Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses a textual concern regarding Biblical language:
Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Elai says: Wherever it is stated in the Torah the terms: Observe, lest, or do not, it is nothing other than a prohibition. (The words Hishamer—guard, pen—lest, and al—let not, will have an implication of avoiding a negative possibility.)
This is in contrast to the Hebrew words “iylu” or “ulay,” which are more properly translated as “if,” meaning to say that there are two possibilities and a neutral attitude toward either one.
When Avraham instructs Eliezer about seeking a wife for Yitschok, Chazal read into his words an ulterior motive. The verse states (Bereishis 24:39):
“And I said to my master, ‘What if (Ulay) the woman does not follow me?’”
Rashi (ibid) comments:
The word אולי, perhaps, is written without the letter vav so that it may be read אֵלַי—unto me. Eliezer had a daughter, and he was trying to find some reason why Abraham should say that he must appeal to him (Eliezer) that he should give his daughter in marriage to Isaac.
The GRA (Kol Eliyahu ibid) adds a thought based on our Gemara. Since the phrase used is ulay, and if that does not imply a negative outcome, it hence means that Eliezer would’ve been at least neutral, if not happy, had the maiden chosen not to join him.
There is a curious question raised by the commentaries. This particular implication and deduction comes from the text of Eliezer relating the story to Besuel and Lavan. However, the original narrative that takes place in verse five also has the word ulay without the vav:
“And the servant said to him, ‘What if (ulay) the woman does not consent to follow me to this land, shall I then take your son back to the land from which you came?’”
Why do we not read into this the same reluctance, and it is especially questionable because it is the earlier iteration? The commentaries give various answers; however, I would like to suggest the following. In general, the function of missing letters, keri and kesiv, can be seen as expressing a subconscious context and not an explicit statement. The most remarkable example is in Megillas Rus, where several verses have Naomi ostensibly instructing Rus what to do in order to engage and develop her relationship with Boaz. However, the way the words are written often indicate that Naomi was talking about herself instead of Rus (see chapter 3). Obviously, she did not state this explicitly, as it would be rude. Rather, the import is that she was vicariously living and feeling fulfilled through Rus’ actions. As she herself said, she was too old to bear children. Therefore, she was experiencing the fulfillment of carrying on her husband and children’s name through the actions of Rus.
Here too, it is one thing to pick up on Eliezer’s thoughts and unconscious intentions. We might think that when he was associating with more of his “type”—Lavan and Besuel—he might betray the mission, or let leak conspiratorially that he’d rather they say no. Or, at least, he might sabotage the process. That is why the unconscious intentions remain submerged in the verse, and the actual words he chose show us that he did not state those intentions or preferences. Rather, he faithfully followed his master’s directive, despite the personal cost.
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation 
If you liked this, you might enjoy my Relationship Communications Guide. Click on the link above.
Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, LCSW-R, DHL is a psychotherapist who works with high conflict couples and families. He can be reached via email at simchafeuerman@gmail.com