Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Torah

GIVE ME CHILDREN. The commentators said that this means that Rachel asked Jacob to pray on her behalf. Or else I die — Rashi comments: “For one who is childless may be considered as dead.” This is a Midrash of our Rabbis. But I wonder. If so, why was Jacob angry with her? And why did he say, Am I in G-d’s stead? for G-d hearkens to the righteous. [I wonder concerning] that which Jacob said [to Rachel, as quoted in Rashi: “You say that I should do as did my father, who prayed on behalf of Rebekah, but I am not circumstanced as my father was. My] father had no children at all. I, however, have children. It is from you that He had withheld children and not from me.” Do not the righteous pray on behalf of others? There were Elijah and Elisha who prayed on behalf of strange women. It would appear that on account of Jacob’s answer, our Rabbis took him to task, saying in Bereshith Rabbah: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Jacob, ‘Is this the way to answer a woman who is oppressed by her barrenness? By your life! Your children are destined to stand before her son Joseph!’” In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, Rachel asked of Jacob that he give her children, but her intent was truly to say that he should pray on her behalf and continue indeed to pray until G-d would, in any case, grant her children, and if not, she would mortify herself because of grief. In her envy she spoke improperly, thinking that because Jacob loved her he would fast, put on sackcloth with ashes, and pray until she would have children, so that she should not die of her grief.

AND JACOB’s ANGER WAS KINDLED. It is not in the power of the righteous that their prayer be heard and answered in any case, and because she spoke in the manner of yearning women who are loved, thus attempting to frighten him with her death, his anger was kindled. Therefore, he said to her that he is not in G-d’s stead that he should remember the barren ones by giving them children in any case, and he does not care about it since it is from her that children were withheld and not from him. He said this in order to admonish her and shame her. Now the righteous woman Rachel, seeing that she could not rely upon Jacob’s prayer, then went to pray on her own behalf to Him Who hears the cry of those in trouble. This is the sense of the verse, And G-d hearkened to her. Perhaps we can rectify Jacob’s retort in consonance with the opinion of our Rabbis [who related that Jacob said to Rachel, “It is from you that He has withheld children and not from me,”] for it is impossible to think that Jacob did not pray on behalf of his beloved wife who was barren, however his prayer was not accepted. Now Rachel came to him with a pretext saying that he should, in any case, give her children through his prayer for he is not of less stature than his father who did so. At this, his anger was kindled and he said to her that the matter is up to G-d and not to him, and that his father’s prayer was heard because he was a righteous man and was destined to have children, but here it is from her that He has withheld children. This is a correct interpretation.

AND SHE BORE ‘L’YAAKOV’ (TO JACOB) A SON. In the case of all the handmaids Scripture mentions the phrase, to Jacob [in connection with the birth of their children], in order to relate that Jacob desired and acknowledged them and that they were not called by him “sons of the handmaids,” but “sons of Jacob,” just like the sons of the mistresses who traced their lineage to him. In the case of the fifth and sixth sons of Leah it also says, to Jacob,, Verses 17 and 19. since due to her abundance of sons, Scripture deems it necessary to say that Jacob desired and befriended all of them. This is not mentioned in connection with the birth of the first [four sons of Leah because it is obvious that Jacob desired them].

WHEN LEAH SAW THAT SHE HAD LEFT OFF BEARING SHE TOOK ZILPAH HER HANDMAID, etc. I do not know what motivated this deed of Leah and why she gave her handmaid to her husband for she was not barren that she should hope to have children through Zilpah, and it is not natural for women to increase the number of their husbands’ wives. We must, however, say that the matriarchs were prophetesses, who knew that Jacob was destined to establish twelve tribes, and Leah desired that the majority of his sons be from her or from her handmaid, who was in her power, so that her sister Rachel would not prevail over her with respect to the number of her sons. Therefore, she said, G-d hath given me my share, because I have given my handmaid to my husband. Jacob also came unto her on account of this, i.e., that he raise many sons for he knew it to be so, as our Rabbis have said. It is possible that knowing that the Land had been given to their children, and realizing that Abraham and Isaac had not had many children, Jacob wanted to have many wives in order to increase his progeny so as to inherit the Land, for a fourth generation shall come hither again, and so Leah wanted to give him her handmaid so that he would not wed a stranger.

‘DUDA’IM.’ These are ‘sigli’ (violets). In Arabic it is called jasmin. So I found in Rashi’s commentary. But this is not so for the Arabic jasmin bears the same name in the words of our Rabbis, as they say in the chapter Bameh Tomnin: “Poppy pomace flavored with jasmin may be used [as a lotion on the Sabbath],” while they say sigli is an odorous herb concerning which they have said that on smelling it, one recites the blessing: “Blessed art Thou… who createst odorous plants.” However, their season is not in the days of the wheat, but perhaps Reuben found them there by chance. It is best to accept Onkelos’ opinion concerning the translation of duda’im, which he rendered as yavruchin (mandrakes). In Bereshith Rabbah it is also explained similarly: “Rabbi Chiya the son of Rabbi Abba said, ‘Yavruchin,’” and these are yavruach in Arabic. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “Onkelos translated duda’im as ‘mandrakes,’ and so they are called in Arabic. They have a good odor. And it is so written: The mandrakes give forth fragrance. They resemble the human form as they have the shape of the human head and hands. Now some say that they are an aid to pregnancy, but I do not know it since their effect is to produce the cold fluid in the body.” These are Ibn Ezra’s words. The correct interpretation is that Rachel wanted the duda’im for delight and pleasure, for Rachel was visited with children through prayer, not by medicinal methods. And Reuben brought the branches of duda’im or the fruit, which resemble apples and have a good odor. The stem, however, which is shaped in the form of the human head and hands, he did not bring, and it is the stem which people say is an aid to pregnancy. And if the matter be true, it is by some peculiar effect, not by its natural quality. But I have not seen it thus in any of the medicinal books discussing mandrakes.

IS IT A SMALL MATTER THAT THOU HAST TAKEN AWAY MY HUSBAND? The intent thereof is as follows: “Is it a small matter that you take my husband unto yourself as if you are his wife and I am the handmaid? Will you now also make yourself the mistress to take the mandrakes in whose odor I delight?” It is possible that Rachel wanted the mandrakes in honor of Jacob to perfume his couch. Leah had done in the customary way of women, just as it is written, I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes and cinnamon. Therefore, Leah said, Is it a small matter that thou hast taken away my husband from me that you now also take my son’s mandrakes to win him over with them? And some scholars say that duda’im are herbs, which act as a male aphrodisiac, the word being derived from the expression, the time of ‘dodim’ (love). Therefore Leah said, Is it a small matter that thou hast taken away my husband? as I have mentioned.

G-D HATH ‘Z’VADANI’ (ENDOWED) ME WITH A GOOD ‘ZEVED’ (DOWRY). The commentators have not found the source of this word in the Sacred Language. We could perhaps say that zeved is a composite word formed from zeh bad, just as is the word madua, [which is composed of the two words, mah dua, meaning “what is the opinion of this matter” or simply “why”] or the word bagad in its written form. [It is read, however, as two words: ba gad (good luck cometh.)] Since the vowel signs segol and patach interchange in many places, particularly in composite words, [the second segol in zeved could have come from the patach of bad: zeh bad]. So also in the word tzalmaveth, [which consists of the two words: tzeil maveth (the shade of death)], and the word biladai, [composed of bal ad (except unto, except unto me, or except me)]. And the second part (bad) of the word zeved comes from the word badim (branches), as in, ‘badei’ (staves) of accacia-wood; And it brought forth ‘badim’ (branches), and shot forth sprigs. The thick branches of a tree are called badim, and then the word was appropriated to mean “children,” as in, The first-born of death shall devour ‘badav’ (his sons); His ill-founded ‘badav’ (sons)., etc. Therefore Leah said that this son whom G-d had given her would be a good son for he will cause her husband to reside in her shadow, as “he will now ‘yizbleini’ (dwell with me) in my shadow.” Similarly, I have surely built Thee a house ‘z’vul’ (of habitation), meaning “in order to abide in His shadow.” This was said in this fashion out of respect for the Supreme One, just as Solomon said, Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee, how much less this house that I have builded!, Verse 27. Likewise, The sun and moon stand still ‘z’vulah’ (in their habitation), meaning “stand still in the place where they abide,” as it is said, In them [the heavens] hath He set a tent for the sun. Now Onkelos translated zeved tov as a good portion. I did not understand his reasoning until I saw in the Jerusalem Targum: (translations) of the Pentateuch are Onkelos, Yonathan, and Yerushalmi. The latter has not reached us in its entirety. “The word of G-d has outfitted me (zavad) with good provision.” [Zavad is written here with two vavim instead of the beth with which the word zeved is written in the Torah.] From this I learned that both Onkelos and the Jerusalem Targum considered the word zeved of the Torah, which is spelled with the letter beth, as if it were written with the letter vav, and they connected it to the Aramaic language which translates the Hebrew word tzeidah (provision) as zvadim (provisions). Leah thus said that G-d had made this son a good provision and a good portion for her because her husband, due to her many children, will now live mainly with her, and thus she will be supported together with him when it is well with him. The vav and the beth are used interchangeably in our language in many places, such as: ta’avah (desire) written with a vav, and ta’avah, written with a beth; geivi (My back) — [written with a vav] — I have given to the smiters, and, Upon ‘gabi’ (my back) — [written with a beth] — the plowers plowed. So also, ‘Lekitzvei’ (To the bottoms) — [written with a beth] — of the mountains I went down, is as if it were written, lekitzvei with a vav. Also, ‘Laparbor’ (For the precinct) — [written with a beth] — westward, four at the causeway, serves as the basis of the word parvor, written with a vav, as it is written, By the chamber of Nethan-melech the officer, which was ‘baparvorim’ (in the precincts), written with a vav, and the meaning of both forms, [whether written with a beth or vav] is the Court which is outside the wall. ‘Umigrash’ (And open land) round about the cities, is rendered by the Jerusalem Targum as, uparvor. And so did the Jonathan Targum translate migrashoth (open lands) as parvoraya. In the Mishnah we also find the vav and the beth interchange: “A tarvad (spoon)-full,” written with a vav, and in some editions it is written, tarbad, with a beth; “A board which has no levizbeiz (edges),” written with a beth, and in certain places they use the word lizbeiz, written with a beth, while in other places they use lizveiz written with a vav. Also, itztaba (a balcony), written with a beth, and itztava, written with a vav, and many other similar words. In the Jerusalem Talmud they also write avir (space) with a beth in place of the usual vav, as they were not particular about that.

G-D ‘OSAPH’ (HATH TAKEN AWAY) MY DISGRACE. I.e., “He has laid it up somewhere where it cannot be seen.” Similar examples are: And it shall not ‘yei’aseph’ (have been taken away) into the house; And the stars ‘asphu’ (withdraw) their shining; Neither shall thy moon ‘yei’aseph’ (withdraw itself), meaning it shall not hide itself. This is the language of Rashi. But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that asaph has the same meaning as “vanish,” as in, ‘Vene’esaph’ (And vanish) will joy and gladness., 16:10. The correct opinion is that of Onkelos, who made them all expressions of gathering and assembling, as is their plain sense, derived from the verses: ‘Vaya’asphu’ (And they gathered) the quails; But ‘me’asphav’ (they who have garnered it) shall eat it. Death is called asiphah because the dying person is gathered to his dead ancestors. And it shall not ‘yei’aseph’ into the house means to be gathered to his household. And the stars ‘asphu’ their shining means that they will gather the light within them and not give forth their light outside, or that they will be gathered into their tent, which is in the firmament of the heaven. The word asiphah is used in connection with disgrace, meaning that the disgraced person should be gathered and not spread among people, i.e., to be discussed further in the streets.

‘NICHASHTI’ I HAVE OBSERVED THE SIGNS AND THE ETERNAL HATH BLESSED ME FOR THY SAKE. That is, “on account of you and your merit for you are a righteous man.” The word nichashti means “I have tested,” and every form of nichesh connotes testing. And some say that Laban was a diviner with teraphim. Jacob, however, said, And the Eternal hath blessed thee ‘leragli’ (since my coming), but, in a humble manner, he did not want to say “for my sake.” Thus, he said leragli, meaning that “from the time I set my foot in your house, you have been blessed.”

AND HOW THY CATTLE HAVE FARED WITH ME. “You know the number of your few cattle that were entrusted to me at first.” These are Rashi’s words. That is to say, “You know how few your cattle were when they were entrusted to me.” But according to Rashi’s interpretation, it would have been more proper had he said, “and your cattle which were with me:” you know for it was little which thou hadst before I came, and it hath increased abundantly. Or, we shall explain: “Thou knowest how I have served thee since I have done it with all my strength, and thou knowest how thy cattle have fared with me, for a long time has passed since then, and thou knowest for it was little which thou hadst before I came, and it hath increased abundantly, in an unnatural way. It is only The blessing of the Eternal [that] maketh rich, which came from the time I set foot in your house.” This is the correct interpretation.

WHEN SHALL I PROVIDE ‘GAM’ (ALSO) FOR MINE OWN HOUSE? “At present, my sons alone provide for my needs, but I also ought to work together with them and assist them.” This is the force of the word gam (also). These are Rashi’s words. But we do not find that Jacob had his own sheep, nor do we find mentioned anywhere that his young children — the oldest of whom was six years or less — tended them. It was possible that before Jacob came, Laban had children younger than Rachel [Jacob] heard the words of Laban’s sons, (further, 31:1). We must say that these sons were born to him after Jacob came. and now they were fit to tend the flock. [However, Jacob’s children were still very young.] Perhaps Jacob referred to his wives and servants, who he said did his work for him. But all this is not correct. The meaning of, When shall I provide also for mine house? is: “When shall I provide for my house just as I have also done for your house.” Similarly, And he loved also Rachel from Leah, means “And he loved Rachel also more than he loved Leah.” And similarly, Also thee I would have slain, means “Also I would have slain thee.” And there are many other such verses.

SPECKLED AND SPOTTED. This means speckled or spotted. And every ‘chum’ among the sheep — commentators have explained chum as meaning “black,” since blackness comes from heat (cham). But this does not appear to me to be correct since most sheep are black, particularly in the eastern countries where it is warm, and if so, all sheep would then belong to Jacob. The correct interpretation is the rendition of Onkelos, namely, that chum is reddish or brownish, called rouge in Old French, and so did Rashi explain it. Chum would then be from the root; the light of ‘hachamah’ (the sun), since it is like the sun which is somewhat red. AND OF SUCH SHALL BE MY HIRE. Rashi comments: “Those which from now on will be born speckled and spotted among the goats, and the brownish ones amongst the sheep shall belong to me.” And so also is the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra. The meaning of the expression, every one among the flock speckled and spotted, is that it refers to the he-goats; and the spotted and speckled among the goats refers to the she-goats, just as Scripture said, And he removed that day the he-goats … and all the she-goats. And the meaning of the expression, every one that had white in it, is that it refers to those mentioned, [namely, the spotted and the speckled among the he-goats and the she-goats], and all the brownish among the sheep. [Thus, according to Rashi and Ibn Ezra, Jacob’s hire was to be all spotted and speckled he-goats and she-goats that will henceforth be born, and also the reddish ones among the sheep, but not the spotted and speckled among the sheep.] In my opinion, all the spotted and speckled among the sheep, as well as all brownish ones, were to be Jacob’s hire since he did not make among his sticks any with a brownish color, in which case he caused himself the loss of his hire from among the sheep, which are the best of the flock. Similarly, in his dream, he was shown the rams which went up on the flocks were ringstraked, speckled, there being no brownish ones among them. And the meaning of the verse before us is: removing from there every one of the flock speckled and spotted and all brownish ones among the sheep, and removing the spotted and the speckled among the goats, and they shall be my hire, namely, the three colors among the sheep — speckled, spotted, and brownish — and two among the goats — spotted and speckled. And he further said, So shall my righteousness answer for me in time to come, that everyone that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and all brownish among the sheep, that shall be accounted stolen with me.

AND HE REMOVED THAT DAY THE HE-GOATS. The meaning thereof is that Scripture relates that Jacob had said in a general way, removing from there … the spotted and the speckled among the goats, [which, according to Ramban’s opinion explained above, refers only to the she-goats], but Laban was afraid of the influence of the male seed, and so he removed the he-goats that were even ringstraked, having a little white on their feet at the spot where they are bound, and he removed from the sheep every one that had white in it together with all the brownish ones. Now if every one that had white in it means that he removed from among the he-goats and she-goats all that had any white color in them, whether ringstraked or grizzled, in that case, and all brownish among the sheep is in addition to the colors mentioned [for, as we have seen, Ramban is of the opinion that Jacob’s hire from the sheep was from all three colors]. The reason why they added the brownish color to the hire from the sheep is that it is not in their nature to be born with the same colors as he-goats and she-goats, and it is not in the nature of goats to be brownish.

AND JACOB TOOK HIM STICKS OF POPLAR. As soon as they agreed that his hire would be these colors it was permissible for Jacob to do whatever he could to cause them to give birth in this manner. Perhaps Jacob had made a condition that he may do with them whatever he wants since Laban did not know of the ramifications of this measure, nor did Laban’s shepherds sense anything when they saw the sticks in the gutters once a year during the days of Nisan. For When the flocks were feeble in the days of Tishri, he did not put them in, otherwise not a hoof would have remained for Laban. Now some commentators say that the first year [Jacob did not make use of these sticks, but] there were born to him many speckled and spotted ones by virtue of G-d’s blessing which the angel showed him. And then he put the sticks in front of those which were his so that they should give birth in their form. This would prevent Laban from saying that their offspring was stolen by Jacob, [as he would have claimed had they given birth to other colored offspring]. This is the meaning of whensoever the stronger flocks became heated, referring to those that had been born to Jacob by way of G-d’s blessing; but when the flocks of Laban were feeble, he put them not in; so that the feebler were Laban’s, for they did not give birth to speckled ones, and the stronger were all Jacob’s, including their offspring, for they gave birth to speckled ones.

AND JACOB SEPARATED THE LAMBS. Rashi comments: “Those sheep that were thus born spotted on the ankles and speckled, he separated and set apart by themselves, thus forming them into a separate flock. The spotted flock he led in front of the ordinary sheep so that the faces of the sheep that followed behind them were gazing at them. This is what Scripture means in saying, And he set the faces of the flocks towards the spotted; the faces of the sheep were directed towards the spotted animals and towards all that were brownish which were found amongst Laban’s sheep. And he put his own droves by themselves, and set them not with Laban’s flocks, as I have already explained.” This is the Rabbi’s [Rashi’s] language. But his words here are not correct. For why did Jacob separate the spotted lambs so that there did not remain in Laban’s flock any speckled or brownish ones, neither in the sheep nor in the goats? And if those that he separated were the ringstraked, speckled and spotted which the sheep had given birth to and which belonged to him, and it was from them that he made this spotted flock, why did he separate only the lambs and did not take also the he-goats and she-goats which were born spotted and make from all of them this spotted flock which he led before the sheep? Moreover, Scripture makes no mention of the fact that brownish ones were born. And again, according to the opinion of the Rabbi [Rashi], there were no ringstraked and spotted among the lambs for these were not his hire. Only the brownish were, and for the brownish he had made no sticks. But the explanation of the verse is that Jacob separated the lambs from the goats and made from them a separate flock. Now he had a flock of brownish lambs and a flock of spotted and speckled goats. He then had the faces of all the flocks — of the lambs and of the goats — directed towards the ringstraked and towards all the brownish which were in the flock of Laban, since he put the ringstraked before the goats and all the brownish before the lambs, this being in accordance with the opinion of the earlier Rabbis, [Rashi and Ibn Ezra, as explained above], or, according to [Ramban’s] opinion, the ringstraked and all the brownish before the lamb. For the purpose of the separation of the lambs from the goats was on account of the brownish which were his hire from the lambs alone. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that Scripture is saying, Jacob separated [only] the lambs and set the faces of the flocks, which refer to the above mentioned lambs, to the ringstraked and all the brownish in the flock of Laban, and he put his own droves of the ringstraked and the brownish by themselves, and he set them not with Laban’s flocks, for these, [the ringstraked and the brownish], were his hire. And the meaning of the expression, in the flock of Laban, is that he did so with all of Laban’s flocks but not that they belonged to Laban since the ringstraked among the lambs were Jacob’s. Now do not ask why Scripture at first says “lambs” and then says “the faces of the flocks” rather than “the faces of the lambs”, for it is normal for Scripture to express itself this way. In this section there is a similar case in connection with the mountain of Gilead.. “The mountain” mentioned at the beginning of the verse is the “mountain of Gilead” mentioned at the end. And the reason Jacob did this with the lambs more than with the goats is that there were no brownish ones among the sticks he put up. It is possible that he knew that because of their heaviness, it is natural for lambs to require many signs to arouse them — more than the light-weight he-goats require.

THE FLOCKS ‘HAMEKUSHAROTH.’ The correct interpretation of this expression appears to me to be that they are the flocks in which the males follow the females at all times, never leaving them due to their abundant desire, as in the expression, Seeing that his soul is ‘keshurah’ (bound up) with the lad’s soul. This is also found in the language of our Sages: “a swine karuch (clinging) to a ewe;” “clinging to her.” And the offspring born at that time are called hakeshurim after the name of their father. But many authorities say that keshurim are “the strong ones” whose limbs are firmly attached to each other with a strong tie, as this is the basis of health, while atuphim are “the weak ones” whose soul ‘tithataph’ (fainted) in them, and who have no desire, as in the expression, ‘ha’atuphim’ (that faint) for hunger. Onkelos translated hamekusharoth as the early-bearing sheep, and atuphim as the late-bearing ones, for such is the fact: [the early-bearing sheep are the stronger ones, and the late-bearing ones are weaker].