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
LAVAN DECEIVED
Compare the Greek myth of Autolycus, probably from the same Kena'ani source. Autolycus likewise steals flocks and herds from his kinsman by altering their colours. In that myth Lavan appears as Sisyphus the Corinthian. Hermes, the god of thieves, shepherds and orators, gave Autolycus power to change stolen beasts from horned to unhorned or from white to black or contrariwise. Thus Sisyphus' herds shrunk while Autolycus' grew. Sisyphus decided to initial the hooves and tracked them to Autolycus' house. While his men were confronting Autolycus in the backyard he went round the front, and fathered Odysseus on Autolycus' daughter. Autolycus also stole horses from King Iphitus of Euboea, changed their appearance, and sold them to Herakles . Iphitus tracked them to Tiryns and accused Herakles of the theft. He couldn't prove it, but Herakles in his anger hurled them over the city walls. This led to a fight between Herakles and Apollo, which Zeus made them make up.
30:25: VA YEHI KA ASHER YALDAH RACHEL ET YOSEPH VA YOMER YA'AKOV EL LAVAN SHALCHEYNI VE ELCHAH MEKOMI U LE ARTSI
וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה רָחֵל אֶת יוֹסֵף וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אֶל לָבָן שַׁלְּחֵנִי וְאֵלְכָה אֶל מְקוֹמִי וּלְאַרְצִי
KJ (King James translation): And it came to pass, when Rachel had born Joseph, that Jacob said unto Laban, Send me away, that I may go unto mine own place, and to my country.
BN (BibleNet translation): And it came to pass, after Rachel had given birth to Yoseph, that Ya'akov said to Lavan, "Send me away, so that I can go home, to my own country."
Why davka after the birth of Yoseph? Had the 14 years ended? Also see the notes on Yoseph and Bin-Yamin/Ben-Oni suggesting that they, but not Rachel, were really Egyptian and not from Padan Aram or related to Lavan and Le'ah at all. And then look again at my note to CHERPATI at 30:23 - having completed the creation of the Cosmos, the god now needs to be installed as its king, which will take place very shortly, at Penu-El.
30:26: TENAH ET NASHAI VE ET YELADAI ASHER AVADETI OT'CHA BA HEN VE ELECHAH KI ATAH YADA'TA ET AVODATI ASHER AVADETIYCHA
תְּנָה אֶת נָשַׁי וְאֶת יְלָדַי אֲשֶׁר עָבַדְתִּי אֹתְךָ בָּהֵן וְאֵלֵכָה כִּי אַתָּה יָדַעְתָּ אֶת עֲבֹדָתִי אֲשֶׁר עֲבַדְתִּיךָ
KJ: Give me my wives and my children, for whom I have served thee, and let me go: for thou knowest my service which I have done thee.
BN: "Give me my wives and my children, for whom I worked for you, and let me go. You know how much work I have done for you."
The use of the word AVAD (עבד) here (especially with OT'CHA/אתך) tends to suggest worship of a god much more than service of a landlord. Is Lavan really a god and Charan a shrine? The Beney Yisra-El referred to the moon as Ha Lavanah (הלבנה), and we know that Charan was a moon-shrine, the third centre in fact, along with Ur and Yericho.
Interesting sociologically, that Lavan apparently has ownership rights on the wives and sons, and Ya'akov has to ask for them (cf Genesis 31:43). Take a look at the slave rules in the Jubilee laws (Leviticus 25) because of course these seven-year stints are also Jubilee periods. The impression here is of Ya'akov as an indentured labourer, and as such the property (and anything he has therefore also the property) of his "owner".
30:27: VA YOMER ELAV LAVAN IM NA MATSA'TI CHEN BE EYNEYCHA NICHASHTI VA YEVARACHENI YHVH BIGLAL'ECHA
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו לָבָן אִם נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ נִחַשְׁתִּי וַיְבָרֲכֵנִי יְהוָה בִּגְלָלֶךָ
KJ: And Laban said unto him, I pray thee, if I have found favour in thine eyes, tarry: for I have learned by experience that the LORD hath blessed me for thy sake.
BN: And Lavan said to him, "Please, if I have found any amount of favour in your eyes, I am fully aware that YHVH has blessed me because of you...
BIGLAL (בגלל) means "because of", rather than "for your sake".
NICHASHTI (נחשתי): Literally "read the signs" - but what signs has he read? Is he an augurer? This confirms his status as oracular priest-king. NACHASH tells us we are into Delphic style oracular worship, which of course we knew from the standing stone at Beit-El, and which will be much more overtly confirmed when Ya'akov delivers his oracles in chapter 49. No, the signs that he can see are physical: the material possessions, the herds and flocks, the enlarged tribe, the status of the family in the region.
YEVARACHENI: not a word that we can take lightly in this tale. More blessings. But specifically sun-god blessings - the response to the YEVARECHECHA.
End of fourth fragment; which is an odd place for the editor to have placed it, because Lavan is in mid-sentence...
30:28: VA YOMAR NAVKAH SECHARCHA ALAI VE ETENAH
וַיֹּאמַר נָקְבָה שְׂכָרְךָ עָלַי וְאֶתֵּנָה
KJ: And he said, Appoint me thy wages, and I will give it.
BN: And he said, "Tell me what you think your wages should amount to, and I will give it."
... and he seems to be saying yes; but Ya'akov has already had his official wages, plus two extra wives. This has a feeling of "severance pay" to it, as of money stored up but not given you for many years, but now made available on your departure. How else is Ya'akov going to live, without any? And how, perhaps of greater concern to Lavan, are his daughters and grandchildren going to live, without any? A further hint that Ya'akov was an indentured labourer all this time.
30:29: VA YOMER ELAV ATAH YADA'TA ET ASHER AVADETIYCHA VE ET ASHER HAYAH MIKNECHA ITI
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אַתָּה יָדַעְתָּ אֵת אֲשֶׁר עֲבַדְתִּיךָ וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר הָיָה מִקְנְךָ אִתִּ
KJ: And he said unto him, Thou knowest how I have served thee, and how thy cattle was with me.
BN: And he said to him, "You know what work I have done for you, and how your herds have fared with me...
MIKNECHAH: The word "cattle" here must be an alternative for flock. This is not the first time we have seen this. I have used "herds", which could be sheep or cattle.
Ya'akov adopts an interesting bargaining position, familiar to any who have had a carpet thrust upon them in an Arab shouk. Tell me what you're prepared to pay. No, you tell me how much you want. Well, you know how much work went into it, the price of cloth...
30:30: KI ME'AT ASHER HAYAH LECHA LEPHANAI VA YIPHROTS LA ROV VA YEVARECH YHVH OT'CHA LE RAGLI VE ATAH MATAI E'ESEH GAM ANOCHI LE VEITI
כִּי מְעַט אֲשֶׁר הָיָה לְךָ לְפָנַי וַיִּפְרֹץ לָרֹב וַיְבָרֶךְ יְהוָה אֹתְךָ לְרַגְלִי וְעַתָּה מָתַי אֶעֱשֶׂה גַם אָנֹכִי לְבֵיתִי
KJ: For it was little which thou hadst before I came, and it is now increased unto a multitude; and the LORD hath blessed thee since my coming: and now when shall I provide for mine own house also?
BN: "For you had very little before I arrived, and it has increased abundantly; and YHVH has blessed you wherever I turned. And now, when shall I provide for my own house too?"
We have never before been given the impression that Betu-El's family were poor, but it would make sense on several levels. First that Av-Ram would have set off on his own to seek his wealth, especially as he was the eldest son, and, as we have seen repeatedly, this was a world in which the eldest did not inherit, but the youngest did. Nachor as the middle son was actually the worst off from such an arrangement. Second, the response of Rivkah to Eli-Ezer, inspired by his large camel train and the significant amount of jewelery he was carrying; an opportunity a poor farm-girl might not have expected or even dreamed, and therefore to be seized.
YIPHROTS: Again fertility; this time it is Ya'akov who has brought it. Note also the verbal connection with Parets (פרץ), one of the sons of Yehudah and Tamar.
Modern Israelis might be amused to find the phrase KI ME'AT (כי מעט)here, which is now common popular slang for "almost".
Why LE RAGLI (לרגלי)? The word has two meanings, "a rule" and "a leg", which gives rise to one of the nicest stories in Jewish literature, based entirely on getting the wrong meaning of the word: a non-Jew went to Rabbi Hillel and asked him to explain the basics of Judaism "be regel echad". Hillel answered: "What is hateful to you, do not do unto others.'" This is always understood to mean that he asked Rabbi Hillel to answer "while standing on one leg", which is an entirely legitimate translation; but it also means "in a single rule", which is what in fact Hillel gives him.
30:31: VA YOMER MAH ETEN LACH VA YOMER YA'AKOV LO TITEN LI ME'UMAH IM TA'ASEH LI HA DAVAR HA ZEH ASHUVAH ER'EH TSONCHA ESHMOR
וַיֹּאמֶר מָה אֶתֶּן לָךְ וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב לֹא תִתֶּן לִי מְאוּמָה אִם תַּעֲשֶׂה לִּי הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה אָשׁוּבָה אֶרְעֶה צֹאנְךָ אֶשְׁמֹר
KJ: And he said, What shall I give thee? And Jacob said, Thou shalt not give me any thing: if thou wilt do this thing for me, I will again feed and keep thy flock:
BN: And he said, "What shall I give you?" And Ya'kov said, "You shall not give me anything, if you will do this thing for me. I will again feed your flock and keep it."
Let it be quite clearly understood, since Lavan has acquired a bad name in Jewish folk-lore, that he has not really done anything to deserve Ya'akov's trickery, any more than Esav did. Yes, he deceived him over Le'ah and Rachel, but surely that was as much Ya'akov's naivety as Lavan's "wickedness", because in those days - and you can read the same in Austen, Eliot and Brontë, let alone with Tevye's elder daughter in Sholem Aleichem - it was normal to marry off the elder daughter first (and anyway, Ya'akov bought one wife and got one free into the bargain, and then each of the wives gave him a reward wife, so he did very nicely out of the deal). Has Ya'akov been storing up this desire for vengeance all these years, or is he just someone maternally inclined to stealing? Lavan has basically said, name your price and I'll pay it. But Ya'akov is determined on his scam.
Speaking of KEVASIM. Or KESAVIM: There is no word KESAVIM in Yehudit, not meaning sheep or lambs or anything else. There is a word KEVASIM, which means sheep. Nevertheless the word written throughout the remainder of this chapter is going to be KESAVIM, or its singular form KESEV appears, as it does on innumerable other occasions elsewhere in Genesis and in Leviticus. It is, quite clearly, a scribal error, the unproofchecked fault of a dyslectic scribe, who has reversed the Beth and the Seen, and the error being in the original cannot be corrected, so it has become part of tradition, and tradition is unalterable.
30:32: E-EVOR BE CHOL TSON'CHA HA YOM HASER MI SHAM COL SEH NAKOD VE TALU VE CHOL SEH CHUM BA KESAVIM VE TALU VE NAKOD BA IZIM VE HAYAH SECHARI
אֶעֱבֹר בְּכָל צֹאנְךָ הַיּוֹם הָסֵר מִשָּׁם כָּל שֶׂה נָקֹד וְטָלוּא וְכָל שֶׂה חוּם בַּכְּשָׂבִים וְטָלוּא וְנָקֹד בָּעִזִּים וְהָיָה שְׂכָרִי
KJ: I will pass through all thy flock to day, removing from thence all the speckled and spotted cattle, and all the brown cattle among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats: and of such shall be my hire.
BN: "I will pass through all your flock today, removing from them every speckled and spotted one, and the spotted and speckled among the goats; and these will be my wages...
The story needs to be read very carefully, because it does not actually make perfect sense as it is written. If he is going to gather up the speckled sheep and leave, taking them as his pay, then he must have already completed the scam, because it is going to take several breeding cycles to achieve it. And we are told that he wants to leave now. But...read on...
30:33: VE ANTAH BI TSIDKATI BE YOM MACHAR KI TAVO AL SECHARI LEPHANEYCHA KOL ASHER EYNENU NAKOD VE TALU BA IZIM VE CHUM BA KESAVIM GANUV HU ITI
וְעָנְתָה בִּי צִדְקָתִי בְּיוֹם מָחָר כִּי תָבוֹא עַל שְׂכָרִי לְפָנֶיךָ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר אֵינֶנּוּ נָקֹד וְטָלוּא בָּעִזִּים וְחוּם בַּכְּשָׂבִים גָּנוּב הוּא אִתִּי
KJ: So shall my righteousness answer for me in time to come, when it shall come for my hire before thy face: every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and brown among the sheep, that shall be counted stolen with me.
BN: So shall my righteousness witness against me forever after: when you come to see wages set out before you, every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and dark among the sheep, if it's found with me, it shall be counted as stolen."
Several phrases here are surprising. He says his righteousness forever after shall be judged by this - in which case we can judge him unworthy to be a patriarch of the Jewish people, who are meant to be ethical, honest and a light unto the nations. Then he actually makes reference to thieving - as if he is trying to warn, or gloat. But this is the classic thriller-writer technique. Set up the prospect of thievery, so that Lavan himself will have confirmed that nothing has been stolen, and then the high moral ground is obtained, from which the real act of theft can be carried out.
SECHARI: Note the recurrence of the word "hire", which is linked to Yisaschar his son.
30:34: VA YOMER LAVAN HEN LU YEHI CHID'VARECHA
וַיֹּאמֶר לָבָן הֵן לוּ יְהִי כִדְבָרֶךָ
KJ: And Laban said, Behold, I would it might be according to thy word.
BN: And Lavan said, "Behold, may it be according to your word."
Is this meant ironically? He appears to accept the terms, yet expresses his doubt too. Does he, like Yitschak with the blessing, know that he is being cheated, but nonetheless goes along with it?
30:35: VA YASAR BA YOM HA HU ET HA TEYASHIM HA AKUDIM VE HA TELU'IM VE ET KOL HA IZIM HA NEKUDOT VE HA TELU'OT KOL ASHER LAVAN BO VE CHOL CHUM BA KESAVIM VA YITEN BE YAD BANAV
וַיָּסַר בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא אֶת הַתְּיָשִׁים הָעֲקֻדִּים וְהַטְּלֻאִים וְאֵת כָּל הָעִזִּים הַנְּקֻדּוֹת וְהַטְּלֻאֹת כֹּל אֲשֶׁר לָבָן בּוֹ וְכָל חוּם בַּכְּשָׂבִים וַיִּתֵּן בְּיַד בָּנָיו
KJ: And he removed that day the he goats that were ringstraked and spotted, and all the she goats that were speckled and spotted, and every one that had some white in it, and all the brown among the sheep, and gave them into the hand of his sons.
BN: And he removed that day the he-goats that were streaked and spotted, and all the she-goats that were speckled and spotted, every one that had white in it, and all the dark ones among the sheep, and he put them into the hands of his sons.
IZIM: are goats, as the translation correctly tells us; but this surely is a story about sheep?
The phrasing of the next verses makes it Lavan, not Ya'akov, who is doing the separating, and yet Ya'akov in verse 32 said that he would do the separating. It is now that the story begins not to make logical sense.
LAVAN (לבן): "white", rather than his uncle, though the word-game is entirely deliberate. Lavan (Uncle White) gets to keep the white sheep, which are his namesakes as the father of the white sheep Rachel; Ya'akov will take the speckled and spotted and streaked - I wonder if this is the explanation of the name Zilpah that we struggled with previously (29:24): not so much "droppings" as "drops"; and if so, can we find a connection to the name Bilhah as well? So the punning continues, as with Rachel. He has married a sheep, and cheated his uncle of his sheep. He is tricked out of Rachel, and recovers her by a trick. The trick to get the sheep back is based on a pun on the name LAVAN (Laban the White gets the white sheep). And of course none of this can be translated into English without losing the word-play. And then there is a further pun, because Laban and le-Ben are written the same (לבן), and in the last word of this verse Ya'akov is referred to not as Gilav (גליו) meaning son-in-law, but as Banav (בניו), meaning son.
Can the case be made that Ya'akov's connivance with the sheep is the first known example of genetic engineering?
BANAV: Which sons does this intend. Lavan's or Ya'akov's? It appears that it is Lavan who has picked out the speckled etc, and given them to his sons, and taken them away, leaving Ya'akov to feed only the white.
30:36: VA YASEM DERECH SHELOSHET YAMIM BEYNO U VEYN YA'AKOV VA YA’AKOV ROEH ET TSON LAVAN HA NOTAROT
וַיָּשֶׂם דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים בֵּינוֹ וּבֵין יַעֲקֹב וְיַעֲקֹב רֹעֶה אֶת צֹאן לָבָן הַנּוֹתָרֹת
KJ: And he set three days' journey betwixt himself and Jacob: and Jacob fed the rest of Laban's flocks.
BN: And he set three days' journey between himself and Ya'akov. And Ya'akov fed the rest of Lavan's flock.
It is Lavan who is putting three days between them. Why? Is he trying to cheat too? But three days is a significant moon-number, which recurs throughout the Biblical texts, both Beney Yisra-Eli and Christian: the three days of darkness between the end of the old moon (Ha Lavanah) and the rising of the new one (Ya'akov, who is about to be anointed sacred king).
LAVAN (לבן): whereas this time it refers to LAVAN the man, not the white sheep.
30:37: VA YIKACH LO YA'AKOV MAKAL LIVNEH LACH VE LUZ VE ERMON VA YEPHATSEL BA HEN PETSALOT LEVANOT MACHSOPH HA LAVAN ASHER AL HA MAKLOT
וַיִּקַּח לוֹ יַעֲקֹב מַקַּל לִבְנֶה לַח וְלוּז וְעֶרְמוֹן וַיְפַצֵּל בָּהֵן פְּצָלוֹת לְבָנוֹת מַחְשֹׂף הַלָּבָן אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמַּקְלוֹת
KJ: And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.
BN: And Ya'akov took rods of fresh poplar, and from the almond and the plane-tree; and he peeled white streaks in them, making the white appear which was in the rods.
LIVNEH (לבנה): connected to LAVAN, as we have noted previously. The tale now leaves no more opportunities for protestations of naivety or innocence; having stolen Esav's birthright and blessing, he now steals Lavan's sheep and goats by premeditated cunning and deceit.
To what extent are the puns on Livneh (לבנה) and Lavan (לבן) and Levanot (לבנות) merely that: puns? This seems very cultic and ritualistic and ceremonial. What is really taking place? The point about the trees is not just that the poplar is a white tree (livneh), but that the others are the Lach and the Luz - and of course the Luz is the almond tree, and the original name of Beit-El…
If Lavan is the white moon god, then this business of the "whiting" of his sheep must be ceremonial in some way. and straight after it Lavan's real "sheep", Rachel, steals his gods. A cow-god for the moon; a sheep-god, in which case a ram-god, likewise for the moon?
And what exactly is it that Ya'akov is doing? How does the trick work? If he only just started, it will need a good few months to complete the trick, because sheep don't just get pregnant and give birth in three days - the actual gestation period for a sheep is 152 days, which is to say 5 months, and he will need several breeding cycles to achieve the complete de-whitening of the flock. So he must have started this some months, even possibly years ago! And kept some of the outcomes carefully hiddem or Lavan would have gathered them in when he just did his inventory.
I am aware that I am trying to explain this to an English-speaking readership, who can no doubt appreciate the puns, but perhaps cannot register the full hilarity to a Yehudit-listening audience when this story is recounted. The word-play makes it irresistibly funny, and there is no way that anyone can perceive Ya'akov as mischievous while laughing at him so uproariously. Like Pan in the Greek myths, like Ariel in a production of "A Midsummer's Night' Dream", we are laughing with the villain. Here though, not just because of what Ya'akov is doing, but especially because of the brilliant word-play. And it is absolutely untranslatable into English without changing the names of the characters (make this a tale about Mr White and his daughters Sheep-White and Cow-White and you begin to see the point, especially when you reach this verse and we hear how Mr White takes his white sheep while Ya'akov takes a white branch from a white tree etc).
30:38: VA YATSEG ET HA MAKLOT ASHER PITSEL BA RAHATIM BE SHIKATOT HA MAYIM ASHER TAV'ONA HA TSON LISHTOT LENOCHACH HA TSON VA YECHAMNAH BE VO'AN LISHTOT
וַיַּצֵּג אֶת הַמַּקְלוֹת אֲשֶׁר פִּצֵּל בָּרֳהָטִים בְּשִׁקֲתוֹת הַמָּיִם אֲשֶׁר תָּבֹאןָ הַצֹּאן לִשְׁתּוֹת לְנֹכַח הַצֹּאן וַיֵּחַמְנָה בְּבֹאָן לִשְׁתּוֹת
KJ: And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.
BN: And he set the rods which he had peeled against the flocks, in the gutters in the watering troughs where the flocks came to drink; and they conceived when they came to drink.
Some very uncommon vocabulary is in use here; plus, it must be said, the use of magic of a very Pavlovian sort; his trickery is not by natural process. Why should they conceive simply because he puts rods in front of them? What are rods anyway? Fertility like mad of this order suggests...mandrakes possibly? Or something akin.
BA RAHATIM: Some versions of the pointed text give BA REHATIM (בָּרְהָטִים); also in verse 41.
30:39: VA YECHEMU HA TSON EL HA MAKLOT VA TELADNA HA TSON AKUDIM NEKUDIM U TELU'IM
וַיֶּחֱמוּ הַצֹּאן אֶל הַמַּקְלוֹת וַתֵּלַדְןָ הַצֹּאן עֲקֻדִּים נְקֻדִּים וּטְלֻאִים
KJ: And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
BN: And the flocks conceived at the sight of the rods, and the flocks brought forth streaked, speckled and spotted.
The first known example of genetic engineering in human history, though perhaps the scientific explanation has some gaps.
30:40: VE HA KESAVIM HIPHRID YA'AKOV VA YITEN PENEY HA TSON EL AKOD VE CHOL CHUM BE TSON LAVAN VA YASHET LO ADARIM LEVADO VE LO SHATAM AL TSON LAVAN
וְהַכְּשָׂבִים הִפְרִיד יַעֲקֹב וַיִּתֵּן פְּנֵי הַצֹּאן אֶל עָקֹד וְכָל חוּם בְּצֹאן לָבָן וַיָּשֶׁת לוֹ עֲדָרִים לְבַדּוֹ וְלֹא שָׁתָם עַל צֹאן לָבָן
KJ: And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle.
BN: And Ya'akov separated the lambs - he also set the faces of the flocks towards the streaked, and towards all the dark, in Lavan's flock - and set his own droves apart, rather than putting them with Lavan's flock.
Would it be wrong to think that Ya'akov's son Gad is likewise goat-connected? See notes in the Dictionary of Names, but a Gad is a mountain-goat, and the verb includes "to act fraudulently" amongst its many meanings!
This would require yet one more breeding generation; so we are talking two full years work! not the three days Lavan put between them in verse 36.
By this stage the two words have become interchangeable - this could as correctly be translated "Lavan's flock" or "the white flock".
30:41: VE HAYAH BE CHOL YACHEM HA TSON HA MEKUSHAROT VE SAM YA'AKOV ET HA MAKLOT LE EYNEY HA TSON BA RAHATIM LE YACHAMENAH BA MAKLOT
וְהָיָה בְּכָל יַחֵם הַצֹּאן הַמְקֻשָּׁרוֹת וְשָׂם יַעֲקֹב אֶת הַמַּקְלוֹת לְעֵינֵי הַצֹּאן בָּרֳהָטִים לְיַחְמֵנָּה בַּמַּקְלוֹת
KJ: And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.
BN: And it came to pass, whenever the stronger in the flock conceived, then Ya'akov laid the rods before the eyes of the flock in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.
What on Earth is actually he doing? Is this similar in any way to Re'u-Ven's fertilising mandrakes.
30:42: U VE HA'ATIPH HA TSON LO YASIM VE HAYAH HA ATUPHIM LE LAVAN VE HA KESHURIM LE YA'AKOV
וּבְהַעֲטִיף הַצֹּאן לֹא יָשִׂים וְהָיָה הָעֲטֻפִים לְלָבָן וְהַקְּשֻׁרִים לְיַעֲקֹב
KJ: But when the cattle were feeble, he put them not in: so the feebler were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's.
BN: But when the flocks were weak, he did not put them; so the weak became Lavan's, and the strong Ya'akov's.
Enter another level of subtlety which the English cannot render, except through detailed etymology. The sheep that Laban gets are the "weaker", but the word used is ATUPHIM, from the root ATAPH which means "to cover" in the sense of being clothed (cf Psalms 65:14 and 73:6). Job 23:9 uses it to mean "hide", as in covering oneself for concealment; this then extends poetically, but only in late Yehudit, into a metaphor of the soul languishing in darkness, which itself then leads to a further metaphor, only ever in the Hiphil form however (where this text uses the Pu'al), suggesting "weakness" or "feebleness". Ya'akov is not simply separating the white from the speckled, he is also separating the weak from the strong and the pure from the impure; and as such the tale expands from being mere pantomime and becomes parable.
Is it possible that ancient Yehudit used the verb "to cover" in the same way that English since the Middle Ages has done when it comes to putting the ram in the field with the ewes? It makes much more sense in the context: when the flocks were put out for tupping, Lavan's were "covered" but not Ya'akov's. This only works if Keshurim also provides an equivalent. KASHAR in its primary usage means "to bind", so we could read that Lavan's ewes were left free to be tupped, while Ya'akov's were bound. A much more plausible explanation than the whole affair depending on who was weak and who strong.
30:43: VA YIPHROTS HA ISH ME'OD ME'OD VA YEHI LO TSON RABOT U SHEPHACHOT VA AVADIM U GEMALIM VA CHAMORIM
וַיִּפְרֹץ הָאִישׁ מְאֹד מְאֹד וַיְהִי לוֹ צֹאן רַבּוֹת וּשְׁפָחוֹת וַעֲבָדִים וּגְמַלִּים וַחֲמֹרִים
KJ: And the man increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maidservants, and menservants, and camels, and asses.
BN: And the man's wealth increased massively, and he had large flocks, and maid-servants, and men-servants, and camels, and asses.
All of which must have taken an even longer long time than just the two or three breeding cycles we have assumed thus far; yet it was supposedly done in order that he could make of it his wages and depart in a hurry. Nor should we be surprised that, after executing so careful a "sting", he wanted to push off in a hurry when he did finally leave.
But this last makes a nonsense of the whole story. The trick is all very well for getting sheep, but how did it get him maidservants and camels and slaves as well, and without Lavan knowing, and in just three days? Impossible. Unless, earlier, when Lavan talked about Ya'akov having been a blessing etc, this is what Ya'akov had been doing all along: at first a highly successful because carefully managed breeding programme, something akin to Re'u-Ven's mandrakes, and then, out of this, the trick of the separation by controlling the breeding even more precisely. But it still doesn't add slaves to his wages; they agreed sheep.
The redactors appear yet again to have taken one ancient myth and tried to graft it onto another entirely unrelated one (or maybe they were trying to cross-breed them but didn't possess the rods); and it has not taken.
End of chapter 30
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