Vayetzeh: Economic systems

This week's parsha has Jacob  confront economic realities. Soon after running away from Canaan  (because of the murderous pronouncements of his brother), he makes a deal with Gd. 

וַיִּדַּ֥ר יַעֲקֹ֖ב נֶ֣דֶר לֵאמֹ֑ר אִם־יִהְיֶ֨ה אֱ

עִמָּדִ֗י וּשְׁמָרַ֙נִי֙ בַּדֶּ֤רֶךְ הַזֶּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אָנֹכִ֣י הוֹלֵ֔ךְ וְנָֽתַן־לִ֥י לֶ֛חֶם לֶאֱכֹ֖ל וּבֶ֥גֶד לִלְבֹּֽשׁ׃ 

Jacob then made a vow, saying, “If God remains with me, protecting me on this journey that I am making, and giving me bread to eat and clothing to wear,

....

הָאֶ֣בֶן הַזֹּ֗את אֲשֶׁר־שַׂ֙מְתִּי֙ מַצֵּבָ֔ה יִהְיֶ֖ה בֵּ֣ית אֱ

 וְכֹל֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּתֶּן־לִ֔י עַשֵּׂ֖ר אֲעַשְּׂרֶ֥נּוּ לָֽךְ׃ 

And this stone, which I have set up as a pillar, shall be God’s abode; and of all that You give me, I will set aside a tithe for You.”

Jacob recognizes his basic human needs. His worldview ( at this point) recognizes Gd as the source of sustenance; the tenth that he offers is much more a recognition  of Gd's grace than a payment.  But the transactional  nature of the offer anticipates the rest of the parsha that becomes increasingly business oriented. 

Immediately following this scene, Yaakov confronts the local custom, what has become common sense in Haran: the well is opened when all the flocks have arrived, not before.  To me, this looks like a type of proto-soviet communism. "Fairness": equal access to water?  Timed breaks in the workday? These ideas take priority over efficiency and productivity. It is an example of human values taking priority over business values. Perhaps the custom started that way, or maybe there was a time when water needed to be rationed. The custom, with its inefficiency, had endure past its purpose. 

When Rachel arrives, Yaakov the foreigner, ignores  the local ordinance and removes the rock to help Rachel water her father's sheep. We know that Yaakov eventually becomes a rich, successful shepherd. Is this disregard for local custom part of the success? Does Yaakov's alternative belief system ( Gd as the source) support these transgressions?

Rachel brings (penniless) Yaakov back home to Laban.  In a compressed sentence, we see that Yaakov has begun to work for his upkeep. Laban recognizes that Yaakov's work has value beyond the cost of his food an shelter:

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לָבָן֙ לְיַעֲקֹ֔ב הֲכִי־אָחִ֣י אַ֔תָּה וַעֲבַדְתַּ֖נִי חִנָּ֑ם הַגִּ֥ידָה לִּ֖י מַה־מַּשְׂכֻּרְתֶּֽךָ׃ 

Laban said to Jacob, “Just because you are a kinsman, should you serve me for nothing? Tell me, what shall your wages be?”

Laban recognizes that he must pay more than left-over food scraps and a loft in the barn for sleeping to keep the value of  Jacob's labor. He must offer a reward. This sentence sets the tone of Laban's focus on gain through business. The obligation to care for his nephew is thin; his greed is much stronger. 

This sentence can reflect back to the story of  Rivka and the Abraham's slave. When she did all that work: drawing water for the men and the camels, she, Bithuel's daughter, the Arami, expected some kind of payment. She received it on the spot. 

The substitution of the older sister, Leah, for the more desirable younger sister, Rachel, plays off Jacob's devious taking of the blessing of the firstborn from Esau. This is suggested by the text: 

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר לָבָ֔ן לֹא־יֵעָשֶׂ֥ה כֵ֖ן בִּמְקוֹמֵ֑נוּ לָתֵ֥ת הַצְּעִירָ֖ה לִפְנֵ֥י הַבְּכִירָֽה׃

Laban said, “It is not the practice in our place to marry off the younger before the older.

Laban says: "In our place, we do not do things like you do in your place."

Laban may also have been suggesting that passing over Ishmael was the kind of thing "you people" do, not us.  Laban is distinguishing his people's "superior" customs from the ad hoc mess the descendants of Abraham have created.  To Laban, Nahor, his grandfather who stayed in Haran took the right pat

Laban's economic theory is in the tradition of Feudalism (and its derivative, Capitalism).  When Yaakov explains his leaving, he recounts the hardships of his labor as part of the justification for his reward. Laban argues:

וַיַּ֨עַן לָבָ֜ן וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֶֽל־יַעֲקֹ֗ב הַבָּנ֨וֹת בְּנֹתַ֜י וְהַבָּנִ֤ים בָּנַי֙ וְהַצֹּ֣אן צֹאנִ֔י וְכֹ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּ֥ה רֹאֶ֖ה לִי־ה֑וּא וְלִבְנֹתַ֞י מָֽה־אֶעֱשֶׂ֤ה לָאֵ֙לֶּה֙ הַיּ֔וֹם א֥וֹ לִבְנֵיהֶ֖ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר יָלָֽדוּ׃

Then Laban spoke up and said to Jacob, “The daughters are my daughters, the children are my children, and the flocks are my flocks; all that you see is mine. Yet what can I do now about my daughters or the children they have borne?

Laban argues: The owner of the capital keeps the produce. 

The relative value of labor and capital and the appropriate rewards for each  in the eye ( and sword) of the force that prevails. 

The argument between Jacob and Laban that ends the chapter is deeply tainted by the fact the Rachel did, indeed, steal Laban's idols! Jacob's indignant statement would not stand up to a better search.  We now that Rachel has the teraphim : 

כִּֽי־מִשַּׁ֣שְׁתָּ אֶת־כׇּל־כֵּלַ֗י מַה־מָּצָ֙אתָ֙ מִכֹּ֣ל כְּלֵי־בֵיתֶ֔ךָ שִׂ֣ים כֹּ֔ה נֶ֥גֶד אַחַ֖י וְאַחֶ֑יךָ וְיוֹכִ֖יחוּ בֵּ֥ין שְׁנֵֽינוּ׃ 

You rummaged through all my things; what have you found of all your household objects? Set it here, before my kin and yours, and let them decide between us two.

The argument, often flawed, is the ultimate consequence of an economic system. Someone always feels cheated, often everyone.  Can recognizing Gd as the true source of sustenance and wealth  calm the anger? Whose god, Abraham or Nahor?