Jacob's Sheep

  • Thread starter Thread starter SweetLambs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SweetLambs

Guest
All right, I’ll give that this is an odd topic in a forum of this nature, but it’s something that I have wondered about for a long time. I raise sheep, especially colored ones, and am fascinated by breed origins, color genetics, etc.

I’ve read the account of Jacob’s flock many times, and can’t quite figure out what’s going on in there. The way I understand it, he took the colored and patterned animals out of Laban’s flock and bred them to start his own. He wanted to be assured of no white offspring.

This part makes perfect sense to me- as white is actually a pattern, not a color, and is dominant. The only colors sheep come in are black and brown. Brown is recessive to black, and piebald (spotted) is a pattern on a separate locus and it is recessive to solid (or non-spotted). There are many, many other patterns which are dominant, recessive, and codominant, but no matter what, white, as a dominant pattern, will cover all these and so the phenotype will be white. White can have “holes” in the pattern where the true color will show through, and phaomelanin can render a white sheep slightly apricot-tinted on areas with hair (such as the face and legs), but otherwise, it’s white.

So, if you take a spotted sheep and breed it to a black sheep, or any other two non-white sheep together, you will NEVER get white, unless a mutation occurs. Extension genes do occur but it would be highly, highly unlikely that these genes occurred in such sheep. Mostly these are only present in our modern breeds like Romney and Border Leicester. Finnsheep, Icelandics, and other “primitive” breeds don’t as a rule have them.

So the genetics part makes sense, even if the science of heredity wasn’t really known back then. (Even Virgil wrote about sheep color genetics- “As for the ram, however white and masculine so he ever be/But if his mouth-borne tongue be black/Reject him, lest he sully with dark spots his fleecy get/And from the fields or folds, another seek.” But his aim was to breed for white.)

So does anybody know what was going on with the peeled branches in front of the watering trough? I’ve not heard of anything like that before in either ancient or modern history. I am wondering if there were chemicals, minerals, etc. in the branches that would affect fertility or something, though I don’t know. Some people say that the branches could have affected the coloration of the lambs (chemically, mind you), which is possible, I suppose, but the lambs should not be born white anyway never mind what they had access to eat.

Thanks for any insight!
 
 
The site you referred me to is interesting, but I am still confused. Ewes come into estrus through shortening of daylight, or in a few breeds also when the days are getting longer (aseasonal). The “ram effect” can also encourage ewes to come into heat, but this still must be done at the right time of the year. The ram effect is when you separate the rams from the ewes, so they cannot smell or see them, and then introduce them suddenly. This is often enough to induce estrus.

Sheep will not come into heat from merely seeing peeled rods. The sight of them in an unfamiliar place could certainly startle them, but it’s not going to make it any easier on the rams to breed. You don’t want startled ewes during breeding season either (or ever). A ewe truly ready to be bred will stand still and accept the ram. She will stand very square, not be “thrown back”.

Maybe I am reading too much into this? 🙂
 
I am jumping in here to thank you for introducing such a fascinating subject. I never knew all this about sheep. Sure wish my sainted grandmother was here still, as she tended sheep in Spain as a girl way back in the very early 20th century. She thought they were the dumbest animals on earth, that much she told me!

This is really interesting about the different colors and patterns. I wonder what was meant in the Bible concerning this also. I always thought he took the colored sheep, so that when they bred, his would be dark and he couldn’t be accused of “sheep rustling” by his father-in-law.
 
Here are a few quotes from some good commentaries on Genesis

Theodoret of Cyrus-Questions on Genesis

Why did he peel the rods and place them in front of the sheep at the water troughs? When he desired children, he married while resting his hope of children, not in marriage, but in God, who had established marriage. So too he peeled the rods, not relying on them, but awaiting God’s assistance. Hence, he was accorded the vision of God and heard him say, “Lift up your eyes and see that the goats and rams mounting the she-goats are white and speckled, ashen and mottled. For I have seen all that Laban is doing to you. I am the God who appeared to you in the place of God, where you anointed a pillar to me and made a vow to me (Gn 31:12).” Since the grey and speckled ones had been a distance of three days (Gn 30:35), the champion of the wronged gave him this vision of speckled rams and goats mounting, so that Jacob would learn from his own experience the degree of providence enjoyed by those who trust in the God of the universe.

Rashi-Commentary on Genesis

And he thrust: Heb. וַּיַּצֵג. The Targum renders וְדָעִיץ, an Aramaic term denoting thrusting and sticking in, of which there are many [examples] in the Talmud, [e.g.] (Shab. 50b):“he inserted it (דָּצָהּ) and pulled it out” ; and (Chul. 93b):“If he thrust (דָץ) something into it.” [The word] דָּצָהּ is like דְּעָצָהּ, but it is a contracted form.

into the gutters: Where the water was running, in pools made in the ground in which to water the flocks. — [from Mishnath Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 7]

where…would come, etc.: In the gutters where the animals would come to drink, he thrust the rods opposite the animals. — [from Targumim]

and they would come into heat, etc.: (Gen. Rabbah 73:10) The animal would see the rods, and she would be startled backwards. Then the male would mount her and she would give birth to offspring similar to him. Rabbi Hoshaya says: The water would become sperm in their innards, and they did not require a male, and that is the meaning of וַיֵחַמְנָה וגוֹ. (I.e, in this word, there is a combination of masculine and feminine forms, as mentioned by Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra.)

Fr. William Most- Commentary on Genesis

The trickery of Laban: After God gave Rachel also children Jacob wanted to leave. But Laban told Jacob he had learned by divination that God blessed him because of Jacob. So Jacob offered to take as his pay every one of the goats that was speckled and spotted, and all the black lambs.

Laban again used trickery: he came and took from the flock all that were the kind Jacob had said. He put them at three days distance from those that should go to Jacob. But Jacob with divine help took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane, and peeled them to make them striped. Jacob put the rods before the sheep at the watering place where they would mate, and put the striped rods before them. He also in this way got the stronger of the flock to breed for him.

Did Laban really receive a divine response? Possible. For God did favor Jacob. It might be also hat he used old rites of divination. The proposed division of the sheep was such that normally Jacob would get far fewer. But he used a trick – in itself superstitious, but here with God’s blessing. Of course getting the stronger to breed was merely normal practice.
 
So then, there was no physiological response to the rods, and they weren’t put there for that reason? They were put there as a sign of his trust in God?

This is honestly the most confusing passage in Scripture, as far as I am concerned! And it doesn’t help that different translations can be quite varied in their descriptions- like some say speckled sheep, others say black or brown sheep. The only thing that remains the same is the speckled goats.

Any other comments, anyone? 🙂
 
Interesting topic.
Jacob was a deceiver, but to train Jacob out of his deceitful ways (so that he could become Israel), God gave him Laban who was ten times worse the deceiver. (But God was also training Laban). So to me, God taught Jacob to trust in Him and not try to get ahead by cunning, but rather by trust. And when Jacob allowed himself to have his wages changed ten times, but he always seemed to come out ahead and in the end had most of the flocks that Laban originally had. Laban also knew sheep really well, because he was a shepherd and he never was able to figure out what was going on either. So to me Jacob at the Lord’s instruction did what God asked him to do and learned to trust that God would be able to work out the details even though neither Jacob nor Laban could figure it out. I assume that God instructed him to peal the sticks and I also assume that God aided in mating and offspring produced. So it is not what Jacob did but the faith that he did it with. I define faith here as caring about and doing what God wants and not what Jacob cares about or wants. It is a weak answer, but it is the best I have.
Grace and peace,
Bruce
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top