Notes 39: A family meeting (30:43 - 31:16)

SYNOPSIS: As Jacob's wealth grows, he learns that his local cousins are turning against him. God then tells Jacob to return to his father's country. Out in the fields, Jacob holds a meeting with his wives and voices complaints about their father. He tells them about a dream in which an angel told him to go back to Canaan. The women express their support for him and urge him to obey God's command. They gather up their children, property and flocks and set off towards Canaan.

• Text of the passage in Nawat

I find it interesting that the story includes this episode in which we see Jacob's wives expressing themselves as free agents whose opinions Jacob appears to be consulting as equals. Rachel and Leah first listen to Jacob and then respond in a reasonable manner. They first express their own indignation at their father's treatment of themselves and express their discomfort in the current position in Laban's household. They then encourage Jacob to do as his God has commanded and ensure him of their continued support for this venture. Jacob then proceeds to set of for Canaan after listening to his family's input.

My reason for grouping 30:43 with the following verses, the beginning of ch. 31, is that, as the commentaries note, the situation it describes, in which Jacob has accrued great wealth, was clearly not chronologically immediately consequent upon what was narrated in the preceding passage but must have required several years to intervene. On the other hand, that situation does represent the immediate setting in which the ensuing conversation takes place.

See my discussion of this scene here.


31:1 wayyishma‛ et divre v'ne lavan lemor
Although the text literally says 'Laban's sons', this need not be taken literally to mean his own biological sons; it might refer to grandchildren or other relatives.

31:7 ‛aséret monim
Lit. 'ten times', but this is quite obviously a hyperbole and there is no need to take this literally and worry about the fact that the narrative does not mention ten instances of Laban changing Jacob's salary. We might say that 'ten' here is not used in the sense of an exact quantity but is a way of saying 'many'; this is a widespread usage in many languages except that the numerals conventionally  most often mentioned in this way varies. In English 'a hundred times' would not be out of place here (and it would be perfectly clear that it is not an actual number). In Basque, the number most popularly used in this manner is eleven! Speiser translates as 'time and again', which JPS follows.

31:13 anokhi ha'el bet el
This is a bit of a grammatical conundrum. If it means 'I am the god of Beth El' then it is grammatically incorrect (there should be no ha in that case). So anokhi ha'el means 'I am the El', but then what is the grammatical role of bet el? Speiser suggests a missing word has been lost from the Masoretic text, as implied by the LXX which has here ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ θεὸς ὁ ὀφθείς σοι ἐν τόπῳ θεοῦ 'I am the God who appeared to you in Bethel'. This actually has consequences which transcend the grammatical issue, because if we translate the clause as 'I am the God of Bethel' (with the Vulgate ego sum Deus Bethel and many modern versions: KJV, ESV, JPS 'I am the God of Bethel') this is on the face of it a self-identification, a declaration of "who I am" (or even "which god [El] I am"), which would seem to have a certain kind of implication for the kind of theology assumed; whereas as the LXX and Speiser read it, it is more like "I am El. Remember? I appeared to you in Bethel. It's me!"

31:14 wattá‛an raxel w'le'a wattomárna lo
Both of Jacob's wives reply, but the placement of the younger, Rachel, first (and also the singular verb wattá‛an) seem to suggest, perhaps not that Rachel was the only one who spoke, but maybe that she was the most vociferous. One might wish to imagine her being the one who speaks out, and Leah agreeing with her.

31:14 ff. ha‛od lánu xéleq w'naxala b'vet avinu etc.
Rachel (assuming she is the main spokesperson) is not only vocal but uses incisive, almost sarcastic rhetoric (which is consonant with her spunky character), thereby conveying the idea that she stands firmly behind Jacob. Her speech, whose gist is that they have all been wronged by Laban and fully share in Jacob's indignation, ends on the strongest note imaginable within the mindset of the characters and the audience (31:16): w'‛atta kol asher amar elohim elékha ‛ase 'So now, all that God has said to you, do!'