"Va'ye'esof Lavan es kol anshei hamokom va'yaas mishteh" Ch. 29, v. 22 - The M.R. 70:17 says that Lavan told the people of his community that it was well known that there was no potable water in the vicinity and people had to go quite a distance to fetch potable water. However, upon Yaakov's living among them, the nearby water improved in his merit and became drinkable. Lavan told the people that if Yaakov were to now marry Rochel he would leave their community and return to the land of Canaan and the water would then revert to its previous undrinkable quality. He said that he had a trick up his sleeve. He planned to switch Leah for Rochel, and knowing that Yaakov had a great desire to marry Rochel, he would undoubtedly agree to work an additional seven years for her. This would insure the community safe drinking water for at least another seven years.
However, Lavan told the people that he needed their cooperation in not letting out the secret to Yaakov. To ensure the success of this plan he demanded a monetary deposit which would be returned if no one leaked the secret to Yaakov. The people agreed, and with this money Lavan financed his daughter's wedding feast. However, he never returned the money to his wedding guests. (Possibly there was a printing mistake on the wedding invitation and instead of "reception" it should have read "deception.")
From where is this happening derived? The Eitz Yoseif on M.R. and the Shaar Bas Rabim answer that the verse should have said that Lavan first prepared a wedding meal and then invited the people, rather than saying he invited the people first and then prepared a wedding meal. This indicates that only after the people were invited was Lavan able to have the meal prepared.
"Va'y'hi vaboker v'hinei HEE Leah" (29:25) The M.R. 70:17 relates the dialogue between Yaakov and Leah upon Yaakov's discovery the next morning that he had been duped into having Leah in place of Rochel: Yaakov said, "Deceitful daughter of a deceitful father, why did you fool me?" Leah responded, "Is there an educator who has no students? I likewise am your student. You tricked your father into believing that you were Eisov. I likewise learned from you to falsely represent myself as someone else."
From where does the M.R. know that this conversation took place? The Tiferes Tzion says that it can be assumed that Yaakov did not take this event complacently, and upon accusing Leah it can also be assumed that she in turn used a logical defense. However, Rabbi Eliezer Chaim Deutsch, Raava"d of Banihad, Hungary says that this M.R. is alluded to in the word HEE. (Every time the word HEE is found in the Torah it is spelled Hei-VOV-Alef, save eleven places. Rabbi Ovadioh of Bartenuroh says that since HEE is spelled with a VOV, the same as the word HU, meaning HE, there must be an element of secondary male connotation as well. He applies this to 25:21, "Ki akoroh HEE," and says that the verse alludes to Yitzchok's also being barren.) Read the verse as follows: "And it was in the morning and behold HE (Yaakov) was Leah," meaning that the above conversation took place and Yaakov's accusation that Leah was a deceitful person ended with "HU Leah," Yaakov was shown that he himself was Leah, having also perpetrated a similar deceitful act.
"Eid hagal ha'zeh" (31:52) The Moshav Z'keinim brings in the name of Rabbi Shlomo ben Rabbi Avrohom that wherever we find in Tanach a covenant which includes the term EID, a witness, even if that witness is an inanimate object, it will serve as an instrument of punishment for the party who transgresses his commitment. He brings a proof from Yehoshua 24:27 where Yehoshua made a covenant with the bnei Yisroel to not forsake HaShem and said that a certain rock should serve as a monument for this covenant. The rock was not only a monument but also would be used to stone to death a person who would transgress.
Rabbi Shlomo ben Rabbi Avrohom was bothered by the gemara Sanhedrin 105a which says that Lavan was one and the same as Bilaam. Bilaam transgressed his commitment to not attempt to do harm to the bnei Yisroel when at the bidding of Balak he went to curse the bnei Yisroel. Yet we do not find that he was punished through the medium of the object which served as a witness to the covenant.
After being perplexed and pained with this difficulty for a while he had a dream that in the Medrash Bereishis Zuta a small booklet was found which said that besides piling up stones to create a small monumental hill, a sword was jabbed into the hill and also left as part of the monument. Indeed, when Bilaam was on his way to Balak he had his leg smashed against a fence (Bemidbar 22:24). Rashi comments that when no specific indication is given as to the material of a fence, we may assume that it is a stone fence. Why does Rashi bother telling us this? The answer is that of Rabbi Shlomo ben Rabbi Avrohom as above. This fence of stones is the original stone hill that was a monument to the treaty struck between Yaakov and Lavan, a.k.a. Bilaam.
In Bemidbar 31:8, "V'eis Bilaam ben B'ore horgu BECHOREV," Bilaam was killed by Pinchos with THE sword, and not "b'chorev," with A sword. This refers to a specific sword, the one that was plunged into the monument.
