Laban and his daughters: an allegory of the monarchy GENESIS MONARCHY Laban, the foreign father of Rachel and Leah Monarchy itself as “foreign”

Leah the elder, mother of Judah Judah, the “elder”

Rachel the younger, mother of Benjamin and Jo- seph, grandmother of Ephraim/Manesseh

Israel, the “younger,” called “Ephraim,” 1 Kg 12.25

Jacob served seven years for Leah before Rachel, Gen 29.20

David reigned seven years over Judah before Isra- el, 2 Sam 2.11; 5.5; 1 Kg 2.11

Jacob “slaves” (Heb, `avod) for Laban, Gen 29.20, 30; 30.26, 29; 31.6, 41

Israel “slaved” (Heb, `avodah, only use in monar- chy narrative) for the Solomonic monarchy

Rachel, the barren wife, demands “sons,” envying her rival sister-wife, Gen 30.1

Hannah, the barren wife, prays for a “son”, envy- ing her rival wife, 1 Sam 1 (as itself an allegory of the monarchy)

Jacob is inspired to “return” to land of his ancestry, Gen 31.3

Israel returns to land of its ancestry, 1 Kg 12.16

Then Rachel and Leah answered him, "Is there any portion or inheritance left to us in our father's house?” Gen 31.14

When all Israel saw that the king would not listen to them, the people answered the king, "What share do we have in David? We have no inher- itance in the son of Jesse.” 1 Kg 12.16

Jacob “takes away” Laban’s livestock and daugh- ters, Gen 31.9

David “takes away” Bathsheba and Saul’s daugh- ters, 2 Sam 12

Teraphim as expression of idolatry, Gen 31.19 (on- ly mention of teraphim in torah)

Teraphim as expression of idolatry, 1 Sam 19.13; 2 Kg 23.24 (only mention of teraphim in monarchy)

GENESIS 31: JACOB'S PECULIAR DREAM

SHIMON BAKON

One day, after tarrying 21 years in Haran, Jacob summons his wives Leah and Rachel to his field for a secret communication. He tells them that the time has come to return to the land of his fathers. He offers two reasons: Laban's sons have accused him of building up his wealth by taking it from their father. Furthermore, Laban's attitude toward him has now changed. Jacob then tells his wives about a dream that he has had:

Once, at the mating time of the flocks, I had a dream in which I saw

that the he-goats, as they mated, were streaked, speckled, and mottled.

And in the dream an angel of God said to me. "Jacob!" "Here I am, " / answered. And he said, "Note well that all the he-goats in the flock

which are mating are streaked, speckled, and mottled; for I have noted

all that Laban has been doing to you. I am the God of Beth-el, where

you anointed a pillar and where you made a vow to Me. Up, then, leave

this land and return to the land of your birth " (Gen. 31:10-13). Why does the Torah go out of its way to tell us of this peculiar and rather

unsavory dream? The purpose becomes clear when we compare this dream to another one that Jacob had 21 years earlier. While fieeing from Esau, Jacob had a dream at Beth-el of a ladder on which angels were ascending and descending. In that dream God offered him promises and reassurance. Now what is he dreaming about? – he-goats mating, and streaked, speckled, and mottled fiocks!

Jacob, a man destined to be the father of a great nation, had under Laban's tutelage tumed into a successñil breeder of sheep and goats. The fact that the Lord introduced Himself in the dream as the God of Beth-el was a powerful reminder of the distressing change that had taken place in Jacob. The potential spiritual giant had become a master of animal husbandry.

This adds another layer of meaning to the statement/or / have noted all that Laban has been doing to you. What, in fact, had Laban succeeded in doing to

Shimon Bakon, Ph.D., is the Editor Emeritus of The Jewish Bible Quarterly.

2 6 0 SHIMON BAKON

Jacob? Jacob had married his two daughters and was blessed with 11 sons. Laban tried to cheat Jacob, but never really succeeded. He had repeatedly changed the conditions of Jacob's service and the choice of sheep and goats as a reward for his labor; yet Jacob, by an uncanny genetic manipulation, had managed to outsmart Laban and become a wealthy man.

So the dream itself showed what Laban had done to Jacob. It was time for Jacob to retum to his birthplace.

NOTES

1. See also Pinchas H. Peli, Torah Today (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2005) pp. 30-32.

THE TRIENNIAL BIBLE READING CALENDAR DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF CHAIM ABRAMOWITZ

October

November

December

January

February

Ezekiel

Ezekiel Hosea Joel

Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk

Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi Psalms

Psalms

9-36

37-48 1-14 1 – 2

3 – 4 – 9

– 3 – 7 – 3 – 3

– 3 – 2 -14 – 3 – 5

6-33

JEWISH BIBLE QUARTERLY

Copyright of Jewish Bible Quarterly is the property of Jewish Bible Quarterly and its content may not be copied

or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Transformation and Demarcation of Jacob’s “Flocks” in Genesis 30:25-43: Identity, Election, and the Role of the Divine

SONG-MI SUZIE PARK Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138

THE RATHER STRANGE STORY of Jacob and the speckled flocks in Gen 30:25- 43, a tale usually dismissed as simply reflecting “primitive” notions of maternal

impression, communicates a message that, at heart, concerns the very nature of

Israelite identity. In this essay I examine the ways in which the formal elements of

the story, most notably the numerous wordplays and puns, generate semantic cor-

respondences and oppositions. These ultimately convey and then attempt to diffuse

the tensions involved in the definition of Israel. I will try to show that this osten-

sibly simple story about Jacob’s magical transformation of his flock, when closely

examined, involves deeper issues about election and the role of the divine in

Israel’s formation and identity.

I. Brief Overview of Previous Scholarship

Commentators have put forth various explanations concerning the nature of

Jacob’s trick. Gerhard von Rad thinks that these verses reflect an “ancient and

widespread belief in the magical effect of certain impressions which in the case of

human and animal mothers were transferred to their offspring and can decisively

This paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Novem-

ber 2007 in San Diego, California.

667

influence them.”1 Hermann Gunkel also believes that this tale mirrors an actual

method of animal husbandry and states that such breeding techniques were known

in antiquity.2 Commentators such as Nahum Sarna and Victor P. Hamilton, noting

the phenotypes and genotypes of the animals, give scientific reasons for the success

of this magical trick.3 Indeed, Claus Westermann sees in Jacob’s ruse a transition

from a magical to a scientific way of thinking.4 As is evident, most commentators,

when approaching this text, attempt to uncover the actual animal husbandry tech-

nique that they believe is reflected in Gen 30:25-43; the significance of animal

breeding in small farming communities such as Israel would have accounted for

the telling and transmission of this story.

While all the above explanations seem reasonable, I believe that such com-

mentators have wrongly emphasized the “scientific” and historical nature of

Jacob’s ruse. Regardless of whether this story refers to some actual belief or tech-

nique, the key to the story’s decipherment does not lie simply in understanding

how Jacob’s ruse was successful or how it was that monochrome animals actually bore speckled and colored ones. Rather, one needs to shift attention away from

questions concerning the historicity reflected in the tale and toward deciphering

why the narrative is told the way that it is. As Michael Fishbane explains, “Such a

view considers a tale or narrative less from a linear perspective, whereby the

separate parts are isolated and their development ‘explained,’ and more from the

integrative consideration of a narrative as a seamless web of interanimating com-

ponents.”5

II. Wordplays and the Nature of Jacob’s Trick

Although scholars such as E. A. Speiser, von Rad, Sarna, Gunkel, and Well-

hausen have briefly noted the puns on the word lābān (“white”) with the name Laban, none has expounded on the pervasiveness of other wordplays in this story

or drawn out the significance of the use of these linguistic devices.6 Hamilton gives

668 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 72, 2010

1 Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (trans. John H. Marks; rev. ed.; OTL; Philadel- phia: Westminster, 1972) 302.

2 Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (1901; trans. Mark E. Biddle; Mercer Library of Biblical Studies; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997) 329.

3 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerd- mans, 1995) 284; Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis: בראשית. The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989) 212.

4 Claus Westermann, Genesis 12–36: A Continental Commentary (trans. John J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985) 483.

5 Michael Fishbane, Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York: Schocken, 1979) 58.

6 Gunkel, Genesis, 329; Sarna, Genesis, 212; E. A. Speiser, Genesis: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 1; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964) 239; von Rad, Genesis,

one of the more extended commentaries on the wordplays, noting the prominence

of the word “white” in Genesis 30: Jacob peels “white stripes” to expose the white

of the shoots of the poplar (לבנה) in v. 37, and Laban, “the white one,” removes from Jacob those animals that are not totally lābān (v. 35).7 Despite noting the fre- quency, Hamilton fails to delineate the implications of this repetition.

Von Rad correctly observes in his commentary that such a tale of trickery

seems “like a burlesque farce and could be . . . considered by itself, as a humorous

story.”8 The wordplays, then, are puns used to add comedy to the narrative. Simi-

larly, Marc Zvi Brettler has explained the presence of puns and wordplays in the

story of Ehud (Judg 3:15-30) as evidence that the tale is a political satire.9 Humor,

of course, is very difficult to decipher, especially in cross-cultural writings. There-

fore, while I am not completely convinced that Gen 30:25-43 is a farce sensu stricto, Brettler and von Rad do correctly point to the connection between the form of writing, the linguistic devices that are used, and the meaning of the story. How

a tale is written can often help to elucidate or draw out the meaning of the text.

With these ideas in mind, it is important to remember that the wordplays in

Gen 30:25-43 are not haphazard or without significance. Indeed, they shed con-

siderable light on the nature of Jacob’s trickery. Setting aside the debates concern-

ing the details of Laban and Jacob’s pact, and how it is that Laban changes this

deal “ten times” (31:7), the agreement between the two men, at least in 30:32-43,

seems simple. Jacob will remove from Laban’s flock all the dark-colored (חום) sheep and all the spotted, speckled, and streaked (עקד ,נקד ,טלוא) goats as his wage. The deal fits the names of the characters: Jacob (יעקב) will receive all the goats that are נקד and עקד. Gunkel, noting the Arabic word vuqâb (striped and speckled clothing), states that an earlier version of this tale probably contained a more evi-

dent wordplay on the name Jacob.10 Laban (לבן), on the other hand, seemingly will keep all the animals that are לבן—all the goats that are not spotted (נקד) or streaked (עקד) with white (לבן) spots, and all the sheep that are not dark (or not lābān). In other words, those that are purely lābān are Laban’s; those that are not are Jacob’s. The sheep and the goats, therefore, belong to the man whose name

phonetically and semantically matches the animal’s appearance. In this story, then,

appearance, sound, and meaning are interrelated.

One can now understand Laban’s ready acceptance of this agreement with

Jacob. As Gunkel and others have noted, since Laban is greedy, he would willingly

JACOB’S “FLOCKS” IN GENESIS 30:25-43 669

302; Westermann, Genesis, 483. Fishbane, however, has eloquently located the pervasiveness of other key words and double entendres such as the term ברך in the Jacob cycle.

7 Hamilton, Book of Genesis, 283. 8 Von Rad, Genesis, 301. 9 Marc Zvi Brettler, “Never the Twain Shall Meet? The Ehud Story as History and Litera-

ture,” HUCA 62 (1991) 285-304. 10 Gunkel, Genesis, 329.

assent to these terms because few animals would be speckled in the first place,

and “monochrome animals surely would not produce multicolored young.”11 Apart

from Laban’s inner motivations, however, the division of the flocks appears to be

textually understandable as well. The flock will go to the owner with whom it visu-

ally, semantically, and phonetically corresponds; like will match up with like.12

It is this simplicity that lends drama to Jacob’s trick, for, as we all know, with

a trickster what you see is not what you get. Although it is unclear why Laban removes the speckled and dark-colored flocks into the hands of his sons (it could

be that Laban is suspicious of Jacob and therefore desires to sequester the animals,

or perhaps Laban is trying to prevent the flock from mating with his monochrome

animals by removing them), the removal of these animals sets the stage for Jacob’s

magical ruse. Jacob takes fresh stakes of white poplar (לבנה), almond, and plane trees, and peels white peelings (פצלות לבנות) off them to expose the white of the shoots. He then sticks the stakes into the drinking vessels of Laban’s flocks because

he believes that when the flocks come to drink, they will also mate. The goats will

look at the spotted shoots of the trees while they drink and mate, and, hence, will

produce spotted offspring (30:37-39). As for the sheep, Jacob simply has them

face the streaked or dark-colored animals (v. 39). Reflected is the belief that the

animals will reproduce according to what they see.

Now the amazing results of this ruse follow. The flocks that mate are Laban’s,

in terms of both ownership and appearance; the flocks produced, however, are

Jacob’s, again in terms of both ownership and appearance. Another wordplay that

highlights this ruse concerns the term חום, which sounds similar to the verb יחם (vv. 38 and 39). Likewise, the semantic and phonetic connections among חום (“dark-colored,” “sun-burned”), חמם (“to become warm or hot”) and יחם (“to be in heat, conceive”) are quite evident. When Laban’s white flocks come to drink,

they are not only conceiving (יחם) but, semantically and phonetically speaking,

670 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 72, 2010

11 Ibid. Sarna writes, “In the Near East, sheep are generally white and goats are dark brown

or black. A minority of sheep may have dark patches, and goats white markings. It is these uncom-

mon types to be born in the future that Jacob demands as wages for his unpaid service. Laban readily

agrees, believing that he is getting a bargain on account of their rarity” (Genesis, 212). 12 As noted above, my emphasis is on a literary analysis of the tale, not on the story’s his-

toricity or scientific logicality. If one applies too literal a reading to this pericope, some ambiguities

do emerge. One can argue, for example, since it is never explicitly stated that all the animals Laban

receives are “white,” that Laban might have gotten dark goats or spotted sheep. But this is an overly

literal reading of the story. Rather, as I have argued, what is important are the multiple instances of

punning on “white,” “dark,” “spotted,” and “streaked” in a tale that centrally concerns an interfamily

battle between someone named Laban, or “the white one,” with someone named Jacob, a name that

sounds similar to the words for “streaked” or “speckled” in Hebrew. It is evident that “Laban,” or

“white,” is placed in contradistinction to “Jacob,” or “streaked,” “speckled,” or “dark (not-white).”

As I will argue later in this article, the key to the narrative centers on this very contradistinction of

the characters as exemplified in the contradistinction of the colors of the flocks.

are blackened or “made” not white (חום). In other words, a deliberate correspon- dence is set up between יחם and חום by the choice of this verb. Jacob uses Laban’s lābān flocks and the lābān shavings of the twigs to produce a flock that is not lābān and not Laban’s, but nāqōd and Jacob’s. The flock is transformed from white נקד) to speckled (לבן) from white ,(חום) to black (לבן) and עקד), and from Laban’s The message conveyed with these puns is that Jacob is not .(יעקב) to Jacob’s (לבן) stealing Laban’s flocks but that Laban’s flocks are being transformed into Jacob’s.

III. Correspondences, Relationship, and National Identity

The significance of these formal elements becomes evident when we further

examine the relationship between the form and the content. As I have stated above,

regarding both the form (wordplays) and the plot of Genesis 30, Jacob is neither

stealing Laban’s flocks nor taking what is rightfully his (Jacob’s), but is using what

is Laban’s to produce what is his (Jacob’s). This transformation—the use of one

thing to make another—reflects the uncertainty that exists between that which

belongs to Jacob and that which belongs to Laban. These wordplays, with their

shifting meanings, correspondences, and transformations, convey the ambiguous

relationship between Laban and Jacob. This is especially true in this particular case

because Jacob is Laban’s nephew, son-in-law, and employee. In this complex web

of relationships, not only is the identity of the flocks in flux, so to speak, but it is

unclear whether Jacob’s wives and children really belong to him or to Laban.13

Robert A. Oden writes about the tension implicit in the avuncular relationship.

Indeed, anthropologists such as Robin Fox have noted the importance and partic-

ularity of both the avuncular relationship and cross-cousin marriages in a variety

of cultures.14 Oden states that cross-cousin marriage is the “logical alliance if one

wished to avoid the extremes of too much endogamy on the one hand and too much

exogamy on the other hand.” Hence, the avuncular relationship is the “compre-

hensive ‘atom’ of kinship” because it contains a “relationship of consanguinity,

affinity and descent.” Thus, it is only when Jacob marries his mother’s brother’s

daughters that “a complete kinship system is described, and thus Israel properly

speaking is born.”15

The comprehensive and vital nature of the avuncular relationship, however,

makes it especially problematic with reference to Israel. The theological notion of

JACOB’S “FLOCKS” IN GENESIS 30:25-43 671

13 Genesis 31:43 seems to imply that Laban thinks that Jacob’s children and wives are his and

not Jacob’s. 14 Robert A. Oden, “Jacob as Father, Husband, and Nephew: Kinship Studies and the Patriar-

chal Narratives,” JBL 102 (1984) 189-205; Robin Fox, Kinship and Marriage: An Anthropological Perspective (Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology 50; Cambridge/New York: Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 1967).

15 Oden, “Jacob as Father,” 199, 202.

Israel walks a fine line between endogamy and exogamy, universality and partic-

ularity. Israel is a kinship group that is descended from and related to other groups

of people, yet at the same time it is a group separated by God whose very existence

depends on its contradistinction from other peoples. It is both like other nations

and also separated and unique. It is both part of humanity and also marked off

from humanity as distinct or elected. Therefore, on the one hand, the avuncular

relationship is necessary to complete the kinship system and, consequently, is indis-

pensable to Israel’s becoming Israel. On the other hand, because of the complicated

nature of such a bond and because of the numerous ties involved in such a rela-

tionship, the lines between uncle and nephew and their respective families cannot

be cleanly distinguished. In this manner, the relationship and ties between Laban

and Jacob, especially if we view these figures as eponymous ancestors, endanger

the realization, the coming-into-being, of Israel itself. The question is: Are they

different peoples, families, and groups (the Israelites and the Arameans), or are

they the same, since they are related by blood and by marriage?

Therefore, the issue of the demarcation of the animal flocks in Gen 30:25-43

undergirds the problem of the ambiguous nature of Jacob and Laban’s familial

“flocks.” While the terms “speckled” and “dark” are set up as opposites of the

word “white,” the “creation” of one from the other connotes the existence of certain

relationships between the two objects. Just as Jacob uses Laban’s flocks to produce

his own flock, it can be seen that Jacob “uses” his wives, Laban’s children, to pro-

duce his (Jacob’s) own family ; note that the animals that belong to Jacob have

white streaks and spots—in other words, they contain little bits of Laban. This

raises the question, To whom do Jacob’s wives and family really belong? As Susan

Niditch asks, “Are the women his wives or still Laban’s children?”16 As I have

stated above, a division between Jacob and Laban’s “flocks” is absolutely neces-

sary for the existence and identity of the Israelite people.

This underlying question of kinship and identity thus elucidates the reason

for the particular placement (and inclusion) of Gen 30:25-43 within the larger

Jacob narrative. Immediately preceding the story of the flocks is a narrative that

also concerns the “birth” of Israel: the story about the birthing contest between

Leah and Rachel, the sister-wives of Jacob, and the births of Jacob’s sons, who

will later constitute the tribes of Israel (30:1-25). Just as the birth of Isaac endan-

gered Ishmael’s status, so the births of Jacob’s sons make crucial a clarification of

their status. In both cases the births raise a question concerning identity: Who and

what will constitute the nation of Israel? To answer this question, an elucidation

of the position of Jacob’s family in relation to Laban’s family—a demarcation

within the family group—is necessary. It is at this point, when such identity issues

672 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 72, 2010

16 Susan Niditch, Underdogs and Tricksters: A Prelude to Biblical Folklore (New Voices in Biblical Studies; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987) 109.

are raised by the births of Jacob’s sons, that one encounters the tale of Jacob and

the speckled flock. The separation of the flock in 30:25-42, therefore, serves as an

important symbol for the separation and demarcation of Jacob (Israel) as a separate

entity from Laban (Aram)—a demarcation that, we will see, must happen in order

for Jacob to get on his way to the land promised to his forebears and thus truly to

become the nation of Israel.

Now we can understand why this story of Jacob and the speckled flocks

begins with Jacob’s request to leave so that he can go back to his own land. The

births of his sons necessitate that Jacob’s period of exile come to an end as soon

as possible. Fishbane writes as follows: “As soon as Rachel gives birth, Jacob plans

his return home. The continuity of the line of Abraham and Isaac is therewith

assured through Jacob’s favorite wife; and a reversal in spatial and interpersonal

action now follows.”17 Genesis 30:25-43 follows Fishbane’s rubric of the three

primary issues in the Jacob cycle—birth, blessing, and land. It is only after the

births of Jacob’s

Related Tags