Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/485

 '''15-30. Jacob's double marriage.—15.''' Laban's character begins to unfold itself as that of a man ostensibly actuated by the most honourable motives, but at heart a selfish schemer, always ready with some plausible pretext for his nefarious conduct (see vv.$19. 26$). His apparently generous offer proves a well-laid trap for Jacob, whose love for Rachel has not escaped the notice of his shrewd kinsman.—16-18a. An explanatory parenthesis. The manner in which Rachel is introduced, as if for the first time, is thought to mark the transition to another source (Di. al.).—On the names Lē'āh and Raḥēl, v.i.—17. Leah's eyes were weak (, G, Aq. Σ. ): i.e. they lacked the lustrous brilliancy which is counted a feature of female beauty in the East.—18b. Jacob, not being in a position to pay the purchase price (mōhar) for so eligible a bride, offered seven years' service instead. The custom was recognised by the ancient Arabs, and is still met with (We. GGN, 1893, 433 f.; Burck. Syria, i. 297 f.).—19. The first cousin has still a prior (sometimes an exclusive) right to a girl's hand among the Bedouin and in Egypt (Burck., Bedouin, i. 113, 272; Lane, Mod. Eg.$5$ i. 199).—22. Laban proceeds to the execution of his long meditated coup. He himself arranges the marriage feast (ct. Ju. 14$10$), inviting all the men of the place, with a view doubtless to his self-exculpation (v.$26$).—23. The substitution of Leah for Rachel was rendered possible by the custom of bringing the bride to the bridegroom veiled (24$65$). To have thus got rid of the unprepossessing Leah for a handsome price, and to retain his nephew's services for other seven years (v.$27$), was a master-stroke of policy in the eyes of a man like Laban.—25. Jacob's surprise and indignation

15. ] see on 27$36$.—] 31$7. 41$) (E), Ru. 2$12$† ; is common to J (30$28. 32f.$) and E (31$8$, Ex. 2$9$).—16.  and  are in such connexions characteristic of E (v.$18$ 42$13. 15. 20. 32. 34$); see Ho. Einl. 104.— means 'ewe' (Ar. raḫil = she-lamb); hence by analogy has been explained by Ar. la'āt, 'bovine antelope' (see Nö. ZDMG, xl. 167; Sta. ZATW, i. 112 ff.), and the names are cited as evidence of a primitive Heb. totemism (KM$2$, 254 f.). Others prefer the derivation from Ass. li'at, 'lady' (see Haupt, GGN, 1883, 100).—18. ] pretii (G-K. § 119 p); so $20. 25$—20. —] G$A$ om.—21. ] Milra' before (G-K. § 69 o).—24. ] better