Vayishlach (Part 4) - Genesis 32:4-36:43

Rape.

It's not an easy topic to talk about, but it is repeated in the Torah a number of times.

Raping a married Jewish woman is really bad (death), raping a slave woman owned by another, bad, but not as bad (pay a fine), raping a gentile woman and forcing her to be your wife because she was really cute, that's fine, and as for an unmarried non-virgin woman? Well, the Torah is silent on the topic.

I go at length about Rape In The Torah, here.

There is a Christian apologist who explains that "God couldn't denounce slavery, because if He did, nobody would have listened to him."

I suppose the same thing can be applied to rape.

But let's look at the rape of Dinah for a couple of minutes.

If you read the classical commentators, they seem to have a lot of blame to go around, not unlike what you hear in modern society. "She was asking for it.", "It's the fault of her parents", "Look at the people that she was keeping company with." All of that, and more.

According to one commentary, had Jacob only given her to Esau, to marry one of his sons, then it would have all been better. In fact, the rape took place because God did not approve of Jacob keeping Dinah away from the Esau clan.

Remember, that Jacob made a deal with YHVH: "...return me to my father's house in peace, and then you will be my Elohim".

Jacob had yet to return to his father's house, but it looks like YHVH, like an evil genie, was playing with the deal, keeping JACOB safe. Rachael dies in childbirth. Dinah is raped. Joseph is sold into slavery ("Well, it turned out OK in the end, right?").

YHVH was sticking to the deal, keeping JACOB safe.

As far as how old was Dinah, the text doesn't say. She could have been anywhere from 6 years old, to 12, based on her being born sometime during Jacob's final term with Laban.

The final part of the story, where her two teenage brothers wipe out the town, supposedly in her honor, and then claim it as their home base, is interesting.

What does Jacob do when he hears that his daughter is raped? He is silent. When the rapist and his dad come visit and offer a deal, Jacob is silent about any complaint. What does he do when he finds out what his sons did, it is only THEN that he complains, saying that the neighbors might attack them. And when he is confronted by the question, "Would you have our sister be treated as  a whore?", what is his response?

He was silent.

Just like his God.

Vayishlach (Part 3) - Genesis 32:4-36:43

Esau's Bite

In all of Genesis, if you read of the interactions between Esau and Jacob, which one is the jerk?

According to traditional Judaism, Esau was the personification of brutishness, a killer, with little morals, and nonredeemable. 

And that is what most students of Torah learn, and that's what they accept.

Prior to this story, we read the Jacob withheld food from his starving brother until he relinquished over his first-born inheritance double-portion. Then we read of Jacob pretending to be Esau, which is the only time he mentions God, in order to steal a blessing that would make his descendants rulers over his brothers. Esau is angry, says some things to someone who tells Jacob's mother, who sends Jacob to get a wife.

But Jacob doesn't do that. Instead of heading north, he heads south and lives there for some time. His brother never bothered him, and instead, marries a 1st-cousin like Jacob was supposed to be doing. And he remained the household provider, while Jacob was off doings...whatever.

And that's it.

In this week's story, Jacob is supposed to be going to his father's house. Bu doing so, he would fulfill the bargain he made with God, that if Jacob returns to his fathers house in peace, then YHVH will be Jacob's God.

But instead of going south, he decides to go west and go where hi brother Esau was waiting.

Now, Jacob was nervous. He had lied and cheated his brother, and left his with the duty of aiding their ailing father. So what does Jacob do?

He sends an angel to brag to Esau about all of the wealth and family that he has, which, in effect, puts this stealing of the blessing event right back in front of Esau's face.

And what does Esau do?

He rushes to meet him, and with tears, Esau fell upon Jacob's neck and kissed him. 

This is the same expression that will be used when Jacob will reunite with the son whom he thought was dead. But in the version with Esau, Jewish tradition does something odd to the Torah scroll. It adds a number of dots over the word "and-he-kissed-him".

The traditional interpretation is, "Esau tried to bite Jacobs neck, but it turned to stone and broke Esau's teeth".

Esau just can't get a break from the commentators!

After the meeting, Jacob and Esau stay together for a few day. Esau thinks that all is fine and wants to unite and tells Jacob where to find him. Jacob say, "Uh, sure! You go ahead. I have a bunch of slow kids with me. I don't want to hold you back. See ya!"

So Esau leaves.

And what does Jacob do?

He goes in the opposite direction!

He lied to his brother once more, and he never sees him again.

So who was the good guy in the story?

Vayishlach (Part 2) - Genesis 32:4-36:43

Disclaimer:

(Before beginning, I want to clarify my position on the E/J/P/D hypothesis, which I do at this link.)

Duality within the Torah

Just as we have two Creation stories, two "rescuing Job" stories, and two (or three) "don't tell the King that you're my wife, say that you are my sister" stories, you also have two "Jacob gets a new name" stories.

These stories have some important differences. In one, Jacob is renamed "Israel" (ישראל) by a man whom he wrestles with and we are told what it means, and the other, Elohim physically appears to him and gives him a new name, without telling us what it means. In one case, Jacob has to steal the blessing by promising to let the man go only after he give it to Jacob, and in the other, God simply gives Jacob a blessing.

This is important because there is only one story of Abram being renamed Abraham, and the result is that every reference to him after that, he is only referred to as "Abraham". There is even a halachah that one should not refer to him as anything but "Abraham". (Of course, "Avraham Aveinu" - Abraham, our father, is certainly permitted).

With Jacob and the two stories, we find that the stories that follow will sometimes refer to him as "Jacob", and other times as "Israel". I am suggesting that just as "Elohim/YHVH" can sometimes signal a difference in writers, so too will "Jacob/Israel"sometimes signal such a source. And just as "Elohim/YHVH" can signal a different view of the nature of God, so too can this signal a different view of the patriarch of the 12 tribes. 

This has become such a sticking point that that are countless interpretations about what is so symbolic about each. 

The irony of this is that I think that the people who are interpreting significance to the name difference are often right on target. However, they see it as God telling us how to frame our view of Jacob, and I am saying that it is really a dual view by different authors on how they each held Jacob in different ways.

In the first version (Genesis 32:25-31) we have the following descriptions (I am simplifying all verses to expediency. For literal translations, look them up.)

• Jacob wrestled with a man until dawn (nobody else was there).
• When the man saw he wasn't going to win, he cheated a bit, dislocating Jacob's thigh.
• Man wants to be let go because of dawn (?!). Jacob demands a blessing (see Gen/ 27:28)
• Man wants to know Jacob's name (?!). Jacob tells him.
• "You will no longer be called Jacob, but Israel for you wrestled (SARta) with ELohim and men and prevailed". 
• Jacob: "What's your name?" Man: "None of your business" and he blesses him.
• And JACOB called the place PENI-EL for "I have seen ELohim face-to-face (PENI) and my soul (nefesh) survived!.

The story ends with "And this is why Israelis don't eat the sinew of the thigh-vein to this day." This seems to make this story as an insert during a later period to explain a halachah: "Why we don't eat this part of the meat".

Now, here is the second one (35:9-13):

• And Elohim appeared to Jacob again when he came from Paddan-Aram, and blessed him.
• Elohim: "Your name will no longer be Jacob anymore, but Israel will be your name" and He called him "Israel".
• And Elohim said, "I am EL SHADDAI, be fruitful and multiply...a nation of kings shall come from your loins".
• He promises Jacob and his descendants the land.
• And Elohim went up over him from that place where He spoke with him.

Story problems

• There is no angel in the story. None.
• The first story is obviously put in there to explain a rule about "why we don't eat that part of the meat from kosher animals." It's an odd justification, to be sure.
• Why the man needs to leave before sunrise is never explained. Some commentaries say that it's an angel who needs to sing praises to God at sunrise since all of the other angels will be doing that. Again, there is no description of an angel. It's someone who can't beat a human in a wrestling match without a bit of cheating!
• Both forms say, "You will no longer be called Jacob". And in both versions he is called "Jacob" by the narrator right away. And all the stories that come later, he is called "Jacob" more often than "Israel", and they occur in clusters, not in single-sentence alternations.
• One form tells us why he is called "Israel", and the other does not.
• The stealing of a blessing also seems to be a common thing here with Jacob.
• The name "El Shaddai" is always used to infer God as a God of fertility and/or protection. That is the name Elohim uses after Jacob is done having children! Is it possible that this version should have appeared earlier on? With all of the confusion earlier as to where he was and where he was going before he finally arrived at Laban's house, it's possible.

There are several anthropomorphisms here:

• "Elohim appeared" - he does that a few times.
• "I have seen Elohim face-to-face"
• "And Elohim went up over him" - "ma'al" indicated above and over, like one who leaps over a fence. In this case, to wherever Elohim dwells, which appears to be "up". It is a physical being.
• The Targum Onkelos has problems with each of these three verses, which should cause one to pay more attention to them!

Conclusion

The first story of Jacob getting a name change is very anthropomorphic ("I have seen Elohim face to face") and the text calls the person a man. Jacob often sees God who appears to him, awake and asleep, but only after Jacob leaves his parent's home. This appears to be an insert to explain why Israelis (b'nei Yisrael) don't eat certain parts of kosher animals.

The second verse also has a name change, but this is given by God who appears to Jacob, who also gives him a blessing before rising up to the heavens (or atop a mountain). The fact that there are two versions of this story where both refer to God in a physical form, and as giving Jacob a blessing, and making similar promises ("you shall nevermore be called Jacob") that do not come to pass.

These are interesting points to keep in mind while reading these two versions of the same story. 

Vayishlach - Genesis 32:4-36:43

Adding-to or Subtracting from Torah

“You shall not add to that which I command you and you shall not subtract from it, to keep the commandments of the YHVH your G-d...” (Deut. 4:2)

In this week's parashah, you will read about the rape of Dinah, and the response of her brothers, Simon and Levi. Tricking the men of the town to give themselves a circumcision, they hack all of the residents to death, which is no mean feat for the teenage boys. It says in verse 34:25 that all of the men were in pain. It is assumed that they were completely incapacitated and that the town, which Simon and Levy will take for their own, was incapable of protecting itself from a couple of teenage boys - neither the men who were in pain, nor the women who were not.

It's a miracle!

But how much pain could they have been in?

When people think of circumcision, they think of brit periah, which is how it has been done for about the last 1900 years (sometime after 120 CE, most likely). Brit milah is something else.

Most people don't know this, nor can they tell you the difference.

During the BCE period, Jews were already assimilating and wanted to be part of the Greek culture. That culture found the public uncovering of the head of the penis unseemly, and many activities during that time required that participants, especially in gymnasiums, be nude.

According to Martial, a 1st century author in "Epigrams", writes of Jews who tried to pretend that they were uncircumcised by pulling the foreskin back over the heat of the penis and tying it with a fibula, and were embarrassed when they came undone in public.

The Talmud reports of Rabbis passing rules that this act of "Epispasm" (undoing the circumcision), is forbidden, and threatened those who were doing so with "no share in the world to come". The Rambam echoes this in his Mishneh Torah Tshuvah 3:6.

While people read these words, they rarely think upon them.

How does one stretch the foreskin after a circumcision?

If you are thinking of a brit periah, as circumcisions are done today, it would have been impossible for Jews to do epispasm. What could they pull? What skin could they stretch to force the skin to eventually cover the head of the penis?

Despite the number of possible techniques, the reality is that the type of circumcision reported by 1st century doctors prior to to implementation of brit periah is this:

The one performing the circumcision would take a sheet of leather with a small hole. The child's penis would be pressed against to that only the head of the penis with the surrounding foreskin protruded. A knife was used to trim that extra skin (those born with shorter foreskins did not have more of it removed). And that was brit milah.

Brit Periah was the Rabbinical brainchild to stop the mass assimilation that was going on after the fall of the temple and the holocaust known as the Bar Kochba Rebellion.

What is Brit Periah?

Today, the mohel trims away all of the orlah (foreskin), then goes down further and scrapes away the periah, the mucus membrane that provides lubrication, usually with the thumbnail. Some Rabbis justify the change by saying that brit periah is what God intended (see the commentaries in Joshua 5:3-5:5 which doesn't mention any such thing, but is often used to justify the act).

So did the people of Shechem suffer?

As with any type of cutting, removing a small bit of foreskin was probably irritating as hell, and given the lack of antiseptics, there was likely some inflammation.

But it certainly wasn't incapacitating.

Was it enough to stop the men from defending themselves? And were the Middle-Eastern women so dainty that they couldn't defend their husbands? According to Deuteronomy 25:12, women were pretty adept to defend their husbands, even without weapons.

No. It's just a plot device in the story to explain how a couple of kids could wipe out an entire city and take possession of it all by themselves.

And it's just a story. Just like saying that the circumcision that Jews do today was commanded by God.

Vayetzei (Part 4) Genesis 28:10-32:3

Leah's Drug of Choice

Here is a tongue-in-cheek explanation of Genesis 30:14-16:

I wrote it in this way to make it easier to remember. But let's look at what I meant by "weed".

What was the "weed"

In the Torah, the term is דודאים, or the plural of דודא which has found its way into modern Hebrew as "mandrake".

But was the duadim really a mandrake?

The idea of a Mandrake was acquired because the Septuagint used it as such, perhaps based on some tradition of the time, and the Latin Vulgate continued it, and the English translations maintained it. Even Jewish texts that translate into English use "Mandrake". And as I mentioned, modern Hebrew also uses that term.

Ibn Ezra, who was quoting the Targum Onkelos, who was quoting the Talmud (see below) calls it yivruchin.

It should also be noted that if a noun ends with an aleph (א), and has an "ah" sound, it usually means that it is a feminine Aramaic word, since Hebrew would end a feminine noun with a heh (ה), which makes the same sound.

It's something to consider. (Another possibility is that, like Rephaim, the word is Canaanite and incorporated into the Hebrew text.)

Other Traditions

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 99b) quotes the supposed keepers of the oral tradition. So one would expect the answers there, right?

"What is duadim? Rav said, "yavruchei". Levi said, "siglei", Rabbi Yonatan said, "seviskei".

The Targum Onkelos was siding with the first opinion, and modern scholars consider this to be a term for Mandrake, although the Rashi on that page of the Talmud says, "It is unclear what this is". As for the other words, seglei are either "violets" or "cyprus" or "narcissus", depending on which commentator you prefer. And seviskei is :a certain kind of spice" according to Rashi.

So even the keepers of the oral traditions cannot keep it straight, nor the interpreters of the keepers' traditions. (This should give religious Jews some pause, but it doesn't).

As noted, Ibn Ezra goes along with Onkelos, and adds that it has a pleasant fragrance as this word is used in Song of Songs 7:14 and adds that it has a human form, obviously interpreting yavruchei as "Mandrake". He, the Ramban, and the Radak (all post Middle-Ages) agree that the plant does not have any special powers of inducing a pregnancy. Earlier periods believed that it could. ("Get thee pregnant on a mandrake root" - John Donne poem).

The Ramban said that Rachael simply wanted the Mandrake for their fragrance. Based on 30:15, he suggests that the root can arouse man's sexual desires. According to the Radak, Rachael was mistaken in believing that it could help her get pregnant.

The Rashbam, based on the last usage of dudaim (Jeremiah 24:1) where it speaks of them as baskets (שני דודאי תאנים - "two BASKETS of figs"), that they are figs.

I was considering that since baskets can be made of hemp, that perhaps that was the drug, the weed.

But, then again, maybe not.

Nobody seems to know.

Conclusion

Based on these few verses, nobody seems to know what the dudaim are. They have come to a consensus, based on preferences, on anything from mandrake to violets to a cypress (or figs).

The verse itself seems to indicate something special (not figs), something that can be picked in the field (not cypress), and something that an unloved wife (29:31) could use to entice her husband to desire her. Was it the false belief in it's aphrodisiac powers? What was so special that Leah's son was picking them for his mother that an infertile Rachael wanted them?

The text doesn't say. We can only conjecture, and many do.

But here's a final thought:

There is a tradition in Judaism that, "Without the Oral Torah, one cannot understand the Written Torah", and "The sages were the keepers of the Oral Torah".

Here is but one tiny example that the sages didn't know, that they were making things up based on what sounded good as part of a story, or perhaps were repeating what someone else thought sounded good. But in any case, they were not keepers of any ancient wisdom.

Like other primitive societies, they believed that certain plants could do things that they couldn't.

And THAT is probably how the LXX, echoing the views of the sages, determined that "Mandrake" was the drug of choice.

Vayetzei (Part 3) Genesis 28:10-32:3

The Story of Esau, the Believer, and Jacob, the Skeptic

In the Book of Genesis, we read the story of twins being born, Jacob and Esau.

Jacob sees that his brother is starving, near death, and is willing to only give him food if he gives him something in return, the bechorah, a  non-physical association with getting a double-portion of an inheritance.

Esau does so, after all "What good is a bechorah to me if I am dead?" (25:32)

Jacob seems to keep this bit of extortion to himself.

Jacob's mother prefers her son Jacob over Esau, and she knows the special "blessing" that her husband is about to give will define which of her sons will serve the other. So she orders Jacob (27:8) to listen to her, and to do as he is told, by deceiving Isaac.

It is only in the middle of deceiving his father, of pretending to be Esau, that Jacob says the name YHVH. He is obviously trying to pretend that he is the religious one, the brother who went out to bring fresh meat to his ailing father.

It is the only time, since he was born, and as long as Jacob lives in the house of his father, that "God" was ever mentioned by him. Even saying a name of "God" that he had heard his brother utter was only done as part of a deception.

Now let's fast forward to Jacob leaving home to find a wife. His father blesses him with God's name "El Shaddai", which is primarily used when wanting to express God as a force of fertility and protection. 

Jacob doesn't respond. He just leaves. He even goes the opposite direction from where his father tells him, hangs out for an unspecified amount of time in Be'er Sheva, and it is only then, that he begins his trip to marry his cousins. (When Esau finds this out, in order to try to get back into his mother's good graces, he marries a first-cousin as well, from his Uncle Ishmael.)

While sleeping, Jacob sees God standing next to him.

It should be obvious that Jacob's understanding of what a God is was quite primitive, and was, up until that point, of no interest to him.

When Jacob wakes up, he says, addressing his words in the third person, as if to himself, he makes a neder (a personal vow), and at the end, changes to the second-person, to confirm this to God, saying:

"If YHVH-Elohim will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and clothing to wear [and make it] so that I will come back to my father's house in peace... THEN  YHVH shall be my Elohim, and this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be Elohim's house; and of all that You will give me, a tenth, I will give the tenth to You." (28:20-22)

Jacob is making a deal, "I know what Gods are supposed to be able to do. So if you can do these things for me, proving that you are Who you claim, then I will serve you. Until then, I'll hedge my bets."

It also appears that he still had a very anthropomorphic idea of what a God was.

And as we will read in the next parashah, Jacob will be comfortable not returning home, and it is only after YHVH insists, and Jacob checks it out with his wives, that he leaves the house of his father in-law to head in the opposite direction!

No wonder YHVH sent an angel to beat some sense into him!

Vayetzei (Part 2) Genesis 28:10-32:3

One of the first stories in this parashah is that of what is famously known as "Jacob's Ladder".

This story is about 11 lines long and so much has been written bout it.

Since the story is fairly short, let's look at some of the interesting points as well as the problems. Any word with an asterisk (*) after it is a word that is often used, but one that I would prefer not to, but to explain every sentence change would make this post way too long!

28:11 -  And he happened upon* the place, and he stayed* there [all night], because the sun had set*; and he took [one of the] stones from the place, and put it under his head, and lay down in that place to sleep.

One word that I will explain is "happened upon". פגע is an odd word to use and typically means that there is some sort of intermediary involved, as when Abraham requested the local people to plead his place on his behalf to another. Because of that, Rashi and others comment that this indicates that Jacob prayed, even though, from the time he was born until he was ready to leave home, the only time that he mentioned God was to pretend to be Esau and fool his father, indicating that Esau was more of a faithful believer than Jacob.

And yes, he chose to have a rock for a pillow.

28:12 - And he dreamed, and behold! A ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to the heavens*; and behold! The angels of Elohim ascending and descending on it.

The Hebrew word, "HaShamayim" is often translated as "the heavens". Some will mangle it to "heaven" to fit an ideological view. Keep in mind that, as noted in Genesis 1:8, "shamayim" is but a euphemism for "rakia", meaning the "firmament", a solid surface that was but a few miles above.

The angels flying (or climbing) up and down these ladders (the sages argue as to which order. Did they ascend and then descend?) are the source of many metaphysical interpretations by modern theists. The simple explanation is that this spot was the place where angels would arrive to the land and return back home, above the heavens.

Later on, Jacbo will encounter a camp of these angels and get them to work for him (in the next parashah, "And [Jacob] sent them...").

28:13 - And, behold, YHVH stood beside him, and said: "I am YHVH, Elohim of Abraham, your father, and Elohim of of Isaac. The land that you are lying upon, I will give to you and to your seed."

Onkelos had a problem with the anthropomorphic "YHVH stood beside him" and changed it to "the glory of YHVH stood beside him". Because that which is standing beside you, even in a dream, should not be a God. Although later on, Jacob will also say, "I have seen God face to face", and the Targumist will take issue with that as well.

Most likely, YHVH is simply repeating his promise (as one who deals in real estate) that was given to Abraham and Isaac, and not simply the special angel land that he was lying upon.

Angels and an anthropomorphic God - as the introduction to a story, that alone should tell us that this is a supernatural event.

28:14 And your seed will be as [numerous as] the dust of the earth, and you (your descendants) will spread out to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south. And with you and in your seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

When Isaac sent Jacob forth, he blessed him in the name of "El Shaddai". This name is primarily used to describe God as on of fertility and protection. Here, YHVH is echoing that theme.

28:15 - "And, behold! I am with you and will protect you wherever you go, and will bring you back into this soil; for I will not leave you, until I have done that which I have spoken to you."

The Targumist has a lot of problems with God saying "I will be with you", since that implies a physical presence which is disturbing. So he changed it to "My memra will assist you". A memra is a supernatural entity that represents God, but isn't God. It is a sort of intermediary that the Sages invented to get around God having a form, but only made things worse!

Later on, you will see that YHVH does keep his promises, and is hanging around Jacob, and has a heck of a time getting Jacob to return to the soil where he had the vision, and thus complete the bargain in the next line:

28:16 - And Jacob awoke from his sleep, and he said: 'Surely YHVH is by this place; and I didn't know it!'

The Targumist was also uncomfortable with God having a form and being "by this place" or "near this spot", so he changed it to "the glory of YHVH dwells by this spot".

28:17 -  And he was awestruck and said: 'How terrifying is this place! this is none other than the house Elohim, and this is a gateway of the heavens!"

The belief of the time is that there were entry points into the raqia. This is expressed during the flood story, and is still maintained as part of Jewish prayer. Every Friday night they praise God who "...opens daily the doors of the gateways of the East, and splits the openings of the rakia" to let the sun in and out.

Jacob was astounded that he found such a place.

28:18 - And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put under his head, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.

The "pillar" or מצבה (matzevah) is something that Jacob will do a lot. In the book of Genesis he is erecting them repeatedly (a total of 6 times). It is a term used today for a headstone, but it means a marker, a reminder of something special about that place as an announcement to others.

28:19 - And he called the name of that place Beth-El, but the name of the city was Luz at the first.

There is an interesting thing about this naming. It would appear that this place was known as Luz, and Jacob renamed it. But why mention what it was named before? Later, he will go to "Luz, which is Beth-El" and when he is reunited with Joseph, he will remind him that God appeared to him in Luz, but won't mention Beth-El. And other books too. For example, Joshua will connect Luz to Beth-El 3 times, while Judges mentions Luz twice, but not Beth-El.

This is helpful in dating some of these books and is interesting to think about.

28:20 - And Jacob made a vow (neder), saying: 'If YHVH-Elohim will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on...

A "neder" is not really a vow, but there is no really good single English word for it. It is akin to establishing something as though it has been commanded (say, a halakha) and treating it as a personal commitment.

But look at what he is saying, so long as YHVH-Elohim is with him on the way, protecting him, giving him food and clothing, and brings Jacob back to his father's house (next verse) THEN the promise takes effect.

Now ask yourself, did this happen? If so, when? If not, did the neder ever become fulfilled?

It's worth pondering.

28:21 - so that I come back to my father's house in peace, then YHVH shall be my Elohim...

This is the last part of God's part of the deal that Jacob is putting on God!

But what does it mean that "YHVH will be my Elohim"? Remember, up to that point, Jacob hadn't really been into having a God. And Elohim is a particular expression of a God as one who is to be obeyed, feared, with no expectation of a reward. I explain the nature of an Elohim here.

There is no satisfactory commentary about this sentence. The Targum uses, "...then the memra of YHVH will be my Elohim." Here, the Targum is treating "Elohim" as though it is speaking of a supernatural expression of YHVH (like an angel), and that Jacob is referring to that. Rashi somewhat alludes to that, but again, it's not a satisfying answer.

I prefer, "You do this for me, then I will be yours, to serve and obey in all things."

28:22 - and this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be Elohim's house; and of all that you will give me, a tenth, I will give the tenth to You.'

We now have a play on words, and that "Beth-El" is based on "the house of Elohim", which refers to the rock. The Targum tweaks this because he doesn't like the sound of handing things to God. He prefers, "I will lay before you a tenth...".

It should be noted that a "house of God" is a place of worship, and so Rashi indicates that when Jacob leaves Laban's house, he stops by and pours a libation upon it. Prayer wasn't a thing that Jacob did. He erected stones, made promises, and made offerings. Of course, there is no text that says that he offered a tenth of all of his flocks to God.

Perhaps this was an insert by the later priesthood?

It's hard to say!