Notes 40: Nearly caught (31:17-42)

SYNOPSIS: Sending his family ahead on the camels, Jacob lags behind with the animals and other possessions. While this was going on, Laban only got wind a few days later because he was away shearing the sheep. In his absence, Rachel had grabbed hold of the family idols ("gods") and is carrying them with her, unbeknownst to Jacob. Soon they are well on their way into the Gilead hill country. When Laban hears of their flight he and his men race after them, but given their headstart it takes Laban a week to catch up, and God appears to Laban in a dream warning him not to speak to Jacob "for good or bad". At last Laban reaches them and sets up camp beside theirs. He crosses over to Jacob's family's camp, where he berates Jacob for stealing away without a proper goodbye and then accuse him of having stolen his gods. Jacob, who knows nothing of the theft, is incensed by Laban's accusation and challenges him to search his camp, which Laban's men proceed to do. Rachel craftily outwits her father by hiding the gods in the camel's cushion on which she sits, and claims she cannot get off her camel for reasons of decorum as it is her time of the month. Now Jacob considers himself the injured party and they continues to argue.

• Text of the passage

This comes across as a very well orchestrated piece of soap opera drama. The audience know that Rachel has the idols but nobody in the story knows except for Rachel herself, and the narrative then proceeds to milk the situation for maximum melodrama, much to the audience's excitement and delight. Of course we don't want Laban to find the gods yet he is intent on leaving no stone unturned until he finds them, and we might normally expect Jacob to step in if necessary in defence of his darling wife, but no, he can't because he is unaware of what she has done and he has actually vowed to strike down whoever is responsible for the theft (which he is confident will not be necessary, since he believes everyone is innocent). And this, several millennia before the advent of television!

But what exactly was it that Rachel stole from Laban? Nobody is really sure. Whatever they were, they are first referred to as t'rafim (in v. 19), and later Laban and Jacob call them elohim. The latter term means 'gods', but it is uncertain what precisely t'rafim meant. But we get the gist of it. For a proposed interpretation of the historical and cultural meaning of this episode with Laban's idols, see my discussion of deception as one of the themes of Genesis.


31:19 wattignov raxel et hatt'rafim asher l'avíha
There are many signs in this passage that it is the product of a talented story-teller who knows exactly how to manipulate the audience. Here, for example, the fact that Rachel stole her father's idols (t'rafim) is slipped into the narration in a way perfectly calculated not to draw too much attention so as not to alert the audience yet to the importance of this "little detail" in the turn that will later be taken by the plot. At this point in the story we are focusing on where Laban is, how he finds out about Jacob's escape and what he is going to do about it. Meanwhile, on another corner of the stage, Rachel is slipping away with his sacred objects stealthily concealed in her... handbag?


31:20 wayyignov ya‛aqov et lev lavan ha'arami
With another masterful stroke of the brush, the story-teller now uses a clever word-play to bridge from the fleeting image of Rachel stealing idols to Jacob, in the hills, stealing away from Laban. Although actually the H play on words works a little differently, using an idiomatic phrase, steal Laban's heart meaning 'trick Laban'; but the affect is the same.

31:23 wayyiqqax et exaw ‛immo
In v. 20 the narrator has deftly transitioned from 'steal' as the key verb (g-n-b) to 'flee' (b-r-x), which occurs three times in vv. 20, 21 and 22, until finally Jacob has fled (and we with him) all the way to Gilead. Now in v. 23 we switch back to Laban, and now the key verb changes once more, this time to 'pursue' (r-d-p). Laban takes his "brothers" along with him in his week-long chase after his nephew and son-in-law; perhaps they are the same as the envious "sons" by whom Jacob no longer felt wanted, and cf. my note on 31:46. The commentators are all in agreement that the travel times mentioned, if to be taken at face value, are inaccurate on geographical considerations: the distance between Padan-Aram and Gilead was far greater than a week or ten days' journey implies, particularly in the conditions in which Jacob and his folk travelled, with children, flocks and all! Luckily for us, we are not reading this as geographers or even travel authors; the quality of the story is hardly affected. Anyway, finally Laban's people also reach Gilead and encamp next to Jacob, and the moment has come for an exciting showdown. Time for a commercial break; popcorn would be appropriate.

31:24 miTTov ‛ad ra‛
There are various ways in which we might try to understand this injunction by God who instructs Laban not to speak to Jacob "from good to bad", and the fact of the matter is that we are forced to speculate about what exactly was meant. God might have meant that Laban shouldn't say anything to Jacob at all, but Laban does indeed speak to Jacob in v. 29, even though he tells him that Jacob is pretty lucky because God appeared to him and warned him not to speak to Jacob miTTov ‛ad ra‛!

31:25 et exaw
This is believed by some to be an erratum for et oholo (it makes more sense for Laban to have pitched his tent in the mountain, than for him to have pitched his brothers there); thus אחיו is assumed to be a miscopying of אהלו.

31:26 me ‛asíta wattignov et l'vavi
Using the selfsame idiom employed by the narrator, Laban reproves Jacob for having "stolen his heart" (see note on v. 20), accusing him of carrying away his daughters (to whom Jacob happened to be married) "like captives of the sword" - all of which is probably meant to be dismissed by the audience as merely more Semitic hyperbole. 

31:27-8
Next, dealing a blow so far below the belt that it comes across as perfectly believable, Laban goes on to berate Jacob for not having told him he was leaving, for he would have regaled them all a fitting sendoff banquet; why, he hadn't even given him a chance to kiss his grandchildren and his daughters goodbye.

31:34 b'khar haggamal
It is not quite certain what kar (a hapax legomenon) is, though it is often rendered as 'saddle'. It may have been a larger (box-like) artifact which contained a storage space and on top of which the rider of the camel sat.

31:36-42
The episode culminates with a dramatic speech which we may think of as "Jacob's complaint", in which he first rebukes Laban for falsely accusing him (so he believes) of theft, challenges him to deliver proof of his guilt (which Laban can't!), and goes on to vent his anger over the exploitation to which he considers Laban has subjected him over a period of twenty years, during which time Jacob has been deceived and given a raw deal. This emotional explosion is unprecedented in the story, and so the more shocking, but dramatically it is perfectly credible. The wording of Jacob's speech is concise, forceful and cranks up the narrative tension to yet a higher level.

31:42 elohe avraham ufáxad yitzxaq
See my blog post on the names of God.