(All scripture from the World English Bible, ebible.org, all rights reserved)
“While he was yet speaking with them, Rachel came with her father’s sheep, for she kept them. When Jacob saw Rachel the daughter of Laban, his mother’s brother, and the sheep of Laban, his mother’s brother, Jacob went near, and rolled the stone from the well’s mouth, and watered the flock of Laban his mother’s brother.”
(Genesis 29:9-10)
This is the first full-on miracle of Jacob’s life. The hand of God had definitely shepherded him, but this was miraculous. It had been pointed out it took several people to move the rock guarding the well. Jacob is so impressed by Rachel that he moves it himself. There is no way a man in his seventies, no matter how healthy and fit, could move a stone it took several people to move. Not unless he was a body-builder and there is no evidence of that anywhere. God miraculously helped him so that Jacob could do this feat and impress this girl.
Jacob was VERY impressed by Rachel and what she was able to handle (the flock). She was capable and beautiful. What a great combination, he must have thought. Immediately, he served her.
Rachel took care of her father’s flocks. Women were employed in physical labour and was neither unusual or shameful. They were equals in their own way and doing the same work in several instances. They were not always tied to a stove and made to be domestic servants.
The Torah: A Women’s Commentary writes: ‘she was a shepherd. The first description of Rachel does not emphasize her beauty—as is sometimes the case when a female character is introduced (Rebekah, Genesis 24:16; Abigail, I Samuel 25:3; Bathsheba, II Samuel 11:2). Rather, it declares her occupation. Rachel’s very name means “ewe.” rolled the stone off the well’s mouth. In this occasion of biblical humor, Jacob is so overwhelmed when Rachel appears that—in superhero fashion—he single-handedly rolls the stone cover off the mouth of the well. The reader is particularly impressed with this, having just been informed that the act required the efforts of all Haran’s shepherds.’
The sage Rav Hirsch writes: ‘V. 10. ויגל, Hiphil, “let it roll away”, the Hiphil does not occur elsewhere with this root. It designates the ease with which he pushed the great stone aside. Now we get to know what Jacob really did take with him for building his future. Money he did not possess. What is striking, is his strength. What the others could only do by a combined effort he did alone, and without exertion, a strength which we should not have at all expected to find in Jacob. This strong healthy muscular body was at the moment his sole material wealth. A treasure that can not be sufficiently valued, which is an important asset for the whole future and can only be acquired by a purely lived past: It is the grounding for the עושר וכבוד the material benefits which the תורה offers with its left hand. The second, is his imperturbable sense of right and justice. Just like Moses, who also found his future at a well, he can not stand the least dereliction of duty which strikes him, a trait which he himself kept so brilliantly in the most difficult conditions of service which were imposed on him. Thirdly, a ready cheerful deftness in work and action which jumps to it and makes itself useful even where he is in no wise called upon to intervene, again which we should hardly have expected in the איש תם יושב אהלים. In all he appears a true prototype of the people whose ancestor he was to become who were to represent the most varied material and spiritual activities of life as being of equal value and estimation. The Ancestor possessed such versatility that each one of his sons could say that his own particular trend and ability was inherited from his father. It is repeated three times in this verse that Laban was the brother of Jacob’s mother. For in everything that Jacob did here, he was moved by the thought of his mother who appeared living before him in the person of her nearest relative. We are told at once that Jacob kissed Rachel. Without this marked repeated reference to being reminded of his mother, Jacob’s whole behaviour might have been taken as a piece of gallantry towards a pretty shepherdess. In the same way when Moses behaved in a similar manner towards the daughters of Jethro this idea is averted by the striking change in the gender, indicating that he was not moved by any feelings of their sex, but entirely by his keen feelings of what was right ויבאו הרעים ויגרשום, the rude shepherds came and pushed them away (them with a masculine suffix I.L.) without regard to their being of the weaker sex. ויקם משה ויושען Moses rescued them (them with the feminine suffix I.L.) because they were the weaker sex, but וישק את צאנם he then went on helping them with their sheep (their, masculine again I.L.) regardless of their sex. So here, too. Although Rachel was beautiful, he only saw a relative in her. That is shown by his tears. Who knows how long Jacob had been wandering away from home without seeing one familiar face, and then suddenly he sees in Rachel the daughter of his mother’s brother, and the picture of his mother affects him to tears. These tears show how the kiss was an absolutely chaste one. Rachel must have thought him quite mad when he fell round her neck kissing and weeping. That is why he disengaged himself and explained the cause of his emotion.’
The sage Or HaChaim writes: ‘עודנו מדבר עמם, While he was still talking to them, etc. According to the text this is incorrect. The Torah should have written that the shepherds were still talking to him. Perhaps the reason the Torah phrased it thus is that the whole story is meant to tell us what happened to Jacob, not what happened with the shepherds. On the other hand, the Torah may have meant to tell us that Rachel arrived while Jacob was engaged in speaking to the shepherds before the shepherds had replied to him at all. The Torah did not want to interrupt the sequence of the conversation and that is why the shepherds’ reply was recorded first. עם הצאן אשר לאביה, with her father’s flocks. The Torah means to tell us that Rachel tended all her father’s flocks. This proves the truth of Jacob’s statement in 30,30 that prior to his arrival Laban possessed only meagre possessions. On the other hand the Torah may imply that Rachel was so competent a shepherdess that Laban did not need anyone in addition to her to tend his sheep. This idea is suggested by the Torah’s comment כי רעה היא, for she was a shepherdess. Another reason why the Torah emphasised Rachel’s being a רעה may have been that Laban, who was a pastmaster at employing charms, was convinced that Rachel possessed such charms and that employing her would ensure his future prosperity. Had he not been aware of that quality in his daughter he would not have demeaned himself by sending her out with the flocks. The Torah may want to teach us yet another lesson in this verse. It describes Rachel as באה, arriving, carefully avoiding that she had left, יצאה, from somewhere before she could arrive. This was testimony to Rachel’s chasteness. She did not leave her father’s house for frivolous purposes. The words כי רעה היא may also be translated as “although she was a shepherdess.” In that case the Torah would tell us that Laban did not prosper until Jacob arrived; all his flocks could be managed by his young daughter although she was very skilled at her trade. ויהי כאשר ראה יעקב את רחל, It was when Jacob saw Rachel, etc. The reason that the Torah repeats three times that Laban was the brother of Jacob’s mother is to emphasise that everything Jacob did was only because Laban was his mother’s brother and he tried to honour his mother by carrying out her instructions. Another reason for the Torah to repeat this information was so that bystanders who observed Jacob- a recently arrived total stranger- doing Rachel such a great favour (removal of the stone on the well) would know that he was motivated only by family considerations. This is why Jacob spelled out his reasons and as soon as he laid eyes on Rachel he mentioned that she was the daughter of Laban who was his mother’s brother. This is also why he displayed concern about the flocks of his uncle. When he kissed Rachel he did not repeat this statement since he had already made plain that Rachel was his cousin. Besides, the very fact that he started crying was explanation enough that he had come face to face with a relative. When the Torah repeats that “Jacob watered the flocks of Laban,” the message may be that he did this only because Laban was his mother’s brother. Otherwise, -in line with what we learn in Avodah Zarah 67- there was no call to do favours to the Gentiles, seeing that we know from Proverbs 14,34: “(even) the kindness done for us by the Gentile nations are a form of sin.”‘
Leave a Reply