(א) וישא יעקב רגליו וילך ארצה בני קדם: (ב) וירא והנה באר בשדה והנה שם שלשה עדרי צאן רבצים עליה כי מן הבאר ההוא ישקו העדרים והאבן גדלה על פי הבאר: (ג) ונאספו שמה כל העדרים וגללו את האבן מעל פי הבאר והשקו את הצאן והשיבו את האבן על פי הבאר למקמה: (ד) ויאמר להם יעקב אחי מאין אתם ויאמרו מחרן אנחנו: (ה) ויאמר להם הידעתם את לבן בן נחור ויאמרו ידענו: (ו) ויאמר להם השלום לו ויאמרו שלום והנה רחל בתו באה עם הצאן: (ז) ויאמר הן עוד היום גדול לא עת האסף המקנה השקו הצאן ולכו רעו: (ח) ויאמרו לא נוכל עד אשר יאספו כל העדרים וגללו את האבן מעל פי הבאר והשקינו הצאן: (ט) עודנו מדבר עמם ורחל באה עם הצאן אשר לאביה כי רעה הוא: (י) ויהי כאשר ראה יעקב את רחל בת לבן אחי אמו ואת צאן לבן אחי אמו ויגש יעקב ויגל את האבן מעל פי הבאר וישק את צאן לבן אחי אמו:
After the historic ladder episode, the Torah narrates an encounter that occurred during Ya’akov journey en route to Haran, his mother’s hometown (29:1-10). In a field close to the city, he encounters three shepherds standing idly near a well sealed by a large rock. The three shepherds tarry waiting for the remaining shepherds who draw from the well to arrive. Amidst this peculiar introduction, the Torah details the awkward dialogue that took place between Ya’akov and the herdsmen.
Ya’akov: My brethren. From where do you hail?
Shepherds: We’re from Haran.
(One could only imagine Ya’akov’s excitement upon hearing their city of residence.)
Ya’akov: Do you (by any chance) know Lavan son of Nahor?
Shepherds: We know.
Ya’akov: How is he doing (shalom)?
Shepherds: He’s doing. And Rachel his daughter is (right now) coming with the flock.
Ya’akov: Look, there’s lots of time in the day; it’s no time to bring the flock in; water the flock and go on grazing (in other words: why did you guys stop working?)
Shepherds: We cannot (water the sheep) until all the shepherds gather and then they remove the rock from atop the well and then we water the sheep.
A strange little dialogue to say the least: Ya’akov starts off by obtaining personal family information and then, for no clear reason, switches to questioning the Haranian shepherds about their work habits. Ya’akov then continues to speak with them though the Torah does not reveal the remainder of their conversation; but, it implies that he continues speaking with them until he personally sees Rachel and removes the rock covering the well himself. Keeping in mind the ostensibly unnecessary introduction, most Rishonim conclude that this story informs us of Ya’akov’s immense strength and that someone that sits and learns (shteigs) for fourteen years in Yeshiva will subsequently be buff; instead, we will offer a different understanding of the confrontation.
For the most part, the Torah does not describe in detail the life and culture of the biblical city or its peoples. Sure we could surmount certain facts about the Garden of Eden and Sedom, but we have to look towards the Sages (Hazal) to fill in most of the gaps. For example, the Midrash enumerates countless details of Sedomian life including their streets, their courts, and even their bed-and-breakfast. Furthermore, Hazal even articulate for us the infamous mantra of Sedom: “what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours.” Like Sedom, we are told a modest sum of facts about Haran, but nothing close to enough to write the city’s highlights for the incoming tourists. In the following, we will attempt to put forth the city’s basic weltanschauung.
II
When one reads the dialogue that takes place between Ya’akov and the shepherds, one can’t help but notice the brevity of the shepherds’ answers to Ya’akov’s queries: two of their answers are actually one word a piece! It takes real talent to be able to answer a question so succinctly. Not only that, but the shepherds do not show the slightest sign of hospitality or husbandry towards a clear vagrant. As opposed to the warmth and welcoming personality radiating from his mother’s very essence – also a native of Haran – never do these herdsman even ask Ya’akov from where did he peregrinations initiate or to where be his final destination. They brush him off with single word answers without ever giving him a second thought. They treat him as a burden to be rid of rather than an individual in need and an opportunity to do Hesed.
Yet, seemingly out of nowhere, Ya’akov changes the topic: he asks them about their work schedule. The first point we should take not of is that his question was not totally out of left field. Really, he only changed the topic once they informed him that Rachel was on her way. Unfortunately, clearly their intention in informing him of her immanent arrival was to send him packing away from their immediate presence: once they knew what family he was interested in, they also knew how to get rid of him. Yet, he resists form diverting his attention to Rachel despite her imminent arrival; instead he seems to give them Musar (ethical instruction). According to Rashi, he was criticizing their lackadaisical attitudes: they should presently be working no matter what the circumstances. Though, Ya’akov, who shows himself to be the champion of hard work over the next fourteen years (besides his past fourteen years), does not seem to be in a position, at this specific juncture in his life, to be castigating strangers for their wanting work habits. Furthermore, one cannot simply say that Ya’akov was unaware of the “big rock situation” for it stood in front of him clear as day.
Recap & Questions:
Q: Why does the Torah spend two verses giving background info that is unnecessary?
Q: Why do the shepherds respond so curtly?
Q: Why do the shepherds point out that Rachel is coming?
Q: Why does Ya’akov start to ask the shepherds about their work habits, and why does he ask only after they say Rachel is coming?
Q: If the rock was so big, how could Ya’akov move it?
Q: Why did the shepherds replace the big rock right away?
Q: Why is the Torah so repetitive in describing Ya’akov’s relationship to Rachel?
Q: How come there’s no grammatical agreement between ‘וגללו’ (and he rolled) and ‘והשקינו’ (and we watered)?
III
We must understand the innate difference between the Haranian political mentality and that of other societies. Just as Sedom mantra’s represented a firm libertarian perspective in that they felt a recognition of individualism characterized the ultimate goal of a society: social welfare and/or coercive governmental institutions undermined the individualism that was the cornerstone of their society: hence, they tortured the guest, happily. To them, the guest is a plague of society that must be taught, physically, the pitfalls of Hesed (gratis endowments).
Haran, as opposed to Sedom’s version of capitalism, preached a version of communitarianism which rejects individualism: the rights of the individual is not basic in this type of society; only the collective matters. In Haranian political philosophy, the institution of water sharing was more important than the fact that it was inconvenient for each shepherd to wait for the whole, and was detrimental to the individual when we count the amount of man hours lost every single day waiting for everyone to arrive. On the face of it, this political institution preaches equality and fairness, but what it really does is strip a person of his self. His self worth, in Haranian society, was a function of joining in the communistic government that ruled the well. Had he been deserted on an island, inherently, he would be of no worthless. Similarly, had one refused to join the shepherds’ guild, there would be no way to water your sheep. Automatically, you would be deemed a social outcast needing to find a new home or a new profession.
Though, this form of communitarianism should not be confused with a Marxist socialist society for the principle of distribution of which Marx upheld: “from each according to ability to each according to need,” in no way was upheld. Each person was not able to express his ability and for sure, while the needs of the whole were adequately satisfied, it was always at the expense of the individual. This fascist government could not stand for each person expressing his natural God-given talents.
This is exactly Ya’akov’s criticism of the shepherds: Ya’akov refused to tolerate Haran’s soft version of fascism. We cannot write off the situation by positing that the rock was just too heavy to lift: Ya’akov was not a body builder and (the contemporary great Sage) R. Elyashev, no matter what the circumstance, is not going near any large boulders. Haranians felt that no one has the right to take water until all the peoples that drew from the well arrived. This can even be seen by the grammar of verse 8: “they” removed the rock, but “we” all watered the sheep. If the issue was the weight of the rock, the Torah should say “we all” removed the rock as well. Instead, the verse simply reports that the shepherds delayed removing the rock until all the shepherds were there. Like any communistic society: everyone has equal share in the well. No one had any more right to the public property than any other. So while they did have some version of private ownership – as we see from the fact that they owned, or worked, the sheep – no one individual owned the well or had the ability to draw from it until the whole was present and accounted for. While there could have been a governmental curator to the well, the people did not want to rely on this option. Without every person being personally present, the shepherds felt that it was illegal to draw water. Insecurity and fear of inequality is the lot of such an approach.
IV
Enter Ya’akov Avinu: the revolutionary. The man who removes the big rock without all the shepherds present, the man who draws water for the girl he never met, the man who questions the social protocol within minutes of discovering the political philosophy underlying the society, but why? The subsequent verse to the incident explains it all. The Torah, upon Ya’akov getting his first glimpse of Rachel, imparts to the reader ten extra adjectives as well as many extraneous facts that we would have already known; let us see verse 10 and the extraneous words are bolded:
ויהי כאשר ראה יעקב את רחל בת לבן אחי אמו ואת צאן לבן אחי אמו ויגש יעקב ויגל את האבן מעל פי הבאר וישק את צאן לבן אחי אמו:
This verse could be broken into distinct five parts:
- And it was when Ya’akov saw Rachel, daughter of Lavan, brother of his mother.
- And [he saw] the flock of Lavan his mother’s brother.
- And he approached [Rachel and the sheep].
- And he removed the rock from upon the well.
- And he watered the flock of Lavan, brother of his mother.
In parts 1, 2 and 5, the Torah exposes Rachel’s relationship to Ya’akov, which could potentially be useful had the Torah not already revealed those facts a mere three verses earlier. It includes four superfluous words in part 1, three superfluous words in part 2 and three superfluous words in part 5. Furthermore, six of those ten extra words include three identical phrases: “Lavan, my mother’s brother.” There has to be some reason that the Torah goes out of its way to repeatedly convey so many readily known facts.
We should take note that all the extra adjectives are always from Ya’akov’s perspective; they inform us of the way in which Ya’akov related to the first cousin that he had no yet formally met. He always treats her as an individual by describing his relationship with her each and every time she (Rachel) or the sheep or mentioned in this verse. Similarly, even when referring to the sheep, Ya’akov separates them and Rachel into two distinct groups by repeating the family relationship each time in connection to both of them. Though Ya’akov relates her consanguineous relationships, they are mentioned only to display more detail about Rachel. This is the way that Rivkah (Ya’akov’s mother) acted towards Eliezer (Avraham’s slave), and she inculcated her patterns of hospitable actions to her son.
Ya’akov was trying to set an example for both the shepherds and Rachel. How did he accomplish this? Let us analyze his query he posed to the shepherds. He asks: “Look, there’s lots of time in the day; it’s no time to bring the flock in; water the flock and go on grazing?” For sure the shepherds would have felt either that Ya’akov was ignorant in the Haranian political institutions, or was simply butting into a situation that he had no right to intervene. But what was Ya’akov attempting to do? Let us not forget that Ya’akov only asks his biting, most probably rhetorical question, once he actually saw Rachel; he was setting up the mood for his big move.
He knew what they were going to answer. Any one could see the plight of the shepherds by taking a quick glimpse of their situation and second, he confirmed his suspicions with the earlier dialogue. Ya’akov had in mind to accomplish two things: A) to show Rachel that he was from the line of her aunt and did not follow in the economic-philosophical outlook of the Haranians. B) Second, he sought to introduce reform in Haran. The greatest revolutionaries are those that take up the pitchforks themselves. Ya’akov disapproved of the pejorative effects of the Marxist work ethic: just as in the former Soviet Union where communism reduced man to a number. He does what he has to and no more. The people no longer had the ambition, the drive or the will to act or think independently. Until they had the mass consensus, they could not move the rock from the well.
V
From the five steps in the pasuk, we could see how Ya’akov meant to execute his plan. (1) First he takes note of Rachel (as well as her family relationship to him). He recognizes her as an individual with individual rights; this is in stark contradistinction to the way that the Haranian shepherds had treated him just a couple moments ago. (2) Next, Ya’akov recognizes the individual rights of ownership. As I pointed out before, I do not think that Haranian shepherds opposed this idea, but by Ya’akov singling them out he further hones in on his own personal way of thinking, in that not only did Ya’akov care about Rachel, but he also cared about her property. (3) Next, once you take note of that individual, you proceed by making known your care for that person to that person. The onlooker first actively takes note of the on-comer, but then, it is incumbent upon the onlooker to make the oncoming person aware that s/he is treated as an individual and cared about. If either of these steps are missing, an integral ingredient in the newly forged relationship will be lacking. (4) After he makes his relationship known by approaching that individual, Ya’akov then proceeds to break down the impediment that occluded the possibility of entering into a capitalistic venture: one that is beneficial only to the individual, but not to the society. In doing so, he breaks down the barriers of the communitarian perspective. (5) Last, he single-handedly waters Rachel’s flocks. By assisting that person, he shows that a person can stand up for themselves and accomplish. All Ya’akov was interested in was helping that one oncoming individual. He never thought about removing the rock for the shepherds.
Still, one can ask why the shepherds did not prevent or at least protest against Ya’akov removing the rock; he was after all acting illegally? Most likely, they were so surprised that a person could revolt against the establishment that they were dumbfounded. When one sees a momentous event, the most natural response is awe and amazement; the people were like a deer facing the headlights of oncoming traffic. After this one momentous action – and a subsequent conversation - Rachel runs home to tell her parents what had just occurred. Not only that Ya’akov had arrived, but of his heroic actions.
