How do you understand the story of Lavan and Rochel?

[ExGingi]

Are you saying she could stand up in the saddle? Not to be confused with getting down from the saddle and standing up?

No. Definitely if she was on the camel it would mean getting down and standing up. We're not talking a respectful curtsy or nod of the head here. These were the old times.

Ok now another question. What is the purpose of this discussion? Does it change the meaning of the story either way?

Does it change the outcome of the story? No. The meaning of the words of the story? Well, it either means one thing or the other, or (gasp) both!

My sole purpose in this discussion is to figure out if I was wrong/misunderstanding the story for as many years as I can recall myself.

My kid coming home with this illustration is what prompted my inquiry, as I always intuitively understood her to be sitting inside the tent and not on top of the camel, I am now unsure.

[CountValentine]

No. Definitely if she was on the camel it would mean getting down and standing up.

That would make me lean more towards saddle in the tent.

My sole purpose in this discussion is to figure out if I was wrong/misunderstanding the story for as many years as I can recall myself.

I would rely on the scholars then. That is their job. 

[ExGingi]

I would rely on the scholars then. That is their job. 

Couldn't get a clear cut answer from them as of yet, presenting my arguments both ways.

Paging @Freddie

[ExGingi]

I've added another option to the poll, which would be my vote, had I not yet voted differently.

[whYME]

Au contraire!

In the evening she would dismount in any event. In the morning she might have already mounted (not the easiest thing to do) and difficulty of rising and dismounting is plausible.

What I meant is that since IINM there's no actual  indication that anyone else was on a camel, or even that the camp was in the midst of being set up or taken down, that could be an argument in favor of her being in the tent and not on a camel.

[skyguy918]

Interesting analysis here (not sure if anything unkosher there, as it is from a University Professor rather than any Rabbinic authority): http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/tanach/tora/nashim.htm

First of all, many meforshim learn that she was weak and headache-y from being a niddah (even the Ramban he himself quotes mentions the idea). There are meforshim though that learn Rachel was pregnant with Binyamin at the time (just read the last line):
https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.31.35?lang=bi&with=Tur%20HaAroch&lang2=he

As far as the main question, Ibn Ezra says she wasn't in the tent:
https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.31.34?lang=bi&aliyot=0&p2=Ibn_Ezra_on_Genesis.31.34.2&lang2=bi

[CountValentine]

Could the saddle have been on the ground outside the tent?

[ExGingi]

Could the saddle have been on the ground outside the tent?

As far as the main question, Ibn Ezra says she wasn't in the tent:
https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.31.34?lang=bi&aliyot=0&p2=Ibn_Ezra_on_Genesis.31.34.2&lang2=bi

Ibn Ezra, besides being unequivocal about her being outside the tent, offers a totally different explanation to the words בכר הגמל, explaining it to be a subspecies of a camel, and saying that Rochel placed the idols at the location of these animals.

[good sam]

I was leaning toward outside on the camel until I reviewed the text again. Verse 33 is important for context.

33. Lavan searches the tents of Yakov, Leah and the two maidservents and then arrives at the tent of Rachel.
34. But Rachel had hidden them in the saddle and sat on them so Lavan did not find them though he searched the whole tent.
35. Rachel excused herself for not being able to stand up (either out of respect or so that he may search more thoroughly) and he searched but didn't find.

Now I can't even read it any other way than being inside the tent.

As an aside, כר might be a pillow or a cushion rather than a saddle.

[skyguy918]

Ibn Ezra, besides being unequivocal about her being outside the tent, offers a totally different explanation to the words בכר הגמל, explaining it to be a subspecies of a camel, and saying that Rochel placed the idols at the location of these animals.

Ibn Ezra, besides being unequivocal about her being outside the tent, offers a totally different explanation to the words בכר הגמל, explaining it to be a subspecies of a camel, and saying that Rochel placed the idols at the location of these animals.

Maybe I'm mistranslating, but which part of the ibn Ezra refers to a species of camel?

I don't necessarily think this ibn Ezra is pashut pshat, but it's the first pirush I see that's explicit about where Rochel was.

[ExGingi]

Maybe I'm mistranslating, but which part of the ibn Ezra refers to a species of camel?

I don't necessarily think this ibn Ezra is pashut pshat, but it's the first pirush I see that's explicit about where Rochel was.

[skyguy918]

Interesting. I originally read it as something like a chariot/cab (ie something which would never be brought into the tent), but the ibn Ezra himself on those psukim says clearly like you.

That raises the question though. If the ב of בכר הגמל just means in the place where those camels were kept, then how did she conceal them? Were they so small that she could just hide them by sitting on them?

[ExGingi]

Were they so small that she could just hide them by sitting on them?

Yes.

[gozalim]

The problem is there are many translations with a slight difference.

and the differences widen across frames fo reference.
around here this is the one you'll probably find easiest.

As an aside, כר might be a pillow or a cushion rather than a saddle.

IIN a historian, but I imagine at that point in history saddles were more like a pillow/blanket to just soften the ride, rather than the molded/leather situation used on horses today...

[ExGingi]

IIN a historian, but I imagine at that point in history saddles were more like a pillow/blanket to just soften the ride, rather than the molded/leather situation used on horses today...

https://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=51056.msg2165185#msg2165185

[Ergel]

I think it's clear from the psukim that Rachel didn't hug/kiss Lavan because she couldn't get up - if she was sitting on a saddle in the tent, what would it matter - he could hug her there. I think it has to mean she was on the camel, though I always found it odd what excuse she could have given for being on the camel. I mean, she knew her father was on the hill across the way. How could it be believable that she was just on the camel.

[koplonko]

I always understood that she was on the camel which was somehow in the tent. As a kid it made sense, now I dont care but still think she was on the camel

[skyguy918]

I think it's clear from the psukim that Rachel didn't hug/kiss Lavan because she couldn't get up - if she was sitting on a saddle in the tent, what would it matter - he could hug her there. I think it has to mean she was on the camel, though I always found it odd what excuse she could have given for being on the camel. I mean, she knew her father was on the hill across the way. How could it be believable that she was just on the camel.

The pasuk also says explicitly that she told Lavan she couldn't get up because "דרך נשים לי" - nothing to do with being on a camel.

[ExGingi]

I think it's clear from the psukim that Rachel didn't hug/kiss Lavan because she couldn't get up - if she was sitting on a saddle in the tent, what would it matter - he could hug her there.

Huh? What do you think this is? 21st century America?

No. Definitely if she was on the camel it would mean getting down and standing up. We're not talking a respectful curtsy or nod of the head here. These were the old times.

[yungermanchik]

I always understood that she was on the camel which was somehow in the tent. As a kid it made sense, now I dont care but still think she was on the camel

+1 Exactly what I assumed