Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Torah

THAT WITH ALL MY POWER I HAVE SERVED YOUR FATHER. That is, “from the outset, and he has been blessed since my coming.” It is possible that Laban’s flocks had been many, but that even the feebler ones were blessed since Jacob came, for Laban’s sons complained only out of jealousy of Jacob that he had gotten all this wealth.

AND YOUR FATHER HATH MOCKED ME, AND CHANGED MY WAGES TEN TIMES. This was true, even though Scripture did not previously relate it. And so too did Jacob tell Laban: And thou hast changed my wages ten times. There are many similar places in the Torah. For example, in this earlier section, Scripture did not relate that Leah gave the mandrakes to Rachel [although the event is referred to later in Verse 16: for I have hired thee with my son’s mandrakes].

IF HE SAID THUS: THE SPECKLED SHALL BE THY WAGES. The meaning thereof is that at first Laban agreed to give Jacob the two appearances the speckled and the spotted — also the brownish lambs. Then he retracted and agreed to give him another color, and thus he changed it every year. The flocks, however, gave birth accordingly. This was not due to the power of the sticks, for he was telling them of the deed of the Great G-d who treated him wondrously each and every year, just as he said, But G-d suffered him not to do me evil. It is also possible that Laban changed his wages after the flocks became pregnant and gave birth in accordance with Jacob’s will, it pleasing the Creator to do so. [In this case, it clearly was not due to the power of the sticks.] And so we find in Bereshith Rabbah: “The Holy One, blessed be He, foresaw what Laban was destined to do to our father Jacob, and He created the form of the sheep to conform to the colors Laban was to stipulate. Thus, it is not written here, ‘If he said (amar) thus,’ but it is written, ‘If he will say (yomar) thus,’” [indicating that G-d foresaw what Laban was destined to stipulate to Jacob].

AND IT CAME TO PASS AT THE TIME THAT THE FLOCK CONCEIVED. This was after Laban changed his wages, and therefore the angel said to Jacob, For I have seen all that Laban does unto thee. AND, BEHOLD THE HE-GOATS WHICH WENT UP ON THE FLOCKS [WERE RINGSTRAKED, SPECKLED, AND GRIZZLED]. The meaning thereof is that it was shown to Jacob in a dream that the he-goats which mounted the flocks were all ringstraked, and afterwards they were all speckled, and still later they were all grizzled. And the angel told him that in view of the injustice which Laban does him by changing his wages, the future offspring will have the appearance which Jacob will need, and that henceforth Jacob should not make the sticks, for Whoso putteth his trust in the Eternal shall be set up on high. AND, BEHOLD, ‘HA’ATUDIM’ WHICH WENT UP ON THE FLOCKS. He-goats and rams are called atudim for all the adults in the flocks are so called. This applies also to the mighty ones among men, as in: ‘atudei’ (the chief ones) of the earth. And Rashi comments: “Although Laban had separated all these so that the sheep should not give birth to young marked similarly to them, angels brought them from the flock which had been placed in charge of Laban’s sons to the flock in Jacob’s charge.” In line with the simple meaning of Scripture this was a vision assuring Jacob that the flocks would give birth to young similar to the marked rams and he-goats, and the proof of it is the word vehinei (and behold), for this expression is used with respect to all dreams, indicating that it is as if the action is in the presence of the dreamer. In Bereshith Rabbah, the Sages did not mention the angels [bringing the marked ones from the flocks of Laban], but it may be inferred by exegesis. Thus they said: “It is not written here olim (went up) but ha’olim (those that mounted),” [meaning those which actually mounted. Thus the dream only indicated the action of the atudim which came from Laban’s flocks and that they were ringstraked, speckled, etc. However, the fact that they came was not part of the dream. This really occurred since the angels brought them]. But the plain sense of the verse is as we have said.

I AM THE G-D OF BETH-EL. Jacob related to his wives all that G-d’s angel had told him in the dream, all this serving to persuade them to go with him. However, what he told did not consist of one dream. The statement, Lift up now thine eyes, and see, all the he-goats was made to him when he served Laban for his flock, at the time the flock conceived in one of the first years. The statement, I am the G-d of Beth-el was made to him after that, at the time of the journey, for after He said to him, Now arise, get thee out from this land, he no longer remained in Haran to further tend Laban’s flocks so that the he-goats would mount the flocks and the flocks would give birth to speckled and spotted. But on the morrow of the dream, he sent for Rachel and Leah and told them his dream, and they left Haran. I am ‘ha’e-il’ (the G-d) of Beth-el. The meaning thereof is, as Rashi explained it, that the letter hei in ha’e-il is redundant and is the same as if it were written: “I am e-il Beth-el (the G-d of Beth-el).” Similarly, To ‘ha’aretz’ (the land) of Canaan; [the hei is redundant and is the same as if it were written: “to eretz Canaan (the land of Canaan).”] Grammarians adjusted it by saying that it is as if it were written, “I am the G-d, who is the G-d of Beth-el.” Similarly, And the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, [which is as if it said: “and the tree of the knowledge, namely the knowledge of good and evil”]; the cords of gold, [which is as if it said, “the cords, which are cords of gold]. And the angel here speaks in the name of He Who sent him, [therefore, he speaks in the first person and says, “I am, etc.”] …. WHERE THOU DIDST ANOINT A PILLAR, WHERE THOU DIDST VOW A VOW UNTO ME. The meaning thereof is that “you have vowed to worship the Proper Name of the Eternal in the Chosen Land, and that this stone should be to you a house of G-d in which to set aside your tithes, and if you further delay the fulfillment of your vows, G-d might yet be angry at your voice.”

AND RACHEL STOLE THE TERAPHIM. Her intention was to wean her father from idol-worship. This is the language of Rashi. Now it is possible that Laban used the teraphim for idol worship, as he himself said, Why hast thou stolen my gods? But not all teraphim were for the purpose of worship, for how could one find idolatry in the house of our lord David. That which the commentators say seems reasonable, namely, that these are vessels to receive a knowledge of the hours, and they divine with them in order to gain knowledge of future events. The word teraphim is derived from the expressions: ‘rephai’ (weak) handed; ‘nirpim’ (idle) ye are, idle. They are called “teraphim” in order to hint by their name that their words are like a weak prophecy, usually occurring as a prophecy for many days hence and turning out to be false, just as the prophets have said, For the teraphim have spoken vanity. People of little faith set them up for themselves as gods. They do not seek to know by the glorious name of the Eternal, nor do they offer their prayers to Him. Rather, their deeds are guided by divination revealed to them by the teraphim. Thus it is written, And the man Micah had a house of G-d, and he made an ephod, and teraphim, and it is further written there, Ask counsel, we pray thee, of G-d that we may know whether our way which we are going shall be prosperous,, 18:5. for they used to ask of the teraphim. Such also was the case in Israel with the ephod, for, having been accustomed to the sacred ephod they made something similar in form, and they would seek guidance of it, believe in its words, and blunder after it. Even in sickness they sought not G-d but only them. This is the meaning of the verse, And Gideon made an ephod thereof, and put it in his city, even in Ophrah; and all Israel went astray after it there; and it became a snare unto Gideon, and to his house, for they turned aside from following the Eternal. Now Laban was a diviner and an enchanter, just as he said, I have divined. His country, too, was ever a land of diviners, as it is written, For they are replenished from the east, and with soothsayers like the Philistines, and Balaam the son of Beor the diviner was from his city. And this is the meaning of, Why hast thou stolen my gods?

ON THE THIRD DAY. For there was a journey of three days between them. Seven days’ journey— throughout these three days during which the messenger had travelled to tell Laban that Jacob had proceeded on his journey, Jacob was consequently a six days’ journey distance from Laban. On the seventh day, [that is, on the day during which Jacob covered the stretch of ground which made him seven days’ journey distance from Laban’s starting point, Laban] overtook him. We may thus infer that the entire distance which Jacob covered in six days, Laban covered in one day. These are the words of Rashi quoting Bereshith Rabbah. It is correct that Laban should proceed as a strong man to run his course, for such is the way of pursuers. However, Laban had set a three days’ journey between his flock and the flock which was in Jacob’s care, not between the city and his flock. Thus if Laban tended his flocks to the east of the city, Jacob did so to the west, and between them there was a three days’ journey. Now Jacob began his journey from the city, in which were his wives, sons and daughters, and all his belongings with the exception of the flocks. The fact of his flight was told to Laban on the third day since they were not aware of it on the first day, and then Laban returned to his nearby city and took his brethren from there, and starting from his city he pursued him for seven days. [Hence, it should have been said that what Jacob covered in ten days Laban covered in seven days!] We must say then, according to the opinion of Bereshith Rabbah, that it was from the field where the flocks were that Jacob left for the journey, and that Laban took his brethren with him from the shearers of his flocks. [Since there was a three days’ journey between them at the outset and Jacob had already travelled for three days, they were thus six travel days apart. On that day Laban was informed, and the following day he pursued him and overtook him. Jacob meanwhile had covered an additional day’s distance, with the result that the distance Jacob travelled in seven days, Laban covered in one day]. In Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer it appears that Laban returned to his city, and from there he took all mighty men and all valiant ones, and he pursued Jacob from there.

AND HE OVERTOOK HIM IN THE MOUNTAIN OF GILEAD. For on the eve of the seventh day Laban reached the base of the mountain, and he saw Jacob encamped at a distance. That night he slept below Jacob’s camp and the dream came to him.

LABAN THE ARAMEAN. The intent of this is to relate that even though he was an Aramean, and the people of his place used teraphim and were soothsayers like the Philistines, yet the prophetic dream came to him in honor of the righteous one [Jacob]. Similarly, And Jacob outwitted Laban the Aramean: [the epithet “Aramean” is mentioned in order to indicate that] even though Laban was the Aramean, the diviner and owner of teraphim, [he was still outwitted by Jacob]. EITHER GOOD OR BAD. [Why should he not speak good?] Because all the good that the wicked do is looked upon by the righteous as bad. This is Rashi’s language. But the plain meaning thereof is as follow: “Take heed that you speak not to Jacob and promise to treat him well if he will return with you from his journey, or lest you threaten to do him evil if he will not come with you, for it is I Who commanded him to return to his land.”

IN THE TENT OF JACOB AND IN THE TENT OF LEAH. Rashi comments: “In the tent of Jacob — this was Rachel’s tent, for he was constantly with her. And so also Scripture says, The sons of Rachel Jacob’s wife, while in the case of the other wives it does not say ‘Jacob’s wife.’ And he entered into Rachel’s tent. When Laban left Leah’s tent he returned again to Rachel’s tent before he searched the tent of the two maid-servants. And why did he feel compelled to do all this? Because he knew her to be inclined to touch everything.” But in line with the plain meaning of Scripture, it is not correct for the same tent to be called by two names, [i.e., “the tent of Jacob” and “the tent of Rachel”] in one verse. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that Laban entered into the tent of Jacob, the tent of Leah, and the tent of the two maid-servants [the singular form “tent” being used] since one tent served both. Afterwards he came back a second time to Leah’s tent, and after that he entered into Rachel’s tent. But this too is incorrect. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra further wrote: “The feasible interpretation appears to me to be that Scripture followed here a way of brevity and delayed mentioning the tent of Rachel in order to state concerning all of the others, but he found them not, as they were not there. Scripture then returns and explains that when he went out of Leah’s tent he came into Rachel’s tent where the teraphim were.” That is the correct interpretation. It is true that there were separate tents for all of the wives for this was due to the righteous man’s regard for modesty. Thus each one of the wives had a separate tent so that one should not know when he came to the other. It is also a matter forbidden by Torah law, as the Sages have mentioned in Tractate Niddah. And Jacob had a special tent, in which he would eat at his table with his children and people of the household. And the reason why Scripture mentions Jacob’s wife in connection with Rachel in my opinion, according to its simple sense, is that she is mentioned in that chapter among the concubines. For this reason Scripture does not say so in the Seder Vayishlach Yaakov, for there it mentions Leah and Rachel and then the maid-servants.

LET NOT MY LORD BE ANGRY THAT I CANNOT RISE UP BEFORE THEE. I do not understand what kind of an apology this is. Do women in that condition not rise or stand? Perhaps she said that her head and limbs feel heavy, and she was sick on account of the menstruation, for such is the customary way among them, and all the more among those such as Rachel, whose birth-giving powers are diminished since they have little blood, and menstruation presses very heavily upon them. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that in ancient days menstruants kept very isolated for they were ever referred to as niddoth on account of their isolation since they did not approach people and did not speak with them. For the ancients in their wisdom knew that their breath is harmful, their gaze is detrimental and makes a bad impression, as the philosophers have explained. I will yet mention their experiences in this matter. And the menstruants dwelled isolated in tents where no one entered, just as our Rabbis have mentioned in the Beraitha that for some reason had not been included in the Mishnah by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi. The collection of Beraithoth was compiled by Rabbi Chiyah and Rabbi Oshayah. They are generally found in the Tosephta. which follows the order of the Mishnah. of Tractate Niddah:. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 177, and commencing with the second edition also on p. 548, column 2, top of page. “A learned man or talmud here is not clear. is forbidden to greet a menstruant. Rabbi Nechemyah says, ‘Even the utterance of her mouth is unclean.’ Said Rabbi Yochanan: ‘One is forbidden to walk after a menstruant and tread upon her footsteps, which are as unclean as a corpse; so is the dust upon which the menstruant stepped unclean, and it is forbidden to derive any benefit from her work.’” Therefore Rachel said, “It would be proper for me to rise before my lord to kiss his hands, but the way of women is upon me, and I cannot come near you nor walk at all in the tent so that you should not tread upon the dust of my feet.” And Laban kept silent and did not answer her, as it was customary not to converse with them at all because the speech of a menstruant was unclean.

AND JACOB WAS WROTH, AND QUARRELLED WITH LABAN. Jacob had originally given him permission to search the tents, for he said, With whomsoever thou findest thy gods, and he further said, before our brethren recognize what is thine with me, and how could Laban find it if not by searching and handling? At first, however, Jacob feared lest one of the wives or servants had stolen Laban’s gods, and now that he saw that they were not with them his anger was aroused, for he said, “He did not lose his gods, only he is seeking a quarrel with me.” So he said, “Why have you hotly pursued after me as one pursues a thief? You have not found in my possession anything of all thy household stuff though I was entitled to take from you all I could for you have changed my hire ten times, and you demanded of me recompense for the animals that were torn by beasts, and I paid you, though not legally by law required to do so.”

AND THE FEAR OF ISAAC HAD BEEN ON MY SIDE. “He did not want to say “G-d of Isaac” because G-d does not associate His name with the righteous during their lifetime. Although G-d said to Jacob when he was departing from the Land of Israel, I am the Eternal, the G-d of Abraham thy father and the G-d of Isaac, this was because Isaac’s eyes were dim, and he might therefore be regarded as dead. Jacob, however, feared to say so, [and instead said, ‘the Fear of Isaac’].” Thus the words of Rashi. It is also the opinion of Onkelos that pachad Yitzchak means “his G-d,” for he translated it as: “He Whom Isaac fears.” And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said: “Isaac’s fear of G-d helped me, for the merit of the father helps the son. And Jacob swore ‘bepachad’ of his father Isaac, — by Him Whom Isaac fears.” Ibn Ezra’s explanations of the same expression are thus not alike. Ibn Ezra further wrote, “And there are some who say that this ‘fear’ is an allusion to the day of Isaac’s Binding.” This is not far fetched. By way of the Truth [namely, the mystic lore of the Cabala] the language fits its plain meaning and intent, that is, it refers to the attribute of Justice on high. Based on this, Scripture says: Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Eternal their G-d, and David their king; and shall come trembling unto the Eternal and to His goodness in the end of days. The verse is stating that they will seek the Merciful One and the attribute of Justice on earth, and bring the Fear of Isaac to G-d and His goodness mentioned. ‘VAYOCHACH’ YESTERNIGHT. “The word here has the meaning of ‘reproof’ [and he reproved] and not of ‘clarification.’” These are the words of Rashi. But is is more correct to say that it is an expression meaning “clarification.” Since Jacob said above, ‘veyochichu’ (that they may judge) between us both, he now said that it is G-d, Who knows the hidden secrets, Who should clarify the dispute between the two of them. This is why Jacob did not say, vayochach othcha emesh, [which would mean, “and He reproved ‘thee’ yesternight,” for the meaning of the word is not “rebuke” but “clarify”].

AND TO MY DAUGHTERS, WHAT CAN I DO TO THESE TODAY? Commentators have said that it is as if it were written, “And to my daughters, what could I do to them today?” and the word “them” constitutes additional clarification. Likewise, As we both of us have sworn, [the word “we” serving as additional clarification]; We, our sons and our daughters, [the word “we” is here too mentioned for the greater clarity]. But it appears to be more correct that this is said in a compassionate way: “And to my daughters, what can I do to these who are before me, for I am deeply stirred for them, or unto their children, who have been born in my house, and they are to me as my children?” This is also the meaning of whom they have borne. Laban thus said this as if defending himself against Jacob’s words by claiming: “I have come after you to see my daughters, and to determine what favor I can do for them or their children. Now I can do them this good by seeing that you make me a covenant that you will not afflict them and will take no other wives in addition to them.”

‘VEHAYAH’ FOR A WITNESS. This means, “And let the Holy One, blessed be He, serve as a witness.” These are the words of Rashi. But this is not the usual sense of the expression. Rather, Laban is saying, “And let the covenant be for a witness between us, for he who violates it should be cursed with all the curses of the covenant,” similar in meaning to the verse, And they shall be upon thee for a sign and for a wonder., 28:46. The meaning of the verse here may be: “Let us establish a covenant by a permanent thing which will serve as a witness between us.” For this reason, Jacob set up a stone as a pillar, and this is the meaning of that which he said, This stone-heap be witness, and this pillar be witness. A similar meaning is found in the verse, And Joshua said unto all the people: Behold, this stone shall be a witness against us.

AND JACOB SAID UNTO HIS BRETHREN. I.e., to Laban’s brothers mentioned above, who had accompanied him, as Jacob did not want to say it to his father-in-law whom he treated with respect. Likewise, the verse, And he [Jacob] called his brethren to eat bread, also refers to Laban’s brothers, and he did not invite Laban to eat bread as an act of respect, as if everything is under his authority and is all his. A similar case is the verse, And Pharaoh said unto his brethren: What is your occupation? [which means he said it to Joseph’s brethren]. But Rashi explained: “And Jacob said unto his brethren — to Jacob’s brothers, [meaning, his sons, who were like brothers to him since they stood by him in trouble and in battle].” However, those that came with Laban, whom Scripture calls “his brethren”, were really his friends and companions. It is possible that that which is said concerning Laban, And he took his brethren with him, refers to his kinsmen, members of his family from the seed of Nahor the brother of Abraham. He did this because he did not want to bring against Jacob strangers lest they fight with him intensely, or covet, rob and steal his belongings. Thus these men were kinsmen to Jacob just as to Laban, and therefore they are called “brethren” of both. And some say that Jacob ethically referred to them as “my brothers,” just as he said to the shepherds, My brethren, whence are ye? And in Bereshith Rabbah, the Sages have said: “And Jacob said unto his brethren — these are his sons, whom, in a respectful manner, he called his brothers.” However, with respect to the verse, And he called his brethren to eat bread, the Midrash did not explain [that “his brethren” refers to his sons]! The correct interpretation is the one I wrote at the outset. AND THEY DID EAT THERE UPON THE STONE-HEAP. They ate a little there as a remembrance. Perhaps it was customary for both of those who made a covenant to eat from one bread as a sign of love and companionship. After having entered into an oath and a covenant, they offered sacrifices and made a great feast. It is possible that the verse stating, and they did eat there upon the stone-heap, refers to the offerings mentioned below, for he said to them, “Gather stones and we will make a heap to eat thereon, and it will also serve as a witness when we make the covenant,” and afterwards they ate the offerings upon it. And the meaning of the verse, And they did eat bread, is that Jacob made them a great feast, and not just a party, in order that they should tarry with him all night.

AND LABAN SAID, THIS STONE-HEAP IS A WITNESS. After Jacob had called it Galed, Laban spoke in Jacob’s language, This stone-heap is a witness, and therefore its name was called Galed, for they mutually agreed upon this name. It may be that Laban’s words are translated into the Sacred Language, [but he himself did not use the term Galed].

AND MITZPAH. Rashi comments that the meaning of the verse is: “And the Mitzpah which is on Mount Gilead, as it is written, And he passed over Mitzpah of Gilead. Why was it called Mitzpah? Because each of them said to the other, The Eternal ‘yitzeph’ (watch).” And if so, Mitzpah is the name of a high place on top of the mountain. In my opinion, however, Mitzpah is the stone which Jacob set up for a pillar and is connected with the above verse: Therefore was the name of it called Galed, and he also called it the Mitzpah because he said, The Eternal watch between me and thee. It is possible that this stone is Mitzpah of Gilead, for the place was always called by the name of this stone.