterness into the remark that may help explain some other parts of the story.
And in fact, with each added detail, the story-teller is making Ya'akov seem less and less a villain and Lavan more and more one, which may be clever story-telling, or may be truth coming out. It is left to each of us as reader to form a judgement.
TEREPHA (תרפה): this is indeed the Yiddish treyf that was hinted at above – and now made explicit! Some etymological work is needed to deduce how we get from cattle killed by wild beasts, to non-kosher foods in general, to household gods. But that is for another occasion (see Exodus 22:30)
31:40 HAYITI VA YOM ACHALANI CHOREV VE KERACH BA LAILAH VA TIDAD SHENATI ME EYNAI
הָיִיתִי בַיּוֹם אֲכָלַנִי חֹרֶב וְקֶרַח בַּלָּיְלָה וַתִּדַּד שְׁנָתִי מֵעֵינָי
KJ: Thus I was; in the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night; and my sleep departed from mine eyes.
BN: "Thus I was. In the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night; and sleep fled from my eyes...
This is intriguing. Note the word CHOREV (חרב), which is translated as "drought", but elsewhere is Mosheh's sacred mountain. It could be a description of the moon itself.
But Ya'akov chose to be an indentured servant, and this was the way of the world at the time. Has the Redactor now moved on to a completely different sermon, a look at the employment laws of the day and how the Mosaic Code updated the Hammurabic? Remember, again, this is being written for a people just returned from slavery in Babylon, where the Hammurabic Code was still in force, and though their slavery was not as hard as in Egypt, life can't have been easy (cf Psalm 137 and others).
31:41 ZEH LI ESRIM SHANAH BE VEITECHA AVADETIYCHA ARBA ESREH SHANAH BISHTEY VENOTEYCHA VE SHESH SHANIM BE TSONECHA VA TACHALEPH ET MASKURTI ASERTET MONIM
זֶה לִּי עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה בְּבֵיתֶךָ עֲבַדְתִּיךָ אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה בִּשְׁתֵּי בְנֹתֶיךָ וְשֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים בְּצֹאנֶךָ וַתַּחֲלֵף אֶת מַשְׂכֻּרְתִּי עֲשֶׂרֶת מֹנִים
KJ: Thus have I been twenty years in thy house; I served thee fourteen years for thy two daughters, and six years for thy cattle: and thou hast changed my wages ten times.
BN: "These twenty years have I been in your house; I served you fourteen years for your two daughters, and six years for your flock; and you have changed my wages ten times...
This now confirms that his speckled lambs trick took six years to complete, which would make some sense. It would however make even more sense if the seven years for Le'ah and for Rachel were king-years, and that his flight in the sixth year of his third period was because there was no princess left, but only ritual immolation. And guess what, en route home, at Penu-El, the immolation happens. So is this part of the third stage of the ritual, or did he fail to make his escape. Perhaps Lavan's chase is linked to the Penu-El rather than the Padan Aram story. And if it is, then we need to look at the Eurystheus-Herakles myth, and its parallel in the Sha'ul-David myth, to understand this in full. I would ask this: it took 3 days for Laban to know he had gone, and the ritual immolation (equivalent to the Crucifixion) takes place on the first of those 3 days, Good Friday, so to speak: in the original of this story, are the meeting at Gil'ad and the wrestling at Penu-El the same story? Is Lavan (in his mythological capacity as moon-god) the unnamed "man" who wrestles with Ya'akov? And is all of this taking place, where "dream" takes place, in the mythological underworld?
It may also be that, there being no other daughters to work for, he arranged a salary instead. He would still under Jubilee laws be entitled to leave after 7 years, but he was indentured to Lavan until then, and so his flight was indeed a breach of the law.
31:42 LULEY ELOHEY AVI ELOHEY AV-RAHAM U PACHAD YITSCHAK HAYAH LI KI ATAH REYKAM SHILACHTANI ET ANYIY VE ET YEGIYA KAPAI RA'AH ELOHIM VA YOCHACH AMESH
לוּלֵי אֱלֹהֵי אָבִי אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם וּפַחַד יִצְחָק הָיָה לִי כִּי עַתָּה רֵיקָם שִׁלַּחְתָּנִי אֶת עָנְיִי וְאֶת יְגִיַע כַּפַּי רָאָה אֱלֹהִים וַיּוֹכַח אָמֶשׁ
KJ: Except the God of my father, the God of Abraham, and the fear of Isaac, had been with me, surely thou hadst sent me away now empty. God hath seen mine affliction and the labour of my hands, and rebuked thee yesternight.
BN: "If the god of my father, the god of Av-Raham, and the fear of Yitschak, had not been on my side, I have no doubt that you would have sent me away empty-handed long ago. Elohim has seen how I have been treated, and how hard I have worked, and he gave his judgement last night."
Again there is more to this than meets the eye. The god gave judgement yesternight? In the dream that came to Lavan, telling him not to speak good or bad to Ya'akov: a sign that Ya'akov was protected; which is to say, that he had the Mark of Kayin on him, the protection of the Azaz-El?
PACHAD YITSCHAK (פחד יצחק): one of the myriad names used by Jews who do not wish to pronounce YHVH; it means, literally "Yitschak's fear", and obviously it refers to that moment of traumatic terror in Yitschak's life, from which no amount of post-shock therapy could ever provide a cure, which was the Akeda. What affliction, of any kind, let alone one that is comparable, has Ya'akov ever suffered? Being forced to marry four women, and become rich in flocks and herds? Not getting with his boss-cum-father-in-law. The important point here is the number of the gods evoked; we are still in a polytheistic world, despite the claim of monotheism.
End of sixth fragment, but not the end of the chapter, which I have merged with the first three verses of chapter 32, as that accords with the Jewish sedarim.
Surf The Site
Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
Copyright © 2020 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment