Kommentar zu Bereschit 11:35

שפה אחת ONE LANGUAGE — The Holy Tongue (Hebrew) (Midrash Tanchuma, Noach 19).

ויהי כל הארץ שפה אחת. The whole earth had a single language. We must give some thought to the intent of the generation that built the Tower. What exactly did they mean to achieve by means of a city and a tower? If all they had in mind was to give expression to some aspect of heresy, how was that expressed by their building plans? If indeed their heresy was of a serious nature, their punishment, i.e. scattering them over the globe, seems an inadequate punishment. How would that punishment cure them of their heresy? The words ועתה לא יבצר מהם כל אשר יזמו לעשות, "Must not everything they are planning to do be withheld from them now?," are difficult. This line poses severe problems for a believer. Why did they say: "we will build a city for ourselves?" Who else was there to build a city for? Besides, did not G'd want mankind to construct a civilised universe? Surely He did not want a bunch of cave-dwellers?

ויהי כל הארץ, the Torah does not mean the earth, of course, but all the people on earth.

...One language - that is what caused the first sin. This is that they agreed to stop in one single place. And this is against the will of God that said to "fill the land and replenish it" - that is, to walk to all its places, since the land was created to be settled.

The holy language. For if it was another language, there would not be only one language [on earth, as the holy language remained until this point.]. For all agree that the world was created with the holy language, as Rashi explained on (2:23): “The man said, ‘This at last... shall be called אשה.’”

Wir haben schon oben gesehen, dass aus ganz natürlichen Ursachen die Menschen in verschiedene Gruppen und in Folge davon in verschiedene לשונות auseinandergingen. Allein diese לשונות waren keine gänzliche Entfremdung der Sprachen, und wie לשון zu שפה sich äußerlich verhält, so auch übertragen auf ihr Produkt, die Sprache; sie hatten eine Lippe, aber verschiedene Zungen, d. h. es war noch immer eine Sprache, die nur in verschiedenen Mundarten gesprochen wurde. שָפָה heißt ja eigentlich der Rand, und zwar nicht das Ende, wo ein Gegenstand durch Störung aufhört, sondern wo er sein natürliches Ende findet, diejenige Grenze erreicht hat, die er erreichen soll und so zum Abschluß gekommen ist. Daher ספה allgemein: einen Gegenstand sein natürliches Ende finden lassen, und auch: etwas versorgen, einer Sache ihr Genüge geben, wovon מספוא: Futter. שפה heißt nun Lippe als die Grenze, der Abschluß des Innern, das, wodurch jemand sein Inneres abschließt. So wie שפה also eigentlich die ganze Mundhöhle repräsentiert und לשון nur das einzelne Organ, das den Hauch gestaltet, so kann לשון die verschiedene Mundart bezeichnen, שפה aber nur die Sprache im allgemeinen. Ungeachtet der verschiedenen Mundarten war doch noch die Sprache eine. Wir dürfen nicht vergessen, dass nahe an 400 Jahre zwischen der Sündflut und dem דור הפלגה liegen, in welchen die natürliche Verbreitung des Menschengeschlechtes und die daraus hervorgehende mundartliche Modifizierung der Sprache sich hinlänglich vollziehen konnte, die gleichwohl noch שפה אחת, noch eine Sprache blieb.

ודברים אחדים AND ONE SPEECH — They came with one plan, saying: “He has no right to select the heavenly regions exclusively for Himself; let us ascend to the skies and make war upon Him”. Another explanation (of דברים אחדים which is taken to mean “words referring to “One”): words regarding the Sole Being (God) in the Universe. Another explanation of ודברים אחדים is: they spoke דברים חדים “sharp” words; they said, “Once in every one thousand six hundred and fifty six years (the period that elapsed from the Creation to the Flood) there is a heaven-shaking, just as there was in the days of the Flood. Come. then, and let us make supports for it” (Genesis Rabbah 38:6).

...And the same words - The text did not explain what those words were, rather, it leaves as a hint, as explained in midrashim. But the words themselves are not explained by the text, it just tells us that they were the same words, to teach us that it wasn't because of the content of the words themselves that the Holy One of Blessing was distressed. They were what they were, and in its simplicity there is not sin, and on the contrary all appears well. But here what happened is that all thought the same thing, and this came to be the problem of the settlement.

שפה אחת, everyone was speaking the same language, i.e. Hebrew, as we pointed out already in connection with Genesis 5,4.

Another explanation: Against the Sole Being of the universe. There is a question on the first explanation: Why does it not say בדברים אחדים (with conforming words)? Thus Rashi says, “Another explanation...” But this answer also raises a difficulty: Why does it not say ודברים אחרים (and other words)? Thus Rashi offers the third explanation, which interprets דברים אחדים to mean דברים חדים (sharp words). (Maharshal)

If we accept the view of the sages that G'd intended one third of the earth to be under cultivation and civilisation, one third desert, and one third water, if you were to line up all the cities side by side even now several thousand years later, they would not cover one hundredth of a third of the available land mass! Most of the earth would remain desert, or at least uninhabited! It seems therefore that the roads linking one town or village to another are all considered as part of the "built up" areas that are to form approximately one third of the earth's surface. When the Torah reports that the people spoke one language and דברים אחדים, were of one mind about all important issues, the meaning is that they literally congregated together without spreading out at all. To prevent becoming scattered they built a single city. They built the tower as a landmark so that if anyone of them strayed too far from home he would be able to orient himself by seeing the tower from a distance. The "name" the Torah speaks of is the "name" of the tower, i.e. its visibility from afar, its significance. It was this very reluctance to comply with G'd's intention to populate various parts of the earth which annoyed G'd. Had they not been endowed with free choice, they never could have defied G'd's plan for an evenly populated earth in this manner. G'd therefore had to resort to some stratagem to frustrate their plan without interfering with their basic freedom of choice. G'd achieved this by confusing their uniform language. Henceforth people who had a language in common would tend to congregate together, and as a result of a common language they would choose to live together. This could only be accomplished through their migrating from what used to be a central location, or what we are fond of calling "the cradle of civilisation." G'd's whole purpose was to fill the earth with people. The sin of wanting to remain together in one location was almost as serious as outright heresy, being מקצץ הנטיעות. While it is true that there are numerous mystical angles to this episode, and our sages elaborate on many of them, none of these explanations represent the plain meaning of the text.

ודברים אחדים ist nicht dasselbe wie שפה אחת .שפה אחת ist die phonetische Einheit der Sprache, die auf der organischen Gleichheit beruht. דברים אחדים ist die Gleichheit der Wort- und Satzbildung, die aus der geistigen Übereinstimmung in Anschauung der Dinge und ihrer Beziehungen hervorgeht. Der Verwandtschaft von דבר mit תוב ,טור ,דור ,תפר die alle eine Verbindung mehrerer gleichartiger Dinge bezeichnen, haben wir bereits gedacht. Auch in דבורה: Bienenschwarm, und דברה: Floß, sowie דבֶר: Hürde, und דבר: das Führen einer Menge, tritt diese Bedeutung deutlich hervor. Jedes Wort ist phonetisch eine Verbindung mehrerer Laute, sowie als Gedankenausdruck die Verbindung mehrerer Merkmale zu einem Begriff ( — Begriff selbst bezeichnet das Zusammengreifen mehrerer Merkmale —) und als Satz- und Redeinhalt die Verbindung mehrerer Gedanken zu einer Einheit; alles dies bezeichnet דבר. Es war somit noch das Menschengeschlecht organisch und geistig in Gutem und Bösem in harmonischem Einklang.

ודברים אחדים, they were of one mind. The פה, “mouth,” i.e. the organ used to verbalise thoughts in one’s mind, is used also elsewhere to describe unanimity, such as in Joshua 9,2 להלחם עם יהושע ועם ישראל פה אחד, “to make war against Joshua and Israel, unanimously.” All these kings were united in making common cause against the invading Jewish armies. In our verse, the people all agreed that the time had come to move down from the mountainous regions around where the ark had run aground and to search for a valley with abundant water supply, good topsoil, etc, a region where they could all live near one another in comfort and safety. This occurred approximately 340 years after the deluge. It appears that Noach and his sons as well as Ever were not part of this consensus, as they were smart enough and righteous enough to understand what this might lead to. Noach still possessed books written prior to the deluge as well as books that had been written by people enjoying a long lifespan after the deluge. In these books the history of mankind had been recorded and the memory of G’d having communicated directly with man in the very early stages of human history had been preserved. Avraham was already 45 years of age during the generation of the Tower, the dispersal. According to some scholars (Bereshit Rabbah 30,8, he was either 45 or 48 years old when he became truly aware of G’d the Creator.) Other sages credit Avraham with having gained such knowledge already at the tender age of 3. At any rate, Noach and family were convinced that G’d had created the universe for no other purpose than to settle all or most of it. They came to this conclusion by simply noting their population increase and the inadequacy of the environment in which they lived at that time. They knew also that even the new plan to settle all of mankind in one single irrigated valley would not be a solution for the long term. Although they knew all this, they decided to go along with the majority opinion at that time and to preserve the positive values of unity and a common language among all men. According to Bereshit Rabbah 38,6 the plan to congregate and build the Tower was already idolatrous in its inception, their argument being that G’d cannot lay claim to the heaven to assign only earth as the domain of man. They wanted to assert their independence from G’d’s control of their fates. [The language used in the Midrash is obviously not to be taken literally, i.e. ”conquest of heaven and placing a sword in the hand of a statute placed there by man,” but is a figure of speech describing the people’s urge to assert their sovereignty on earth. Ed.]

ומגדל וראשו בשמים, clearly this is a figure of speech, no one having been foolish enough to believe that it was possible to build such a structure.

בנסעם מקדם AS THEY JOURNEYED FROM THE EAST where they were then dwelling, as it is written above, (Genesis 10:30) “And their dwelling place was … the mountain of the East”. From there they journeyed to search out for themselves a place that would accommodate them all, but they found none except Shinar (Genesis Rabbah 38:7).

AS THEY JOURNEYED FROM THE EAST. Rashi comments: “They journeyed from where they were then dwelling, as it is written above, And their dwelling was from Mesha, as thou goest toward Sephar, unto the mountain of the east.³³³Above, 10:30. From there they journeyed to search out for themselves a place that would accomodate them all, but they found none except Shinar.” But this is not correct for this is the account of the children of Shem only, concerning whom it was so said [that they dwelled at “the mountain of the east”], and why should Scripture attribute the dispersion to the descendants of Shem when the children of Japheth and of Ham were more numerous than they? Besides, their habitation in their countries was from Mesha to the mountain of the east,³³³Above, 10:30. and the dispersion of the nations took place before they settled there, for the children of Japheth surely did not come from the isles of the sea³³⁴Ibid., Verse 5. to the land of Shinar; rather, it was during the dispersion that G-d scattered them abroad upon the face of all the earth,³³⁵Verse 9 here. and at that time they were settled in their lands, after their nations.³³⁶Above, 10:31.
And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained that the mountains of Ararat are in the east. [Thus the verse before us which states, as they journeyed from the east, means as they journeyed from the mountains of Ararat.] That which he said is correct for the mountains of Ararat are in the east near Assyria, as it is said, And they escaped into the land of Ararat.³³⁷II Kings 19:37. The reference there is to the sons of Sennacherib of Assyria, who slew their father and fled to the nearby land of Ararat. And when Noah came down from the mountain [upon which the ark had rested],³³⁸Above 8:4. he and his sons settled in those lands, and when they increased they journeyed from there to this valley called Shinar.
According to our Rabbis,³³⁹Sanhedrin 109a. the men of the dispersion rebelled against their Creator. But those who pursue the plain meaning of Scripture say³⁴⁰This opinion is found in R’dak. that their idea was only to be closely united, for Scripture declares their intention, lest we be scattered,³⁴¹Verse 4 here. and does not relate any other matter [motive] concerning them. But if it be as those commentators say, then the men of the dispersion were fools for how could one city and one tower suffice for all people of the world? Or perhaps they thought that they would not be fruitful and multiply, as it is written, and the seed of the wicked will be cut off.³⁴²Psalms 37:28.
However, he who knows the meaning of the word “name” — as they said, and we will make for us a name³⁴¹Verse 4 here. — will understand their intent and will know the extent of their evil intention in constructing the tower. And then he will understand the whole subject, namely, that theirs was an evil thought, and the punishment that came over them — to be dispersed in their languages and countries — was meted out measure for measure for “they mutilated the shoots” [of faith by seeking to undermine the principle of the Unity]. Thus their sin was comparable to that of their father Adam.³⁴³See Ramban above, 3:22. Perhaps on account of this the Sages expounded:³⁴⁴Bereshith Rabbah 38:12. “And the Eternal came down to see… which the children of men had built.³⁴⁵Verse 5 here. Said Rabbi Berachyah, ‘[Whose children could they have been but the children of men?] Perhaps the children of donkeys or camels? Rather it means the children of the first man, etc.’” Contemplate further that in the entire subject of the flood, Scripture mentions Elokim (G-d), while in the entire matter of the dispersion it mentions the Tetragrammaton; the flood came on account of the corruption of the land, and the dispersion came because “they mutilated the shoots” of faith and therefore their punishment was meted out by His Great Name. This explains the “coming down”³⁴⁵Verse 5 here. and also the Divine measure meted out in Sodom.³⁴⁶See Ramban further, 19:24. The student learned [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand.

בנסעם מקדם, they were leading the lives of nomads, much like shepherds who move to wherever there was good grazing land for their flocks.

ויהי בנסעם מקדם, from the east, for this is where they had lived previously, and this was where G’d had created man before He placed him in Gan Eden. When Noach had come out of the ark he proceeded to the place where he had lived before the onset of the deluge. Also the mountain range of Arrarat is in an easterly direction (eastern Turkey and Georgia in southern Caucasus) Traveling eastward, the people had came to the valley of the Euphrates and Tigris which they found very much to their liking, a land which was called the land of Shinor. This land had already been mentioned in 10,10 as Nimrod’s first power base. We already explained that what is reported in that chapter actually referred to events after the Tower and the dispersal of mankind. Although the Torah did not elaborate on the meaning of the name Shinor, our sages in Shabbat 113 explain that the dead bodies (skeletons) of the people who had perished during the deluge had been swept down there by the rivers. It was the lowest place on earth far and wide.

בנסעם מקדם, “when they journeyed from Kedem.” According to Rashi this is a reference to verse 30 in the previous chapter in which mankind had been described as being in הר הקדם. Due to their increasing numbers, they began to look for a location that could comfortably accommodate all of them. Nachmanides, on the other hand, considers Rashi’s interpretation as flawed, claiming that only the descendants of Shem had resided in the region described as הר הקדם in verse 30. To the question that if so why would the dispersal of mankind be attributed only to the descendants of Shem, this raises the point why the dispersal of mankind is described as caused and applied only to the descendants of Shem and not to those of Yephet and Cham, seeing that the latter even represented the majority of mankind? Furthermore, according to this concept the descendants of Yephet remained in their habitats, and how did they come to populate the islands in the Ionic and Aegean sea? We would have to assume that G’d scattered them all across these islands. Subsequently, they would have formed nation states like the descendants of the other sons of Noach. Ibn Ezra writes that the mountain Arrarat was located in the east, and he is correct when he states that Mount Arrarat is situated east of there, and that it makes sense that the people who had lived around there had attempted to flee to the mountains in the Arrarat range to escape the deluge. When Noach descended from the ark it is no more than natural that he should have settled in that region. When his descendants became more numerous, they looked for wider spaces and moved down to the valley. It was the people who had settled in the valley who rebelled against G’d. According to the רודפי הפשט, people who are incapable of looking beyond the literal meaning of the text, these people did not intend to rebel against G’d but wanted to insure that they would not become scattered all over the world, unable to find their way back to their homes. These people claim that the fact that the Torah describes their expressed purpose in building the tower, not mentioning anything detrimental about them, is proof that they were quite innocent. If that interpretation were correct, the people of that time must have been complete idiots that they could imagine that a single city and a single tower could be sufficient for all of mankind! Did they imagine that the proliferation of the human race had concluded in their generation?? Anyone familiar with how to interpret what the Torah reveals, understands that the intention of the people building the tower is already revealed by their declared purpose of נעשה לנו שם, “let us make a name for ourselves!” One does not need to read much between the lines to appreciate that the project was a sinful one. If one needed further proof, the very penalty which fitted their crime, i.e. that they were dispersed, proves that they had intended to use their concentration in one location to assert their power vis-à-vis their Creator. Quite possibly, our sages who seize on the expression אשר בנו בני האדם, “which the descendants of Adam had built,” (verse 5) saw in these words a hint that the sin of these people paralleled the sin of disobedience perpetrated by the first human being, Adam. Why else would the Torah have to write the line in verse 5? Who would have thought that the people building the tower were not descendants of Adam? It is worth noting that in the whole episode of the deluge G’d is referred to by His attribute אלוקים, i.e. as someone sitting in judgment, whereas here throughout G’d is referred to as the Attribute of Mercy. The deluge had been decreed because the people at that time had corrupted earth, whereas here, just as in the case of Adam’s sin, the creature-Creator relationship, described by our sages as קצצו בנטיעות, undermining basic religious tenets, was the issue.

Where they resided. Rashi is answering the question: There is no city or place called קדם. [So why does it say they journeyed from there?] Earlier (10:30), it mentions קדם only to mark the place of Meisha, which was by Sephor, towards the east (קדם). Thus Rashi explains that they resided there, i.e., in the city of Meisha. But not in קדם, which merely marks the location. Then Rashi answers the question: Why does it not say ויסעו מקדם? For בנסעם implies they found the valley at the very start of their journey, which cannot be. Thus Rashi explains, “They journeyed from there to seek for themselves...” [I.e., they were seeking from the very start.] (the author)

נסע, verwandt mit נשא .נסח ,נסה ,נשא: etwas von dem Standpunkte wegheben, auf welchem es sich befindet. נסה: jemanden auf einen höheren Standpunkt stellen, als der ist, auf dem er sich befindet, um ihn zu versuchen, ob er auf ihm stehen könne; denn dies ist eine jede Prüfung; jede Prüfung hebt auf einen höheren Standpunkt. נסע: freiwilliges Fortziehen von dem innegehabten Orte. Es ist wohl nie ein unfreiwilliges Fortgehen, sondern immer nach einem besser zusagenden Orte. נסח ist ein gewaltsames Fortreißen (יסחך Psalm 55, 7). — קרם: das, was räumlich oder zeitlich vorangeht, der Osten oder die Vorzeit. Es ist eigentümlich, dass dort, wo die irdische Sonne aufgeht, auch der geistige Ursprung des Menschengeschlechtes liegt, und die geistige Bewegung noch jetzt von Osten nach Westen fortdauert. — Das ältere Geschlecht blieb dort, dem jüngeren Geschlechte behagte es da nicht mehr, sie fühlten sich flügge, zogen, wie die Weisen sich ausdrücken, מקדמונו של עולם. Die alten Träger der Menschenerziehung, wie שם, vielleicht auch noch נה, waren im Osten geblieben, dort, wo die Uranfänge und die Grundlage der Menschentwicklung gewesen. Es steht nun nicht ויסעו וימצאו, dann wäre ויסעו nur Einleitung zu וימצאו, sondern בנסעם: sie waren in der Entfernung von dieser ihrer Urheimat begriffen, diese Entfernung war ihr Streben, ihr Ziel. Sie suchten etwas Besseres, Zusagenderes. Da fanden sie eine Ebene (,בקעה פקח ,פקע ,בקע, eigentlich eine Kluft) im Lande Schinear, dies war das Terrain, wo der erste ׳גבור ציד לפני ד seine Herrschaft begonnen (Kap.10. 10). In diesem Lande fanden sie eine Ebene, ohne Gebirge, ohne Waldung; dort war׳s frei, da ließen sie sich nieder.

They journeyed from there... Rashi knew they journeyed for this purpose because it is written afterwards, “They found a valley,” implying that from the start they were looking for it.

איש אל רעהו ONE TO ANOTHER — One nation to the other: Mizraim to Cush, Cush to Put. and Put to Canaan (Genesis Rabbah 38:6).

הבה נלבנה לבנים, now they wanted to build permanent housing for themselves and pens for the flocks and herds. This was a common consensus, as we know from the Torah describing their speaking to each other as ויאמרו איש אלך רעהו, “they said each to his colleague.”

ויאמרו..הבה, this word הבה, is customarily used in connection with a plan forming. It describes more a firm suggestion than a definite order, command. This is one of the reasons this word is always found in the feminine mode, and followed by a plural mode.

Burn them thoroughly - There is no place in the Text where something is told that has no impact in the story [therefore, ask:] Why do I care if they were using stones; bricks; were constructing using wood; or made their brick by burning? Even before the Flood it is written "and afterward he build a city" (Genesis 4:17)! And it appears that here there is a hint regarding our sages' tradition that Avraham Avinu was thrown in the fiery furnace - and from the verse "that took you out from Ur Kasdim" (Genesis 15:7) there is no real proof, since from the simple meaning it is simply the name of a place, as it is written "in the land of his birth, Ur Kasdim" (Gen. 11:28) "and went out with them from Ur Kasdim" (Gen. 11:31) etc. But from here we have a hint to the issue of what obviously was happening before the tradition saying that they threw Avraham Avinu into the fiery furnace: they did not make the furnace for this need [of bricks], rather this was the fiery furnace (in Daniel, see Dan. 3:6) done for the need of [burning] people. And the Text is informing that this furnace was for the need of the city and the tower, and from this we understand how big and deep was this furnace, and from this furnace Avraham Avinu was saved.

One nation to another. Rashi knows this because it is written later (v. 7), “And jumble their language that they will not understand איש שפת רעהו".” There, it must mean one nation understanding another, for if it meant individuals, there would be more than seventy languages! And that verse refers back to our verse, ויאמרו איש אל רעהו. Thus we learn that in our verse, too, it means “one nation to another.” This is preferable to Re’m’s explanation that the plan was made between nations rather than between individuals.

רעה ,רעהו, vom Viehe: weiden, das uns Zusagende suchen; von der Weide: das Zusagende gewähren. In diesem Verhältnis soll ein Mensch zum andern stehen, jeder dem andern sich freiwillig zur "Weide" bieten, jeder in dem andern seine "Weide" finden, sich gegenseitig tragen, ergänzen, nähren, pflegen. — הבה, gib her, bittender Imperativ von יהב, und zwar zunächst: gib dich her, gib deine Kraft her, und wenn dies ein רֵע zum andern spricht, so liegt darin zugleich: ich will dasselbe tun, darum sofort נלבנה, gib her, lass sehen, was du kannst, ich will es auch tun. — נשרפה לשרפה, nicht נשרפה שרפה, wir wollen, was es auch sei, zum Brande benutzen. — והחמר היה להם לחומר, man übersetzt das gewöhnlich, der Ton diente ihnen zum Mörtel. Nun heißt aber nie המר Ton und nie חומר Mörtel, sondern umgekehrt: ותחמרה בחמר ,כחומר ביד היוצר also: der Mörtel diente ihnen zum Ton.

לאבן, “as stone.” The letter ל is vocalised with a semi vowel, sh’va, not with a kametz.

הבה means, “Prepare yourselves”. Wherever the word הבה (come) occurs it has the meaning of “prepare”, meaning that they should get themselves ready and unite for some work or plan or burden (undertaking). “Come, get ready”: in old French appareiller; English to prepare.

נלבנה לבנים, the word נלבנה is a form of elaborating on something which had been said before, similar to Samuel II 12,16 ויצם דוד צום, “David fasted a fast.” If he fasted, he obviously observed a fast; the author wanted to lend extra emphasis to his words. So here too, the words נלבנה לבנים, though an obvious part of building a city, were repeated merely for emphasis. The words נשרפה לשרפה, inform us that the valley lacked stones for building houses, but that there was clay which could be kiln burned and produce rain proof bricks, making it possible to build permanent homes.

Sehen wir im ganzen, was hier erzählt wird, und es ist bei dieser Erzählung um so notwendiger, auf alles einzelne zu achten, da, wie bereits die Weisen bemerken, hinsichtlich des דור המבול uns die Verirrung ganz klar mitgeteilt ist, während bei דור nicht deutlich ausgesprochen ist, was sie getan, und worin das Gott Missliebige הפלגה bestanden.

והחמר היה להם לחומר, “and the bitumen served them as mortar.” They mixed it with pitch in order to make it waterproof. The pitch here is called chemor.

לבנים BRICKS — For there is no stone in Babel which is a plain.

ותהי להם הלבנה לאבן, the zakef; tone sign has the vowel kametz underneath it instead of the vowel segol. We find a similar construction in Ruth 4,18 ואלה תולדות פרץ, where the letter פ (with the tone-sign zakef) has the vowel kametz, instead of the vowel segol. A third example with a similar construction occurs in Genesis 44,17 הוא יהיה לי עבד, where the kametz appears under the letter ע which has the tone-sign zakef establishing that the tone-sign zakef is a strong dividing tone-sign.

Sie fanden also eine Ebene, wo es an jedem Baumaterial fehlte. Dort wollten sie bleiben, "wollen sehen, ob wir nicht aus uns selbst heraus, (dies liegt in dem הבה) etwas schaffen können, wollen uns künstliche Steine machen". Und wie jedes Baumaterial fehlte, so fehlte auch das Brennmaterial zum Brande einer so ungeheueren Menge Ziegel, darum: נשרפה לשרפה. Wo das Objekt, wie hier, nicht ausgedrückt ist, bedeutet dies eben die größte Verallgemeinerung: was es auch sei, was wir finden; und so ward ihnen der Ziegel zum Steine, und das, was sonst nur als Bindemittel, als Kitt diente, ward ihnen zum Baustoff. Sonst baute man mit Steinen und verkittete sie mit Ton. Der Stein war der חומר, der Stoff, und der Ton der Kitt, beides war ihnen von der Natur geliefert. Jetzt war aber alles künstliches Menschenprodukt, und was früher המר war, ward ihnen zum חמר — .חומר, verwandt mit .עמר ,אמר חמר: Grundbedeutung: einheitliche Massenverbindung. עמר: die zusammengebundene Garbe. חומר: Haufe gleichartiger Dinge, dann חמר vom Weine: derjenige Prozeß, in welchem das Gleichartige sich verbindet. Als Most ist der Wein noch mit der künftigen Hefe gemischt, der Gährungsprozeß ist nichts, als dass sich das Gleichartige vereinigt, was stets nur in gleichzeitiger Scheidung von allem Ungleichartigen vor sich geht. Auch אמר, die mitteilende Rede, im Gegensatz zu דבר, das aussprechende Wort, begreift das Gesprochene noch mehr nach der damit zum Ausdruck kommenden Gedankeneinheit, nach seinem Inhalte (s. oben Kap.1, 22). חומר der gleichartige Stoff, aus dem etwas gestaltet wird. Er ist die dem Gebilde zu Grunde liegende stoffliche Einheit. חֵמָר das Bindemittel.

ונשרפה לשרפה AND BURN THEM THOROUGHLY — This is how bricks, which in old French are called Tuiles, English tiles, are made: they fire them in a furnace.

והחומר היה להם לחמר, the cheymor is the clay found in the earth of that region, and it was mixed into a dough with water. The product, after kiln drying the bricks formed by the dough, is called chomer. These bricks were used in lieu of stones that were not found in that valley.

לחמר FOR MORTAR to plaster the walls.

פן נפוץ LEST WE BE SCATTERED ABROAD — That He shall not he able by bringing some plague upon us, to scatter us from here.

ויאמרו הבה נבנה לנו עיר, this was at the advice of their leaders who wanted to enthrone Nimrod as king over the entire human race,

ויאמרו הבה נבנה לנו עיר, the purpose of the city was residential, the purpose of the Tower was to serve as an observation tower enabling the people in the city to keep track of where their flocks and herds were grazing. It would also serve as a beacon for shepherds who were far away to find their way home by focusing on the Tower.

And its top in the sky - It is obvious that you should not think that this would be one city to the whole world, rather they thought that the other nearby cities would be subjects to that city that had the tower, that they would be able to see from it to the distance, over all their settlement, so that no one would be able to separate themselves and go to another land. That's why they needed its top reaching the sky.

הבה נבנה לנו עיר, according to the plain meaning and the commonly held opinion that the people of that time were punished for their grandiose plan of building a Tower which was meant to reach the heaven, what are we to make of Deuteronomy 1,28 in which Moses described cities of the Canaanites as having walls as high as the heaven? Why were these walls not destroyed by G’d? We must revise our opinion of why the people were punished, and accept that their principal sin was in not fulfilling G’d’s basic directive to be fruitful, to multiply, and to populate the whole earth, not just a small valley. Their declared objective had been not to scatter (verse 4) The fact that G’d forcefully scattered them afterwards shows that their sin must have been their failure to do so voluntarily.

To scatter us from here. This refers back to “city,” not to “tower.” [I.e., they built the city in order not to be scattered.] Otherwise it would contradict what Rashi explained on 11:1, that they built the tower to rebel against Hashem, whereas Rashi explains here, “So that He will not bring some plague...” Perforce, the city was built in order not to be scattered [by some plague]. (Re’m) But Gur Aryeh writes that “not be scattered” was indeed the reason for the tower. [They reasoned that] if He will bring some plague to scatter them, they will ascend the tower to wage war against Hashem. Similarly with Rashi’s second explanation there, “To make supports for the heavens.” [It was so that Hashem would not bring a Flood upon them to scatter them].

Wenn es weiter heißt: da ließ sich ׳ה herab, die Stadt und den Turm, den die Menschen sich gebaut hatten, zu sehen, לראות, also vor dem Urteil Einsicht davon zu nehmen, so ist damit gesagt, dass Stadt- und Turmbau an sich nichts Unrechtes gewesen, und muß somit der Zweck und die dabei betätigte Gesinnung das Verderbliche und das die ganze sittliche Zukunft Gefährdende enthalten haben. Der Nachdruck des Ganzen liegt offenbar auf dem ausgesprochenen Zweck: נעשה לנו שם! Vergegenwärtigen wir uns, was darin liegt, so gewahren wir: Wir stehen an der Schwelle der Weltgeschichte. Wer spricht das נעשה לנו? Die damalige Gesamtmenschheit! Wenn aber die Gesamtheit spricht: wir wollen uns einen Namen machen, so kann dies nur zwei Potenzen gegenüber geschehen: Gott gegenüber, der über ihr steht, und dem einzelnen gegenüber, der unter ihr steht; denn neben sich hat sie, als Gesamtheit, keinen. An Nachruhm kann nicht gedacht werden; denn das פן נפוץ zieht die Wirkung in die unmittelbare Gegenwart hinein, und war ohnehin das Unternehmen ein solches, an welchem, worauf wir noch zurückkommen werden, alle Folgegeschlechter hätten mit fortbauen helfen sollen.

וראשו בשמים, “with its top in the sky.” This is obviously an exaggeration, a figure of speech. The Torah uses such exaggerations when describing Canaanite cities as “fortified into the sky,” (Deuteronomy 1,28) We must not forget that the term: שמים, sometimes refers to spiritual concepts, as in “celestial spheres, whereas on other occasions it refers to the horizon, or outer space. Birds are sometimes described as flying, בשמים, obviously not “in the heavens,” but “in the air.”

Thus we will make for ourselves a name. This “name” was the idol that was to be placed in the tower. They hoped that on account of the grandeur of the tower and the city this idol would come to be recognized universally as the supreme deity. In this way the king of the city would achieve dominion over the entire world.

And we will make a name for ourselves - people were set up to watch and be in charge of the thing, and they were army chiefs in charge of punishing those who would cross, since if this is not the case there would be no need for the tower. And all that was due to fear/suspicion.

וראשו בשמים, an exaggeration describing that the Tower would be very tall. We find a similar exaggeration when Moses described the walls of Canaanite cities in Deuteronomy 1,28 as “reaching into heaven.”

Es kommt also die Gesamtheit zusammen, in eine Ebene, kommt auf die Idee, da, wo nichts ist, durch Menschenkraft alles zu schaffen, sieht damit, was die Gesamtheit vermag, wie sie, wenn sie ihre Kräfte zusammentut, die Natur überwältigen kann, und fasst den Entschluß etwas zu schaffen, was als ewiges Denkmal die Allmacht und die Bedeutung der Gesamtheit jedem Einzelnen gegenüber vergegenwärtigen soll. Nun ist es ja eben eine Gesamtheit, auf die Gott gerechnet. ואגדתו על ארץ יסדה. Nicht umsonst hat Gott die Menschen so verschieden geschaffen, einer hat den andern zu ergänzen; der einzelne stirbt, die Kräfte des einzelnen sind beschränkt. Nur אין צבור מת ואין צבור עני, nur die Gesamtheit stirbt nicht, und nur die Gesamtheit ist nie arm; alles dauernde Große und Edle wird nur durch Vereinigung der Kräfte geschaffen. Die Gesamtheit steht aber nur dann als die Blüte und Vollendung da, wenn sie Gott gegenüber keine andere Stellung als der einzelne einnimmt, wenn sie wie der einzelne sich Gott unterordnet, mit der Gesamtvereinigung ihrer Kräfte nur im Dienste Gottes steht, und ihre Aufgabe als keine andere begreift, als: das im Dienste Gottes zu Vollbringende mit vereinigten Kräften in größerer Vollkommenheit zu vollbringen. Aber hier liegt die Gefahr. Während der einzelne schon von selbst zuletzt an die Beschränktheit seiner Kräfte erinnert wird, ist dies bei der Gesamtheit nicht der Fall; sie ist ja wirklich stark; sie kommt leicht dazu, sich als Selbstzweck hinzustellen, als ob der Einzelne nur in ihr seine Bedeutung finde, die Gesamtheit nicht zur Ergänzung des einzelnen da sei, sondern der einzelne ganz in die Gesamtheit aufzugehen habe.

ונעשה לנו שם, “and let us make a name for ourselves.” They referred to establishing a reputation of grandeur vis a vis any other creatures. [I do not understand with which other creatures they wanted to compete, as man was the supreme creature on earth. Ed.]

Lest we be scattered over all the face of the earth - However, we must understand why they feared that someone might leave to another land. And it is understood that this was related to the uniformity that was among them. And since the opinions of people are not identical, they feared that people might abandon this philosophy and adopt another. Therefore they sought to ensure that no one would leave their society. And one who veered from this uniformity among them was judged with burning, just as they did to our forefather Abraham. And the "same words" can also be seen as the fact that they would kill whoever did not think like them. And more is explained on verse 6.

ונעשה לנו שם, they meant that as a result of having a permanent residence instead of being nomads, they would acquire a far greater reputation of being people to be reckoned with. If they were to travel, and when asked would refer to this city as their home town, this would impress people over the globe. Not only that, the fact that the traveler himself compared his home town with whatever other town or settlement he would encounter, would remind him of his home town comparing favourably with the place he had just visited, and he would be sure to return home. It would act as both a physical and psychological magnet to draw the traveler back home.

Wenn die Gesamtheit spricht: wir wollen die Kräfte, die in der Gesamtheit liegen, zur Anschauung bringen, unsere Kräfte vereinigen, um uns dahinzustellen; wenn sie nicht als Gottes Herold alle einzelnen בשם השם in den Dienst Gottes, sondern in ihren Dienst — נעשה לנו שם — beruft; wenn sie sich statt als Mittel als Zweck dahinstellt: so geht die ganze sittliche Zukunft der Menschheit zu Grunde, dann tritt das ein, was hier fast prophetisch ausgesprochen: die Menschen gewahren ihre Kraft, je kunstvoller um so dünkelhafter, kommen dahin zu glauben, die Gesamtheit könne Gottes und des Dienstes seines Sittengesetzes entbehren. "Die Alten hatten Steine nötig, wir bauen auch wo keine Steine sind", da wird das Idol hohler, nicht heilbringender Zwecke ge- schaffen, für welche der einzelne sein Dasein und die Gesamtheit ihre Huldigung des Sittengesetzes hinzugeben habe. Der einzelne muß freilich weinen, wenn ein Mensch fällt, allein beim Ruhmesbau der Gesamtheit werden die Menschenopfer nicht gezählt. Sie spricht נשרפה לשרפה: was es auch sei, sobald es nur den Ruhmesbau der Gesamtheit fördert, mag drauf gehen. Der einzelne glaubt, er habe genug gelebt, wenn er sein Leben, sei es auch für einen eitlen Zweck, in welchen die Gesamtheit ihren Ruhm setzt, hingegeben, jenen Ruhm, der über Millionen Leichen getröstet und sich glorifizierend dahin schreitet. Und so wird auch in geistiger und sittlicher Beziehung das חֵמָר zum חמֶור das Mittel zum Zweck.

פן נפוץ, “lest we scatter.” They were afraid that war might break out among them, assuming there were competing nations or human beings in distant areas unknown to them. At any rate, they realised that strength lay in numbers and in visibility over vast distances, such as the top of a tower that can be seen from afar. Basically, they felt that if they were to obey G-d’s command “to fill the earth,” this would contribute to their becoming ineffective in competition with G-d.

Die Weisen belehren uns, dieses Unternehmen sei nur unter Nimrods Leitung gediehen, es kann auch nur ein Nimrod gleicher ׳גבור ציד לפני ד die Menschen zu einer solchen Hinopferung bewegen, und auch ihm wird es nicht gelingen, wenn er sie nicht für seine Zwecke zu begeistern versteht, wenn er seinen Ruhm nicht mit dem Ruhme der für ihn sich hinopfernden Masse zu identifizieren weiß. Nicht mit Gold und Genüssen, mit einem Bändchen im Knopfloch weiß ein Napoleon und Alexander die Massen für seinen Zweck zu ködern.

Es ist aber der verderblichste Wahn, als ob die Gesamtheit andere Zwecke als solche verfolgen dürfe, die ihren Wert und ihre Bedeutung auf der Wagschale des Sittengesetzes finden. Die Wahrheit liegt gerade im Gegenteil. Für den einzelnen gibts, wenngleich keine Rechtfertigung, doch mitunter eine Entschuldigung, wenn ihn eine zwingende Lage zur Abweichung vom Sittengesetz nötigt: die Gesamtheit kann nie in eine solche Lage kommen.

Hier begreist sich das פן נפוץ. Sie fürchten aufzuhören eine Gesamtheit zu bilden. Was läge daran, wenn die Gesamtheit nur ein Verein ist, um die Einzelnen zu tragen, und wie wäre das zu fürchten, wenn sie nur die Sittlichkeitszwecke in höherem Grade vollführen wollte! Ist die Gesamtheit, was sie sein soll, und bestände sie aus Millionen, so bedarf es gar keiner künstlichen Einigungsmittel, das Band liegt im Bewusstsein jedes einzelnen und ihr Einigungspunkt ist Gott. Ist sie aber nicht um des einzelnen willen da, sondern umgekehrt, spricht sie נעשה לנו שם, so wird natürlich der einzelne nur gezwungen, oder künstlich geködert, sich aufopfernd ihr zu unterordnen.

Mit diesem נעשה לנו שם, mit dieser Einführung des unwahren, sogenannten Nationalruhmes, mit der Entfesselung der Ruhmsucht, die dem einzelnen als Tadel, der Gesamtheit als Tugend angerechnet wird, ist die ganze sittliche Aufgabe des Ganzen und der einzelnen untergraben. Alle Leidenschaften haben ihre Sättigungs- grenze, die Ruhmsucht nicht. Diese Ruhmsucht hat nicht nur hier ihren Turm gebaut, nicht nur hier alles gleichgültig niedergebrannt, um Bausteine für den Bau ihrer Triumphe zu gewinnen, die ganze Weltgeschichte weiß zumeist nur von solchen Turmbauten vermeintlichen Ruhmes zu erzählen, für welche Nimrode die Völker ködernd und bewältigend zu gewinnen verstanden. Das Reinmenschliche, was in den Hütten geschieht, davon weiß der Griffel der Geschichte wenig zu verzeichnen, das, wie der schöne Ausdruck unserer Weisen lautet, schreibt nur Gott nieder, und Elija und der Messias, diese Boten und Vollbringer der einstigen Menschenerlösung, unterzeichnen es als Zeugen.

Diese ganze Verirrung charakterisiert das treffende Wort in אם נפל אדם :פרקי דר"א ומת לא היו שמים את לבם עליו ,ואם נפלה לבינה היו יושבים ובוכים אוי לנו אימתי תעלה נאחרת תחתיה, wenn ein Mensch beim Bau verunglückte, nahmen sie sich׳s nicht zu Herzen, wenn aber ein Ziegel zu Boden fiel, setzten sie sich hin und klagten: wann werden wir erst einen Ersatz dafür heraufhaben!

Wir haben oben bemerkt, dass das Unternehmen, einen Turm bis in den Himmel hineinzubauen, ein Werk hätte sein sollen, an welchem alle Generationen fortzubauen berufen gewesen wären. Wir finden auch späterhin solche Bauten, an denen ziellos bis ins Unendliche hin gebaut wurde. Auf dem Boden jenes Staates, welcher der Erbe jener nimrodischen Pläne geworden, in Ägypten, stehen heute noch Pyramiden, von denen jeder König bei dem Antritt seiner Regierung eine zu bauen anfing und an welcher während seiner ganzen Regierung fortgebaut wurde. Da war die ganze Nation gejocht, um ununterbrochen an dem Grabmal des königlichen Ruhmes zu bauen; es ist dies im kleinen dasselbe Werk wie hier. Den Weisen zufolge hat das: נעשה לנו שם Nimrod gesprochen und ist der Plural ein Plural Majestatis. In der Tat ist ja auch ein solcher Nationalruhmbau nur scheinbar eine Verherrlichung der Gesamtheit, in Wahrheit die Verherrlichung des einen Gewaltigen, der sich aus den Kräften der Gesamtheit den Lorbeer um die Stirne zu gewinnen weiß. Die ganze bisherige Geschichte der Menschheit erscheint als eine Verwirklichung des Satzes: הקנאה והתאוה והכבוד מוציאין את האדם מן העולם. Die vorsündflutliche Welt ging an תאוה וקנאה zu Grunde: נחש und השחתת דרך ,קין und חמס. Mit דור הפלגה tritt כבוד in die verderbliche Herrschaft ein.

'וירד ה לראות AND THE LORD CAME DOWN TO SEE — He really did not need to do this, but Scripture intends to teach the judges that they should not proclaim a defendant guilty before they have seen the case and thoroughly understand the matter in question. This is to be found in Midrash of R. Tanchuma.

וירד ה' לראות, The Torah uses the expression “G’d descended to see, etc.,” only when the sins committed by the people concerned were not yet ripe for severe punishment but would become so if left unchecked. Retribution which results from G’d “descending,” must be viewed as a kind of preventive medicine, designed to avoid the need for more drastic action at a later stage. One well known example of G’d’s preventive retribution is the בן סורר ומורה, a thirteen year old who stole a little meat and wine from his parents, and whose punishment is execution if the parents brought him to court as an unmanageable teenager (Deut. 21,18, see Rashi, and Sanhedrin 72 on this). In the case of Sodom, where G’d is also reported as “descending,” (Genesis 18,21) this also occurred at a time when their sin had not yet been greater than that of other surrounding nations, so that only these cities had to be singled out for punishment at that time. What distinguished the Sodomites was only the cruelty with which they committed the same kind of sins as those committed by other nations. This would eventually have led to such a corrupt world that the need for G’d to intervene on a global rather than a local basis, would have become unavoidable. Ezekiel 16,49 also describes the sin of the Sodomites in such terms when he wrote הנה זה היה עון סדום אחותך...ויד עני ואביון לא החזיקה”This was the sin of Sodom your sister…..but the hand of the poor and the needy she did not support.” Similarly, the punishment of the Israelites when they were exiled was brought forward out of concern that something worse might become their fate if G’d did not intervene at that time and exile them so that He would not eventually have to punish them even more harshly. (Deut 32,20) “I can see what would be their ultimate end.”

'וירד ה, When G’d, from time to time, takes a closer look at what His creatures on earth are doing, such an activity is generally introduced by the expression וירד ה', “G’d descended.” Relative to G’d’s stature, His involving Himself with the problems of sinful men is below what His dignity could command. [a venerable Torah sage is exempt from involving himself with the taking home of lost property and looking for its owner. If this is so out of consideration for the scholar’s dignity, how much more could we expect that G’d does not bother with us? Ed. (compare Deut. 22,4)]

Während bei dem דור המבול der Name אלקים auftritt, erscheint hier, wie schon רמבן bemerkt, nur der שם הויה. Leibliche und sittliche Entartung wie beim sündflutlichen Geschlecht ist nicht bloß menschengesellschaftliche Gefährdung, die ganze Natur ist dadurch in ihrer vom Schöpfer gesetzten Ordnung bedroht. Die Verirrung des דור הפלגה war aber keine geschöpfliche, ja sie war scheinbar zunächst nicht einmal eine soziale, es war noch Friede und Einheit vorhanden, aber die Zukunft der Menschheit, die durch die unveräußerliche Würde und sittliche Bedeutung des einzelnen bedingt ist, war durch die Absicht, die die Lenker dabei hatten, im höchsten Grade gefährdet. Deshalb wird das Einschreiten als das Werk ׳ד, der die Heileszukunst der Menschheit herbeiführenden göttlichen Waltung, bezeichnet.

בני האדם THE CHILDREN OF MAN (ADAM) — But whose children could they have been (except the children of man, i.e. human beings) — perhaps the children of donkeys or camels? But it means the children of Adam Harishon who proved himself ungrateful when he said, (Genesis 3:12) “The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, [she gave me of the tree etc.]”. These people, also, were ungrateful, rebelling against the One who had showered kindness upon them and had rescued them from the Flood (Genesis Rabbah 38:9).

לראות, we encounter the same term when G’d “descended to see” if the reports which had reached Him about the wickedness of the people of Sodom were as serious as He had heard. (Genesis 18,21) Onkelos distinguishes between the meaning of the words here and in Genesis 18, describing His action here as לאיתפרעא, “retribution,” and the action of G’d vis a vis the Sodomites as דין, “justice.”

וירד kommt hier zum erstenmale vor. Bedenken wir, dass קר שכינה בתחתונים sei, so bezeichnet וירד stets einen solchen Wendepunkt in der Entwicklung, wo Gottes Eingreifen die Vergrößerung der Kluft zwischen Erde und Himmel verhindert, und einen Schritt zu dem Ziele näher führt, dass seine שכינה wieder בתחתונים weilen könne. Hier aber tritt dieses וירד noch viel prägnanter hervor. Die Gesamtheit will dem einzelnen keinen anderen Oberherrn als sich lassen. Wie dies aber ein Angriff auf den ewig unveräußerlichen Wert jedes einzelnen Menschen ist, der ihm nicht erst durch die Würde der Gesamtheit übertragen wird, und dessen Wert nie aufgehen kann in einen Ziegel, und sei dieser Ziegel auch ein Teil zum Ruhmesbau der Gesamtheit: so war dies auch zugleich ein Angriff auf ד׳, der jeden Menschen unmittelbar in Seinen Dienst beruft, den Menschen eben damit frei, und Fürst und Sklave gleich macht. Der Name ד׳ duldet keine Sklaven! In dem Augenblick nun, da die Menschheit, statt in ihrer Gesamtheit jeden einzelnen בשם ד׳ aufzurufen, ihren Namen an die Slelle des göttlichen setzte, da וירד ד׳ steigt Gott hernieder, lässt die Erde nicht fahren, stieg herab, um den Gesamtbau der Menschen zu sehen, somit in der Absicht, um die Zwecke desselben zu prüfen. — (Über Anthropomorphismen siehe zu Kapitel 6, 6.)

אשר בנו, which they had commenced building; [they never got to finish it. Ed.]

בני האדם, they are appropriately referred to as בני האדם, “children of Adam,” having followed their own instincts and inclinations instead of heeding G’d’s instructions, just as their forefather Adam had done. G’d had wanted them to populate the earth, and they had chosen to concentrate in a miniscule part of the earth. It is interesting that before G’d brought on the deluge, the Torah did not describe Him as “descending” as it did here or in connection with the Sodomites. Instead, the Torah there spoke about what G’d had seen, i.e. ראיה, instead of ירידה. (Genesis 6,5) The reason is that the deluge was something everybody knew about, seeing it was experienced by everybody. The whole point of G’d “descending,” is in order to examine a state of affairs which is not so widely known, so that it needs investigation. Something known to everybody does not require examination to determine if it is true. Concerning all these expressions, the bottom line is that the Torah uses a syntax familiar to people on earth, even if it does not accurately reflect G’d’s thoughts and feelings.

הן עם אחד BEHOLD, THEY ARE ONE PEOPLE — They possess all the advantage of being one people and of having one language common to all of them, and this is what they begin to do!

הן עם אחד, the only way I can stop them from carrying out their unanimously approved plan is to sow the seeds of discord between them. The instrument of bringing this about is to confuse their language. Basically, people’s disagreements are either religious, (philosophical) in nature, or they result from misunderstanding what they mean when they speak. These people had been of one mind in matters of religion, seeing that they had all agreed with the mistaken idolatrous philosophy shared by mankind at that time. In spite of such apparently good reasons for disagreeing with one another, they did not misunderstand each other.

'ויאמר ה, to the angels;

They are one people. The explanation of "people" is that they all follow one custom [minhag], as it is written later on Gen. 28:3 in the explanation of 'and you shall be a congregation of peoples'.

As in אמרם עשותם. Meaning: החל is the root, and the suffix [of ם] denotes the subject [of the verb], like אמרם meansאמר הם and עשותם means עשות הם. Here as well, החלם means החל הם.

יאמר ד׳ וגו׳. Da stehen sie nun in vollendeter Einheit da, fanden sich zum erstenmale zusammen, sie waren ja zusammen ausgewandert, — und der erste Gedanke, en ihnen das Bewusstsein ihrer Gesamtbedeutung bringt, ist nicht: wir wollen Gott verherrlichen, wollen unsere vereinigten Kräfte zu Seiner Verherrlichung verwenden, sondern: נעשה לנו שם. Das war sogleich das erste Beginnen, für welches sie ihre Gesamtkräfte betätigen wollten. — בצר kommt in zwei Bedeutungen vor: Weinernte halten und befestigen, verwandt mit בסר und בשר. Beides heißt Fleisch, das eine der Beere, das andere des tierischen Leibes. Es scheint die Grundbedeutung zu sein: etwas mit einer dichten, deckenden, schützenden Hülle umgeben und daher auch בצר nicht: in die Erde befestigen, sondern: die Mauern dicker machen, so dass sie nicht leicht eingenommen werden können, und ebenso die Stadt mit Wall und Mauer umgeben. Wenn nun בצר auch "Weinlese halten" heißt, so dürfte es wohl nicht das Entleeren des Weinstocks von den Trauben bedeuten, sondern sich auf die Trauben beziehen, die in Sicherheit gebracht, "eingeheimst" werden. בצר hieße also: etwas gegen An- griffe uneinnehmbar machen, sicher stellen. So hier: es wird ihnen nichts un- erreichbar sein. —

וזה התלם לעשות, “and this is what they have begun to do.” The letter ה in the word hachilom has the vowel patach under it.

החלם is infinitive, like אמרם “their speaking”. עשותם “their doing” (i.e. “they speak”, “they do”) — so here: “they begin to do”) (Genesis Rabbah 38:9).

וזה החלו לעשות, and yet they all agree to begin this project.

If this they began to do. This is but the beginning of the transgression: they want to remain in one place.

הן עם אחד, they are all of one mind, as in Genesis 34,16 והיינו לעם “let us become a single nation.”

An incredulous question. Meaning: Shall they not be prevented from this plan? Behold, we will descend and jumble their language, and this idea surely will be stopped! But this phrase cannot be a statement of fact, for they indeed were stopped. Question: Why should they be unstoppable [if not for Hashem’s intervention]? The answer is: Peace has great power. For even if [the Jews] worship idols they are not punished [if they have peace among themselves], as it says (Hoshea 4:17), “Ephraim is joined to idols; let him alone.” But Hashem countered: Their power of peace will not help them, as they can be brought to fight and argue. (Divrei Dovid)

יזם .זמו kommt sonst nicht vor. Man glaubt, dass es so viel wie זמם bedeutet. nach der Analogie von טוב und יטב und der Verwandtschaft der ע"ע mit זמם .ע"ו ist ein schwieriger Wortgedanke. Es kommt in ganz entgegengesetzten Bedeutungen vor. Es hat durchaus nicht ausschließlich böse Bedeutung. So in Secharja 8, 14. 15 unmittelbar nebeneinander: כאשר זממתי להרע לכם וגו׳ כן שבתי זממתי וגוי להיטיב, und wenn auch זִמָה fast nur im bösen Sinne vorkommt, ist doch מְזִמֵה vorzüglich in Prov, ebenso oft in guter Bedeutung. Vergleichen wir mit זמם die verwandten Wurzeln סמם und צמם, so ist צמם: ein Zusammendrängen, צַמָתֵך, das Zusammenhalten des schwellenden Haares, rabbinisch צמצם und צומת הגידין. Auch צום, Versammlung oder Fasten, entfernt sich nicht von diesem Begriff. סמם haben wir in סם zur Bezeichnung solcher Stoffe, in deren kleinsten Teilen eine unendliche Fülle von Kräften zusammengedrängt ist, wo die Wirkung bei weitem das Quantum des äußerlich sichtbaren Stoffes übersteigt. זמם kommt, wenngleich nicht hebräisch doch chaldäisch als Zügel vor. זמם würde demnach das Ersinnen eines solchen Weges bedeuten, wo mit kleinen Mitteln unverhältnis- mäßig Großes geschehen soll, wo in einem kleinen unscheinbaren Anfang unendlich weitreichende Folgen embryonisch versenkt liegen. So heißt׳s von der זממה שדה :אשת חיל, durch Sparpfennige, mit kleinen unscheinbaren Anfängen, erstrebt sie den großen Ankauf eines Feldes. So bei עדים זוממים, mit einem Worte, und in ganz unschuldiger Erscheinung, — müssen sie ja zeugen, אם לא יגיד וגוי, — wollen sie einen Mordplan vollbringen. זמה werden solche Verirrungen genannt, die an sich schon schlecht und verderbt. in ihren Folgen jedoch noch unendlich verderbenbringend weiter reichen. Auf der anderen Seite gibt es ja auch gute Zwecke und Ziele, die nur aus kleinen unscheinbaren Ansängen erwachsend, ununterbrochen im Auge behalten werden müssen. Diese werden מזמות genannt. So vor allem das Geschäft der Erziehung und des Unterrichts, das den Zögling mit ganz unscheinbaren Anfängen in kleinen schwachen Versuchen zu üben hat, aus denen alles Große in der Zukunft hervorgehen soll. Das Kind lernt also lauter מזמות. — Hier heißt es nun nicht ייזמו futur., sondern יזמו präter.: was sie mit diesem Anfange im Sinne haben, reicht viel weiter; es heißt der Gesamtruhm und bedeutet den Ruhm eines einzelnen; es heißt Gesamtruhm und bedeutet die Gesamtknechtung! Es heißt also: "und das war sofort ihr Anfang, was sie zu schaffen begannen, und nun wird ihnen nicht unausführbar bleiben alles das, was sie bereits mit diesem Bau zu bewirken im Schilde führen".

ועתה לא יבצר, “and now that they all know seventy tongues, unless they will be scattered they cannot be prevented from translating their evil design into action.” [By dispersing them, they will forget the other tongues, and this will make unity harder for them to maintain. [This interpretation is first found in B’chor shor, one of the Tossaphists, Rabbi Yoseph. Ed.]

לא יבצר מהם וגו' לעשות This is a question (although the ה which introduces an interrogative sentence is absent): SHALL THEY NOT BE RESTRAINED FROM DOING WHAT THEY IMAGINE TO DO? The word יבצר means “restraining”, as the Targum understands it; a similar instance is, (Psalms 76:13) “He restrains (יבצור) the spirit of princes”.

ועתה לא יבצר מהם, in view of these circumstances, if left alone, they would complete what they have set out to do, so that this form of idolatry they have agreed on would henceforth be something embraced by all of mankind. Not a single one of them would turn to the Creator of the universe and realise that He, and He alone, is the Creator of the entire universe. On the other hand, the opposite will occur if discord will break out among them regarding the supremacy of any of the deities versus the competing ones. In such a scenario, every nation would believe that there is one deity that is superior to all the various national deities, whose concern is only with the particular nation worshipping that deity. All the minor deities would have to subordinate themselves to the power of that super-deity. The prophet Maleachi 1,11 expresses this in the following words: ”for from where the sun rises to where it sets, My name is honoured among the nations;” כי ממזרח שמש ועד מבואו גדול שמי בגוים.

And now nothing will be withholden from them which they purpose to do. If they finish the tower they will come to a second thought, to prevent by force other thoughts than this one. And this is a thing [that brings] killing, and violent destruction of the settlement, and it does not help that at this moment they are together with one opinion.

ושפה אחת, they can maintain their unity by speaking the same language.

Möglich aber, und wahrscheinlicher, dass יזם mit גזם verwandt ist. גזם ist eine Heuschreckenart, ארבה, also ein Schwarm, eine extensix ungeheure Menge. גזם und גוזמא ist im Rabbinischen eine maßlose Übertreibung, Hyperbel, verwandt auch mit קסם, zaubern, ebenfalls, etwas bewirken wollen, was den natürlichen Kausalnexus übersteigt. Hiervon würde כל אשר יזמו לעשות heißen: alles, was sie bereits über alles Maß hinaus zu vollbringen sich vorgesetzt.

ולא יבצר, shall it not be denied them?

כל אשר יזמו לעשות, unless we frustrate their plan from being carried out. The verb יזם describes something one plans with one’s mind. The roots זמם and יזם mean the same, and can be used interchangeably.

הבה נרדה COME, LET US GO DOWN — He took counsel with His Judicial Court because of His exceeding meekness (Sanhedrin 38b)

הבה, we already explained this expression on verse 3. The entire verse is to be understood as a metaphor, seeing that the Creator does not mingle with the creature He has created. A similar expression in Isaiah 40,14 את מי נועץ ויבינהו, “who did He consult with, who made Him understand?” This is also to be understood metaphorically. G’d did not literally contemplate if there was someone He could consult with. Here too, when speaking to His angels who are His agents, He did not actually consult them.

Measure in kind. [Rashi knows it means this] because if not, why does it say הבה, which means “prepare yourselves” [see Rashi on v. 3]? As regards Hashem, everything is already prepared! (Gur Aryeh)

ונבלה וגו׳. Gewöhnlich übersetzt: wir wollen verwirren, von בלל. Allein es gibt keine Aktivform von בלל, die dieser Wortbildung entspräche. Es müßte entweder קל ,ונבלָה oder הפעיל ,ונבֵלָה heißen. Das Wort ist offenbar von נבל, welk werden, und es heißt: wir wollen hinabsteigen, so wird sofort ihre Sprache welk werden, oder welk geworden sein. Es bedarf nicht noch einer besonderen Tätigkeit. Das נבלה der Sprache ist unmittelbar Folge von ירידה. Am Schlusse heißt es allerdings כי שם בלל ה׳ וגו׳ und wird also der Vorgang offenbar mit dem Worte בלל bezeichnet, und aus dieser Bezeichnung hat man diesen Vorgang die "Sprachverwirrung" genannt. Dieser Begriff entspräche schon an sich demjenigen nicht, was man sich gewöhnlich unter diesem Vorgange vorstellt. Es wäre doch eine Trennung der Sprachen, keine Verwirrung gewesen. Verwirrung setzte bereits verschiedene Sprachen vorhanden voraus, die jetzt durcheinander getrieben worden wären. בלל heißt überdies nie verwirren, sondern mischen, und zwar: einen bis jetzt fremden Stoff in einen anderen hineinbringen und beide so vollkommen mischen, dass in jedem Teilchen des Alten etwas von dem Neuen sich befinde, יש בילה ,סולת בלולה בשמן oder אין בילה. Es ist also hier gar keine Spur von Verwirren. —

ונבלה, “let us confuse, etc.” the word is closely related to בלולה, “thoroughly mixed.”

הבה COME — measure for measure: they had said “Come, let us build“; He meted out to them correspondingly saying. “Come let us go down” (Midrash Tanchuma, Noach 18)

ונבלה, the letter נ at the beginning of this word may either represent a plural prefix or a sign that the word is in the passive mode.

The letter ה at the end is superfluous. Rashi means that since it is written ונבלה rather than ונבל, we might think it is not plural — rather it is like נָפְלָה, which starts with a נ and is not plural. There, the נ is the first letter of the root, and the ה makes it feminine. The נ is not a plural prefix. And we might say the same for ונבלה. Thus Rashi explains, “The letter ה at the end is superfluous.” In other words, ונבלה is unlike נָפְלָה [where the ה is to make it feminine]. Rather, ונבלה is the same as ונבל, which is [first person] plural. And v. 9 proves that the נ of ונבלה is a plural prefix, for it is written afterward, “Adonoy jumbled (בלל)...” Thus we see that the נ of ונבלה is not the first letter of the root, [because the root is בלל]. Rather, it is a plural prefix. This is preferable to the explanation of Re’m, [who writes that we might think the נ of ונבלה is from the passive verb form נפעל. The Re’m argues that if so,] the verse would be difficult to understand, because it would be saying: “Let us descend and their language will be jumbled.” Their language would not be jumbled due to Hashem’s descending!

Verwandt ist בלל mit בלל .פלל ist das konkrete Mischen eines Stoffes in den andern; und zwar mehr als ערב, wo die Teile noch nicht zu einer Einheit werden. Und wie nun aus ערב, sozial, der Bürge, der dritte wird, der zwischen zwei, Auseinanderstehende, in die Mitte tritt und sie durch seine Vermittlung vereinigt, so wird aus פלל, dem verstärkten בלל, noch inniger: der Richter. Der Richter bringt ein außerhalb der Parteien stehendes Moment in ihr streitiges Verhältnis, lässt dieses Moment alle Beziehungen dieses Verhältnisses durchdringen und löst damit den Streit, vereinigt das Auseinander- und Gegeneinanderstehende. Nach gewöhnlicher Ansicht liegen sich die Parteien, "in den Haaren" der Richter "entscheidet", trennt sie, das Recht ist etwas Scheidendes. Nach jüdischem Begriff scheidet das Unrecht, das Recht verbindet. Ebenso ,sich mit allem dem Göttlichen ganz durchdringen ,התפלל So auch .ויעמוד פנחס ויפלל das das Menschliche in allen seinen Fugen gestalten und bilden soll. Der Jude wird im Gebete sein eigener Richter.

אשר לא ישמעו איש את שפת רעהו, so that they will not understand one another’s language.” They will forget any tongue other than the one they are in the habit of using. The seventy tongues will remain their collective property, but not everyone will be able to speak all these tongues. No new tongues came into existence at this time.

ונבלה means AND LET US CONFOUND The נ is the plural prefix, and the ה at the end is additional to the root as the ה in ונרדה.

שפתם, in either event it refers to the word שפתם. According to either interpretation the verb remains in the conjugation kal, [not in a transitive conjugation hiphil or piel. Ed] which would require the letter ב to have a dagesh. The meaning of the word is basically the same as the root בלל, to mix, to stir. If the letter נ would refer to the people saying this, i.e. a first person plural mode, then it should have had the vowel cholem instead of kametz. If it had been a hiphil conjugation then the letter ב should have had the vowel tzeyreh.

And splits his brains open. For if they stopped building simply because one could not understand the other, why did they scatter? They could live together despite not understanding one another. It must be that they started fighting. (Gur Aryeh)

Ist dies die Bedeutung von כלל, so muss auch hier in die Sprachbildung etwas hineingekommen sein, was bisher nicht auf sie influiert hatte und dies fremde Element machte schon ohne weiteres, dass die Menschen einander nicht mehr verstanden. Die Wirkung des Eintritts dieses bis dahin der Sprachbildung fremden Elementes wird hier zunächst נבל genannt. Wie בלל der Anfang von פלל ist, so נבל der Anfang von נפל. Was später den Fall bewirkt, bewirkt im ersten Stadium das Welken. Die Blume wird welk, sobald sie anfängt von dem Quell ihres Gedeihens getrennt zu werden. Sobald die die Verbindung zwischen dem Born des Lebens und der Blüte bildenden Kanäle sich zusammenziehen, wird sie welk, und wenn die Verbindung ganz aufgehoben ist, so fällt sie ab. Also hier: so wie Gott hinabsteigt, sollen die Sprachen losgelöst werden von dem Quell, von welchem sie bisher ihre Gestaltung erhalten.

ולא ישמעו — THEY MAY NOT UNDERSTAND — One asks for a brick and the other brings him lime: the former therefore attacks him and splits open his brains.

אשר לא ישמעו, that they will not understand. The root שמע is used here as “hearing” with one’s heart, as distinct from hearing with one’s ears. We encounter a parallel use of the root שמע in that sense in Deuteronomy 28,49 אשר לא תשמעו, “if you fail to heed, etc.” Words that come forth from the mouth are described as שפה or לשון, “language.”

Welche Elemente gestalten eine Sprache? Es gibt deren zwei; es gibt eine objektive und eine subjektive Sprachbildung, kann sie wenigstens geben. Wir können uns denken, dass eine Sprache, also die Bezeichnung der Dinge und ihrer Beziehungen nach dem gebildet werde, was die Dinge an sich und in ihren Beziehungen zur Welt sind, also objektiv, oder subjektiv: nach den besonderen Anschauungen, die ein Volk von den Dingen und ihren Beziehungen hat. So lange es nur noch eine Sprache gab, war die Sprache objektiv, sie war nichts als eine Bezeichnung dessen, was die Dinge sind und sein sollen. Bei dem großen jetzt herrschenden Sprachreichtum werden wir doch in verschiedenen Sprachen nur selten Worte finden, die von derselben Anschauung der Sache aus gebildet sind, z. B. der eben betrachtete Richter, deutsch: der den Dingen die Richtung gibt, wonach sie sich richten sollen, er entscheidet, bringt auseinander. Der Jude nennt den Richter den Vereiniger; ihm ist Gericht משפט: das Schaffen der harmonischen Ordnung (שפת ,שפד ,שפט), die jeden in die ihm gebührende Stellung im Zusammenhang mit dem andern einsetzt. — Deutsch ist vielleicht das "Schlichte", das Einfache, nicht Verschlagene, nicht Krumme "schlecht" demgemäß müsste bei einem solchen Volke jeder, der nicht schlecht sein will, nicht "schlicht" sein dürfen, und List wäre das Exzellierende; jüdisch wäre dem gegenüber ישר das Erstrebenswerteste. — Oder z. B. Tugend, Religion. Kein heutiges Buch, keine heutige Predigt ohne "Tugend" und "Religion". Deutsch wäre Tugend, also das anzustrebende höchste Sittliche, von "taugen", ein Nützlichkeitsbegriff; in den romanischen Sprachen: "Männlichkeit". Ein "tüchtiger Mann" ein nützliches Mitglied der menschlichen Gesellschaft zu werden, stellte die allgemeine Phrase als Ziel unserer Jugend auf; in den romanischen Sprachen: die Männlichkeit und Tapferkeit. Wir im Hebräischen haben gar kein Wort dafür, unser Höchstes ist מצוה, wir haben nur einzelne Tugenden, הסד ,משפט usw. — Ebenso Religion. Die europäische Sprachwelt scheint nicht bestehen zu können ohne "Religion"; wir, das Religionsvolk par excellence, haben gar keinen Begriff dafür. Sobald etwas ein besonderes Verhältnis in unserem Leben bezeichnen soll, grenzt es eben diese Seite von allen übrigen ab; es gibt dann auch Seiten, die nicht dazu gehören, es hat ein abgegrenztes Gebiet. In einem Kreise daher, wo alles zur Religion gehört, von der Geburt bis über den Tod hinaus, da tritt dieser Begriff gar nicht vor die Seele, indem er eben alles durchdringt und nichts ausschließt. Religion, wenn von religare "binden" leugnete sogar die jüdische Anschauung, die Beziehung zu Gott macht uns frei, חרות על הלוחות. — Oder der Begriff des "Seins": Es gibt Völker, wo der Begriff des Essens und Seins zusammenfällt, wo der nur ist, der isst; einem anderen Volke ist Sein nur ein höherer Ausdruck des "Denkens", sowie "leben" ein höherer Ausdruck des "Seins" (הגה ,הי, Diese beiden Völker würden sicherlich die Dinge mit ganz verschiedenen Augen .(חיה betrachten, was dem einen gut, wäre vielleicht dem andern schlecht, worin der eine eine Bedingung des Daseins erblickte, wäre dem andern vielleicht eine Verflüchtigung desselben. — Oder im sozialen Leben. Die eine Sprache hat den Begriff "Volk", kann sich somit den Begriff Volk gar nicht anders denken als unter der Voraussetzung eines, dem es zu folgen habe, hier wäre somit ein erniedrigender Begriff der Unselbständigkeit; eine andere Sprache, wie z. B. die romanischen, erblickte im Volke nur die alles verzehrende Masse, "populus"; eine dritte, wie die Hebräische, kennt das Volk nur als עם , Vereinigung aller Gleichen, und nach außen als גוי, eine geschlossene Einheit. — Die eine erblickte im Herrn nur den Überragenden, Herrschenden; die andere in ihm gerade (אָדָן) die alles tragende und stützende Basis, אלופינו מסובלים unsere Führer sind die am meisten Belasteten) usw. Sprächen diese Völker auch eine und dieselbe Sprache, sie würden mit demselben Worte das Entgegengesetzteste bezeichnen. — Wir wollen mit allen diesen, leicht zu vervielfältigenden Beispielen nur klar machen, dass שפה אחת, eine phonetisch und organisch ganz gleiche Sprache bestehen könne und man dennoch durch eine veränderte Anschauung sich gegenseitig nicht mehr zu verstehen brauche, dass somit, auch ohne organisch verändernde äußere Einflüsse, schon von innen heraus, durch eine Veränderung in dem sprachbildlichen Geist, Sprachspaltungen entstehen können, kurz, dass שפה אחת und doch nicht mehr notwendig דברים אחדים sein dürften.

Bis dahin, wurde uns gesagt, war שפה אחת und דברים אחדים, es war nicht nur eine physische und klimatische Gleichheit, eine allgemeine organische Übereinstimmung der Sprache, sondern die Einheit des Geistes, der Richtung und der Anschauung bewahrte auch דברים אחדים: die einheitliche Prägung des Gedankenausdrucks. Eine solche geistige Einheit konnte nur so lange bleiben, als das Wort, das gesprochen wurde, nicht von dem einzelnen gebildet, sondern ihm überliefert war. So lange man über die Dinge in Übereinstimmung, und diese Übereinstimmung durch eine höhere Sanktion gegeben, so lange, mit einem Worte, die Sprache eine objektive und nicht eine subjektive war, so lange hatte die Sprache die sich stets gleich bleibende Eigentümlichkeit und Bestimmung der Dinge und nicht die Anschauung des einzelnen zum Grunde. Eine solche objektiv gegebene Sprache würde vielmehr die Übereinstimmung in der Welt- und Lebensanschauung schaffen und erhalten, in sie wäre alle Weisheit niedergelegt. Rechts- und Sittenlehre, Physik und Metaphysik haben nichts zum Gegenstande, als: was sind die Dinge, und was sollen sie sein, und alles dies wäre in der Sprache niedergelegt. Die Trübung einer solchen Sprache würde keine geringe Umwälzung erzeugen. Denken wir uns z. B. aus unserer Sprache das Wort "haben" hinweg. Die hebräische Sprache hat z. B. den Ausdruck nicht. "Haben" enthält den Begriff des Körperlichen, haften, habere, avere sich nach etwas sehnen, und wenn man es gepackt hat, so "hat" man es. Denken wir uns, dieser ganze Begriff habe gefehlt, es habe der Mensch nur das als das Seinige zu betrachten gehabt, was ihm, wie im Hebräischen, zuständig, לו, war. Denken wir uns, dass demgemäß in dieser Sprache der Begriff des Mein und Dein gar nicht in unserer abgrenzenden Einheitlichkeit vorhanden gewesen, sondern stets nur in der Zusammenhörigkeit des Dinges zu der Persönlichkeit gedacht werden konnte, so würde der erste, der den Begriff des "Haben" hereingebracht, die größte Revolution hervorgerufen haben; er hätte den Rechtsbegriff in einen Faustbegriff umgewandelt. — Oder in den engeren Kreis des Familienlebens, worauf die Weisen einen so bedeutenden Nachdruck legen und, als Adam sein Weib Ischa nannte, dabei bemerken, מכאן שנברא העולם בלשון הקודש. In diesem Worte שיא und אשה lag die Bürgschaft für die Ebenbürtigkeit und die sich gegenseitig ergänzende Bestimmung des Mannes und des Weibes. So lange Mann und Weib איש und אשה waren, brauchte weder der Mann von dem Weibe, noch das Weib von dem Manne emanzipiert zu werden, konnte keiner weder des andern Sklave, noch Gott oder Göttin werden. Der erste, der diese Bezeichnung änderte, wie denn wohl nach der Bemerkung unserer Weisen, keine andere Sprache Mann und Weib mit derselben Sprachwurzel, also mit derselben Gedankenanschauung vergegenwärtigt, hat es dahin gebracht, dass bald der eine sein Weib vor den Pflug spannt, bald der andere sich ihr zu Füßen wirft. — Ebenso, so lange Vater und Mutter אם und אב heißen, dem Kinde als solche vorschweben, und Bruder und Schwester אחות und חא an einen Faden gereiht und miteinander verbunden waren, da brauchte man eigentlich nur die Namen der Dinge zu kennen, und hatte mit ihnen sofort alle soziale Weisheit und Philosophie, während man z. B. bei "Vater" und "Mutter" gar nichts denken kann.

War diese שפה אחת die Sprache, in der Gott den ersten Menschen die Dinge und ihre Beziehungen anschauen und denken lehrte, war sie somit auch das Wort, womit Gott dem Menschen gegenüber die Dinge nannte, die also diejenige Anschauung der Dinge enthielt, welche nach Gottes Willen die Weisheit der Menschen begründen sollte, so dürfte es gar nicht unmöglich sein, dass vielleicht ׳קרא בשם ד nichts anderes wäre, als die Menschen belehren über das, was die Dinge sind und sein sollen, nicht nach der subjektiven Anschauung und der Willkür des Menschen, sondern nach der Anschauung und dem Willen Gottes für den Menschen; denn nur wenn wir die Dinge bei dem rechten Namen nennen, ist auch die Wahrheit für uns eine nicht getrübte.

Das Element, das nun in diese einheitlich geprägte Sprache eintreten konnte, um sie plötzlich von ihrem alten Quell abzulösen, konnte nichts anderes sein, als das sich opponierend erwachende Bewusstsein des einzelnen, das der Objektivität der bis dahin mit der Sprache gegebenen Anschauung der Dinge gegenüber, die subjektive Willkür geltend machte. Der Versuch der Gesamtheit, durch diesen Bau die Individualität jedes einzelnen zur Null zu machen, die nur Bedeutung gewönne, wenn das Eins der Gesamtheit davor stehe, wurde gebrochen durch das erwachende Bewusstsein des selbständigen Wertes des einzelnen. Es empörte sich das menschliche Selbstgefühl, etwas von dem Gefühle dämmerte auf, das in jedem Menschen, im Nimrod wie im Sklaven, den zur gleichen Willensfreiheit Berufenen ahnen lässt. Es erwachte der Eigensinn, die Subjektivität, der Egoismus, der sich keiner fremden Anschauung, und wäre es selbst die göttlich überlieferte, mehr unterwerfen mochte — Ausschreitungen, die aber in Gottes Hand Mittel der Menschenrettung werden.

Wenn die Vereinigung der Gesamtheit ihre Macht so missbraucht, dass sie den ihr anvertrauten Schatz, die einzelnen, die sie berufen ist ׳לקרא בשם ד, nur ihrem Namen, ihrer Herrschaft dienstbar machen will, so steht der einzelne auf und spricht: ich kenne keine Gesamtheit, ich kenne überhaupt nur mich, schüttet damit allerdings das Kind mit dem Bade aus, reißt sich allerdings damit von der Wurzel los, die ihm alle menschliche Weisheit aus dem göttlichen Ursprung derselben tradieren sollte, und wirft sich einer Subjektivität in die Arme, die ihn pfadlos dem Ungefähr zutreibt; allein diese Dezentralisierung ist dann doch die einzige Rettung des Menschlichen im Menschen. Diese Subjektivität, dieses Selbstgefühl, das die Dinge nennt, nicht wie es die zwingende Gesamtheit will, sondern, wie sie ihm erscheinen, dies wäre das neue Element gewesen, אשר בלל ד׳, das Gott in der Anschauung, somit in der Sprache der Menschen zersetzend wach werden ließ. Der eine sagte: wir bleiben bei dem alten Rechte, nur das jedem Zuständige gehört ihm, der andere sprach: ich kenne kein Recht, was ich fasse, was ich habe, ist mein usw. usw. Dieses Wecken der Subjektivität wäre die Wirkung der ירידה, und damit das נבלה schon vollendet gewesen. — Da schon früher steht וירד ד׳ und nun noch einmal נרדה und zwar נרדה als Wunsch, so scheint damit das noch tiefere Hineintreten in das Bewusstsein des Menschen und das Wachwerden des Gedankens gezeichnet zu sein, dass doch über diesem Nimrod es noch einen Höheren gebe. נרדה "ich möchte doch niedersteigen" Es liegt darin, dass עיקר שכינה בתחתונים, dass Gottes Absicht und Ziel ist, sich die Menschen auf Erden nicht entreißen zu lassen, seine Gegenwart einst wieder in ihrer Mitte zu nehmen, und auch nur die leiseste Betätigung dieses Zieles bewirkte das נָבְלָה der Sprache; es nannte fortan der Trotz, der Eigensinn, die Laune usw. ja die Leidenschaft die Dinge, freilich nicht mehr in der einen Weise, wie Gott sie nannte, und so kam es denn, dass einer den andern nicht mehr verstand. Einer nannte dem andern zum Trotz die Dinge anders; denn in der eigenwilligen Anschauung der Dinge, gleichbedeutend mit dem eigenwilligen Nennen der Dinge, zeigt sich die Selbständigkeit; fängt ja auch später im Laufe der Geschichte jede Zentralisation damit an, die Eigentümlichkeit der Sprache zu rauben.

Es war also die Zwietracht nicht aus einer Vielheit der Sprache entstanden, sondern umgekehrt, die Zwietracht erzeugte zuerst die Zerklüftung der Sprache, so dass im Anfange die שפה אחת noch geblieben sein konnte und doch: ונבלה שם, ohne klimatische Veränderung, schon vor der Zerstreuung, waren in der שפה אחת die דברים אחדים nicht mehr; dieser Zwiespalt der Anschauungen trieb nachher die Menschen völlig auseinander, wo dann die klimatische Verschiedenheit ihren völlig auch organisch zerklüftenden Einfluß geltend machte.

ויפץ ה' אתם משם SO THE LORD SCATTERED THEM ABROAD FROM THENCE—In this world (Sanhedrin 107b). What they had said. (Genesis 11:4) “lest we be scattered abroad” really happened to them. This is what Solomon said, (Proverbs 10:24) “What the wicked fears will come upon him” (Midrash Tanchuma, Noach 18).

'ויפץ ה, G’d did not scatter the people by physically depositing them in different parts of the earth. By mixing up their languages, the people themselves started moving away from one another, in accordance with their ability to understand one another, Seeing that they were unable to communicate with one another coherently, their building project had to be aborted at any rate. The dispersal process was gradual, as methods of transportation were severely limited. People moved predominantly north from Mesopotamia, rather than to the desert regions in the southern Arabian peninsula.

חדל, verwandt mit חתל: Wickelband anlegen, חתול: das Schienen, der die Bewegung hindernde Knochenverband (Jecheskiel 30. 21). Grundbedeutung also: Bewegung hemmen, einhalten, so auch חדל zunächst: das Unterlassen einer Tätigkeit. Sie hörten also auf, die Stadt zu bauen; aber den Zug, die Richtung, aus welcher der Turmbau entsprungen war, den nahmen die Menschen überall mit hin. Freilich nicht mehr eine Stadt und einen Turm für die Knechtung der ganzen Menschheit, aber einzelne Städte und Türmchen, von denen kleine Nimrode meinen, dass sie in den Himmel reichen. —

לבנות העיר, if they stopped building the city, they most certainly also stopped building the Tower. The city, of smaller dimensions than originally planned, remained, seeing that one group of people speaking the same language remained there.

Mit dieser individualisierten Zerstreuung der Völker, auf welche ja der noachidische Gottesbund mit der Menschenwelt, wie wir geglaubt (siehe zu 9, 15; 10. 5), gerechnet, schließt die Einleitung des Gotteswortes, mit welcher es den jüdischen Denker in der Entwicklungsgeschichte der Menschheit orientieren will. Fortan wird die Geschichte eines einzigen Volkes, des jüdischen, eingeleitet, dessen eigentümliche Sendung eben in dieser Gestaltung der Völkergeschichte und deren Ziel ihre Begründung findet.

Die Geschichte der Gesamtmenschheit wird ihrem Gang überlassen bis zu den Propheten, denen wieder der Blick auf jene Zeit geöffnet ward, in welcher der sich immer wiederholende Zusammensturz aller großen und kleinen Ruhmesbauten der Menschen diesen endlich das Bewusstsein bringen wird, dass es nur einen "Namen" gibt, dessen Verherrlichung die Menschen, der einzelne wie die Gesamtheit, mit jeder Einzel- und Gesamtkraft, in jeder Fuge des Einzel- und Gesamtlebens zur Anschauung bringen müssen, wenn das Heil und der Friede für den einzelnen wie für die Gesamtheit dauernd auf Erden einziehen soll, — eine Zeit, deren Erscheinung der Prophet (Zephania 3, 9) mit den Worten charakterisiert: כי אז אהפוך אל עמים שפה ברורה לקרא כלם בשם ה׳ לעבדו denn dann stelle ich den Völkern wieder her eine geläuterte Sprache :שכם אחד -sie alle im Namen Gottes zu be ,(Samuel 1, 10, 9 ,ויהפך לו אלקי׳ לב אחר :.vergl) rufen, ihm mit einer Schulter, d. i. mit vereinter Tragkraft, zu dienen!" Irren wir nicht, so liegt hierin eine nicht geringe Bestätigung unserer Ansicht. ברר ist der gerade Gegensatz von בלל, es ist das Ausscheiden eines hineingeratenen fremdartigen Elementes. So beginnt die Völkergeschichte mit einer Trübung der Sprache und endet mit einer Läuterung derselben. Nur so auch ist erklärlich, wie diese Läuterung der Sprache in Beziehung stehe zu dem לקרא כלם בשם ד׳, indem dann die Menschen nicht mehr die Dinge und deren Beziehungen nach dem nennen werden, was sie לעשות להם שם ,בשמם, was sie nach ihrer Laune, Leidenschaft, für die Zwecke ihrer Willkür und Verherrlichung seien und sollen, sondern mit der sich unterordnenden Huldigung des einen Einzigen auch wieder die Objektivität, d. i. die durch den Willen dieses Einzigen gegebene Welt- und Lebensanschauung gewinnen, die Dinge von dem Standpunkte ihrer göttlichen Bestimmung aus zu denken, zu nennen, und mit dieser Unterordnung unter Gott die geistige und soziale Einheit wieder erreichen, die mit dem ersten Turmbau des Menschenruhms verloren gegangen. —

Hier führt uns jedoch zunächst das Gotteswort in einen kleinen, engen Kreis ein, uns die Veranstaltung Gottes kennen zu lehren, die, von einem kleinsten, unscheinbaren Anfange aus, jenem der Entwicklung der Menschheit am Ende winkenden Ziele positiv fördernd als Herold und Werkzeug vorangehen soll. Es schließt das Kapitel mit einem Geschlechtsregister Schems bis auf einen einfachen Mann, der, ein Genosse jener Zeit, die zuerst das נעשה לנו שם als das fortan leitende Prinzip ausgesprochen hatte, in diametralem Gegensatz zu ihr seines Lebens Inhalt haben und als Inhalt eines ganzen Volkslebens auf seine Nachkommenschaft jenes ׳קרא בשם ה vererben sollle, in welchem die späteste Menschheit einst die Lösung ihrer langen Wanderjahre finden wird, auf, dass ihr weckend und mahnend dieses Ziel immer am Wege leuchte, und aus ihrer Mitte dessen Bewusstsein nie ganz verschwinde. —

ומשם הפיצם AND FROM THENCE DID THE LORD SCATTER THEM —This teaches that they have no portion in the world to come (Sanhedrin 107b). Which sin was greater: that of the generation of the Flood or that of the generation of the Dispersion? The former did not stretch forth their hands against God; the latter did stretch forth their hands against God to war against him (surely, then, the sin of the generation of the Dispersion was greater) and yet the former (the generation of the Flood) were drowned and these did not perish from the world! But the reason is that the generation of the Flood were violent robbers and there was strife among them, and therefore they were destroyed; but these conducted themselves in love and friendship, as it is said, “They were one people and had one language”. — You may learn from this how hateful to God is strife and how great is peace (Genesis Rabbah 38:6).

They called the unfinished city בבל as a reminder of the fact that this was where G’d had mixed up their languages resulting in their dispersal.
ומשם הפיצם, and from there G’d had set in motion their dispersal and the division into 70 languages. The people remaining in Babylon spoke one language. Seeing that the mixing up of the languages had commenced there, this is the city that was named to commemorate this event. The one giving this name spoke Hebrew, i.e. the original holy tongue. Both the words בבל and בלל are Hebrew words. Actually, we would have expected the Torah to write ballel, instead of ballal, however the word is a condensation of the two words בא בל. We have similar condensed words called קן, חן, מן, all of which are condensed forms of such words as קנן, or חנן.

כל הארץ, a reference to the nations of the earth nowadays, i.e. the time when the Torah was being written.

'הפיצם ה, as we explained on verse 8.

שם בן מאת שנה SHEM WAS A HUNDRED YEARS OLD when he begat Arpachshad two years after the Flood.

אלה תולדות שם שנתים אחר המבול, we already explained this in connection with Genesis 5,32. Even though the Torah, earlier, listed the descendants of Shem together with those of his brothers, the Torah repeated this now in order to demonstrate the direct linkage to Avraham our patriarch. This is why, on this occasion, only a single one of the sons of Shem, Arpachshad, is mentioned. Avraham is descended in a straight line from Arpachshad. The reason why the Torah adds that Arpachshad was born two years after the deluge is that the information the Torah gave us in 10,21 did not tell us when Arpachshad, apparently the third son of Shem was born. (verse 22). We already mentioned that the reason why the Torah provides us with such data is only to enable us to count from the creation of Adam to the deluge, to the birth of Avraham, the year of the Exodus from Egypt, etc. If the Torah had not been interested in reminding us that the earth (universe) was an original product by G’d, all these numbers would have been relatively meaningless. [if they had related to a human history extending over millions of years as claimed by scientists nowadays. Ed.]

אלה תולדות שם, “these are the descendants of Shem.” You do not find the word death, or “the died,” in connection with any of the descendants of Shem who have been enumerated here [except when the Torah reports that Avram’s father Terach died in Charan (verse 32). Ed.] as you find it mentioned when the Torah enumerated the generations between Adam and Noach. It is possible that the reason is that the kingdom of David (the Messiah) will be descended from them, and in due course the Messiah will be the cause of banishing death altogether. [At this point our author once again indulges in speculation about the timing of that event. Seeing that time has passed and the Messiah did not arrive, I have omitted the rest of this passage. Ed.]

Two years after the flood. Rashi is explaining that, “Two years after the flood” refers to, “He begat Arpachshad,” and also to, “Sheim was 100 years old.”

(10-30) In diesem Geschlechtsregister heben wir zunächst פלג hervor, dessen Name uns bereits (10. 25) im Zusammenhange mit dem Ereignis der Völkerteilung erklärt wurde כי בימיו נפלגה הארץ, und bemerken, wie die Stellen Psalm 55, 10. פלג לשונם und Richter 2, 15 בפלגות ראובן in der Wurzel פלג mehr ein soziales Zerwürfnis als eine mechanische Teilung erkennen lassen, so dass auch nach diesem Namen die Grundursache jener Völkerkatastrophe in einem inneren, geistigen Auseinandergehen gefunden werden dürfte. — Auch in diesem Geschlechtsregister dürfte vielleicht, wie oben in dem kainitischen und sethitischen, die Andeutung einer Entwicklungsgeschichte gefunden werden. Die Namen: שרוג ,רעו ,פלג ,עבר ,שלח legen eine solche Vermuthung nahe. שלה bezeichnete wieder das Fahrenlassen, Preisgeben der Masse, das Sichzurückziehen der Besseren, ohne Hoffnung, die Menge für das Bessere zu gewinnen. עבר wäre sodann nach ר׳ יהודה s Erklärung zu׳ כל העולם כלו מעבר אחד והוא מעבר :(ב"ר מא) אברם העברי אחר der vollendete Protest gegen die ganze übrige Zeitgenossenschaft. Sollte es kein Traum sein, dass, wie wir glaubten, die Sprachbildung aus einer Empörung der einzelnen gegen die einzuführende Zwingherrschaft hervorgegangen, so wäre es nicht unmöglich, dass diese Empörung aus dem semitischen Geschlecht ihren Ausgang genommen, in welchem die Ahnung des Göttlichen und Reinmenschlichen noch am lebendigsten vorhanden geblieben. Nachdem dann in פלג die Teilung sich vollzog, bezeichnete רעו das sich Zusammenfinden der Gleichgesinnten und שרוג die weitere Verzweigung derselben. Es wäre dies immerhin möglich. —

אלה תולדות שם, “These are the descendants of Shem;” whenever a paragraph commences with the word: אלה, this is to alert us that it is not a continuation of what had preceded it. In this instance, the Torah wishes to distinguish between the evil people featured in the previous paragraph and the good people, whose descendants followed their illustrious ancestors.

ויולד בנים ובנות, the Torah does not mention even once the word וימות, “he died,” something that appears with the report of each of the generations preceding the deluge. The reason why the Torah mentioned the death of those generations was because each of them died before the main subject of the entire chapter had been reached, i.e. the destruction of life on earth by the deluge. The people in the generations from Noach onward are considered as having been forerunners fo a positive development, as opposed to their predecessors who simply died before everybody else died also. In our chapter the thrust of the story is to show that eventually a towering personality such as Avraham emerged on earth, so that those who preceded him may be viewed as paving the way for Avraham’s eventual emergence on the stage of history. Avraham’s greatness is enhanced by the relatively insignificant lives of his predecessors.

ויחי שם...ויולד בנים ובנות, “Shem lived, etc., and begat sons and daughters.” No mention is made of these people dying, as the Torah invariably stated with the ten generations preceding Noach. The reason is that the earlier generations died, decomposed and no trace of them was left after the deluge. Seeing that their memory was blotted out on account of there being no visible reminder that they had ever lived, the Torah made mention of their lives and deaths. These later generations were all buried and their burial sites remained intact. Seeing that Noach was the founder of these last ten generations, and he was also partially a member of the first ten generations, his death is mentioned, as with his death a major segment of human history had been concluded. Some commentators believe that seeing the first human being brought death into the world, the Torah not only mentioned Adam’s death but also the death of those who but for his sin might never have died. Generations subsequent to Noach were born into a different kind of universe than Adam had been placed in; therefore there was no need to stress that these people died after having lived the number of years mentioned in the Torah.

ויחי שם אחרי הולידו את ארפכשד, “After having sired Arpachshad, Shem lived for another 500 years.” The formula preceding the death of the members of the earlier generations familiar to us as: ויהיו כל ימיו, “all of the years of his life were, etc.,” is absent now seeing that the life-spans of the antediluvian generations had closely approached 1000 years, something no longer the case after the deluge. (Compare Psalms 90,5 זרמתם שנה, “You let their years flow past as if they had only slept.” According to David, normal life spans in his time amounted to 70, maximum 80 years; verse 10 in the same chapter) There was therefore no need for the Torah to add the words: “all their days.”

ויולד בנים ובנות, “he sired sons and daughters.” The earth filled up with human beings after the deluge, According to an opinion quoted in B’reshit Rabbah as well as in Sanhedrin 69, it was not unusual for eight year olds to be able to ejaculate semen which produced fetuses. When people who had left behind adult children died, their death is often described as שכיבה, “lying down,” whereas when they did not leave behind adult children they are described as “having died,” i.e. וימת. An example of the former is King David, (Kings I 2,10), whereas an example of the latter is his uncle Yoav, or, according to a different manuscript, Job, who did not leave behind adult sons.

ואלה תולדות תרח, these were mentioned already in the previous verse, only Lot being added here. By adding the word תולדות, the Torah makes plain that grandsons, etc., are also called “offspring, תולדה of the older generation, not only their immediate fathers and mothers. This was especially so, seeing Haran died while his father Terach was still alive.

ויחי תרח..והרן הוליד את לוט. The offspring of Nachor is not mentioned, as Nachor did not beget any offspring until after the binding of Yitzchok on the altar in Genesis 22,20. Haran’s son Lot had to be mentioned as his son, seeing that Lot joined Avraham in his migration to the land of Canaan.

על פני תרח אביו IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS FATHER TERAH — meaning during his father’s lifetime (Genesis Rabbah 38:13). The Midrashic explanation is that he died through his father. For Terah accused his son Abram before Nimrod of haying smashed his idols to pieces, and he cast him into a fiery furnace. Haran waited and said to himself, “If Abram proves triumphant I will be on his side; if Nimrod wins I shall be on his”. When Abram was saved they said to Haran, “Whose side are you on?” Haran replied, “I am on Abram’s side”. They therefore cast him into the fiery furnace and he was burnt to death. It is to this that the name of the place Ur-Kasdim (fire of the Chaldees) alludes (Genesis Rabbah 38:13). Menachem ben Seruk, however, explains that אור means a valley, as (Isaiah 24:15) “Glorify ye the Lord in the valleys (באורים)”, and as (Isaiah 11:8) “the den (מאורת) of the basilisk”. Every hole or deep cleft may be called אור.

AND HARAN DIED IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS FATHER TERAH IN THE LAND OF HIS BIRTH IN UR OF THE CHALDEES. In accordance with the words of our Rabbis, Rashi wrote, “Terah accused his son Abram before Nimrod of having broken his idols, and he cast him into a fiery furnace. Meanwhile Haran waited and said to himself, ‘if Abram proves triumphant I will be on his side, and if Nimrod wins I shall be on his.’ When Abram was saved, they said to Haran, ‘On whose side are you?’ He replied, ‘I am on Abram’s side.’ They therefore cast him into the fiery furnace, and he was burnt to death. It is to this event that the name Ur Kasdim (fire of the Chaldees) alludes. Menachem ben Saruk,³⁴⁷Menachem ben Saruk was a great grammarian who lived in the middle of the tenth century in southern Spain. He composed the first dictionary covering the entire field of the Biblical language. His work is called Machbereth (literally, “a joining of words”). Rashi, in his commentary on the Torah and other books of the Bible, made great use of this work. however, explained the word ur as meaning ‘valley.’ So also, Therefore glorify ye the Eternal ‘ba’urim’ (in the valleys),³⁴⁸Isaiah 24:15. and also, ‘me’urath’ (the den of) the basilisk.³⁴⁹Ibid., 11:8. Every hole or deep cleft may be called ur.” This matter received by our Rabbis through tradition is the truth, and I will elucidate it.
Our father Abraham was not born in the land of Chaldaea. His ancestors were descendants of Shem, and Chaldaea and the whole land of Shinar were countries inhabited by the sons of Ham,³⁵⁰See above, 10:10-12. and Scripture states, And he told to Abram the ‘Hebrew,’³⁵¹Further, 14:13. not Abram the Chaldean. And it is further written, Your fathers dwelt in days of old beyond the river, Terah the father of Abraham, and the father of Nahor,³⁵²Joshua 24:2. the word mei’olam (of old) teaching that his origins were always from there. And again Scripture states, And I took your father Abraham from beyond the river.³⁵³Ibid. 3. Proof of the matter is that we find Nahor [Abraham’s brother] in Haran.³⁵⁴Genesis 29:4-5. Now if Terah’s place were in Ur of the Chaldees in the land of Shinar and Scripture relates that upon Terah’s going forth from Ur of the Chaldees he took with him only his son Abram, his grandson Lot the son of Haran, and Sarai his daughter-in-law,³⁵⁵Verse 31 here. then Nahor was left in the land of Chaldaea, [and yet we find that he was in Haran,³⁵⁴Genesis 29:4-5. which is in the land of Mesopotamia, as explained further].
But the truth of the matter is that the country of the birth of Abraham’s ancestors was the land of Aram, which is beyond the River Euphrates; this was always the habitat of his ancestors. Thus Scripture says concerning the children of Shem, And their dwelling was from Mesha, as thou goest toward Sephar, unto the mountain of the east,³³³Above, 10:30. this being a generic name applicable to all their countries, as it is written there, in their land, after their nations,³³⁶Above, 10:31. and again it is written, From Aram Balak bringeth me, the king of Moab from the mountains of the east,³⁵⁶Numbers 23:7. [proving that Aram is in the land of “the mountains of the east”]. Thus it is clear that Abram and his ancestors always lived in the land of Aram. Furthermore, we find in the Talmud³⁵⁷Baba Bathra 91a. that Abraham was imprisoned [by Nimrod because he broke the idols] in Cuthah, and that city is not in the land of Chaldaea, for it is written, And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Avva, and from Hamath,³⁵⁸II Kings 17:24. and it is further written, And the men of Babylon made Succoth-benoth, and the men of Cuth made Nergal.³⁵⁹Ibid., Verse 30. But it would appear that Cuthah is a city beyond the river, in the land of Mesopotamia, for Haran is the name of a city in the land of Mesopotamia, as it is written, And he went to Aram-naharaim [Mesopotamia], unto the city of Nahor,³⁶⁰Genesis 24:10. which is Haran. Furthermore, we have investigated and know it from the word of many students³⁶¹This alludes to the time during the last three years of his life when Ramban lived in the land of Israel and there gathered around him students from nearby countries. It was from these students, who came from the eastern countries, that he sought first-hand knowledge to illumine the problems he had in his commentary. Concerning this fascinating period in the life of Ramban, see his biography, pp. 191-206 in my Hebrew work, pp. 60-65 in the English edition. who lived in that country that Cuthah is a large city between Haran and Assyria, far from the country of Babylon. The distance between it and Haran is about that of a six-day journey. It is, however, included in the term, “beyond the river,”³⁵³Ibid. 3. because it lies between Mesopotamia and the River Euphrates — which is the border of the land of Israel³⁶²Genesis 15:18. — and the Tigris which goeth towards the east of Assyria.³⁶³Above, 2:14. Thus Terah begot his older sons, Abraham and Nahor, in the area “beyond the river,” the land of his ancestors. He then went with his son Abram to the land of Chaldaea, where his youngest son, Haran, was born. His son Nahor, however, remained “beyond the river,” in the city of Haran. It may be that he was born there or that he came to settle there from Cuthah. This is the meaning of [the verse here which says of Haran], in the land of his birth, in Ur of the Chaldees, since that was the birthplace of Haran alone [among Terah’s children].
This matter received through tradition [that Cuthah was the birthplace of Abraham] is also found in a book called The Antiquities of the Nations, as the Rabbi²⁶⁷Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam or Maimonides). See Seder Bereshith, Note 139. wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim³⁶⁴III, 29. Ramban is following Al-Charizi’s translation, and not Ibn Tibbon’s. See notes in my Hebrew commentary, pp. 72-73. that in the book of Egyptian Agriculture it is mentioned that Abraham, who was born³⁶⁵“Born.” Ibn Tibbon has, “grew up.” in Cuthah, differed with the opinion of the people who worshipped the sun, and the king put him in prison, but he continued to argue against them for many days. At last the king was afraid that he might corrupt his land and turn the people away from their religion, and so he expelled him to the far land of Canaan, after confiscating all his wealth.
Thus in any case it was in this place, the land of Chaldaea, that a miracle — or more exactly a hidden miracle³⁶⁶See Ramban further, 17:1, concerning the two kinds of miracles. — was done to our father Abraham, for G-d put it into the heart of that king to save him and not to kill him, and so he released him from prison to go where he desires. It may be that it was an overt miracle,³⁶⁶See Ramban further, 17:1, concerning the two kinds of miracles. i.e., that the king threw him into a fiery furnace, and he was saved, as our Rabbis have stated.³⁶⁷As mentioned in Rashi, quoted at the beginning of this verse.
Let not Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra mislead you with his questions,³⁶⁸In Verse 26. saying that Scripture has not narrated this wonder, for I will yet give you³⁶⁹See Ramban further, 46:15. a reason for the omission and proof of the verity of this and other miracles like it. These peoples, however, did not mention it in their books because they differed with his [the Patriarch’s] opinion, and they thought his miracle was a deed of sorcery, just as was the case with our teacher Moses in his confrontation with the Egyptians at the beginning of his deeds. It is on account of this that Scripture no longer mentions this miracle [of Abraham] for it would have had to mention the words of those who differed with him, as it mentioned the words of the Egyptian magicians, and Abraham’s words were not as openly verified to them as were ultimately the words of our teacher Moses, [which were established by ten clearly revealed miracles]. Thus Scripture says, I am the Eternal that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees to give thee this land to inherit it,³⁷⁰Genesis 15:7. for the word hotzeisicha (brought thee out) points to a miracle. It does not say, “that took thee from Ur of the Chaldees;” instead it says, that brought thee out, meaning that He brought out a prisoner from the dungeon³⁷¹See Isaiah 42:7. just as in the verse: that brought thee out from the land of Egypt.³⁷²Exodus 20:2. And He said to Abraham, to give thee this land to inherit it,³⁷⁰Genesis 15:7. because from the time that G-d brought him out of Ur of the Chaldees, it was His Will, exalted be He, to make him into a great nation and to give him this land of Canaan. From that day on which Abraham was saved, Terah — his father — and Abraham had in mind to go to the land of Canaan, a distant point far from the land of Chaldaea, out of fear of the king, since Haran, [the city of their inhabitance], was near them [the Chaldeans], and they were one people with one language since Aramaic was their common language. They [Terah and Abraham] wanted to go to a nation where their speech would not be understood by that king and his people. This is the meaning of the verse, And they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan, and they came unto Haran³⁷³Verse 31 here. where their families and ancestors ever lived, and they settled among them, staying there for many days. It was there that Abraham was commanded to do what he had intended, i.e., to go to the land of Canaan, and so he left his father, who later died there in Haran,³⁷⁴Verse 32. his country, and went with his wife and Lot, his brother’s son, to the land of Canaan.³⁷⁵Further, 12:5. Thus Scripture says, And I took your father Abraham from beyond the river, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan,³⁵³Ibid. 3. for Abraham was commanded concerning this when he was yet “beyond the river,” and from there G-d took him and led him throughout all the land of Canaan.
Now according to the opinion of our Rabbis [that Nimrod threw Abraham into a fiery furnace, the name] Ur Kasdim will be understood as the plain meaning indicates, [namely, “Fires of the Chaldees”], from the same expression: I am warm, I have seen ‘ur’ (the fire).³⁷⁶Isaiah 44:16. Scripture thus says, And they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees,³⁷³Verse 31 here. even though Terah did not go forth from the fiery furnace. However, since Abram is the main [person of interest, it mentions Ur Kasdim although the name has reference to him alone]. It may be that on account of the miracle the place came to be so called, just as we find, And at Taberah, and at Massah, and at Kibroth-hattaavah,³⁷⁷Deuteronomy 9:22. — These places were so named because of the events that occurred there. See Numbers 11:3, 34. Exodus 17:7. and others. Scripture thus alludes that when Abram went forth from the fiery furnace, they all fled from that country.
And the meaning of the verse, Glorify ye the Eternal ‘ba’urim,’³⁴⁸Isaiah 24:15. is in my opinion consonant with that which the Rabbis have said [concerning Ur Kasdim, namely, that it means “the Fire of the Chaldees”], for urim are the high mountains on which they make fires and “kindle the flares”³⁷⁸Rosh Hashana 22b. The subject there concerns the kindling of flares on the tops of the hills to declare that the day of the New Moon had been declared. to make the new events known quickly in distant places, even as it says [in the second half of the verse]: In the isles of the sea, the name of the Eternal, the G-d of Israel.³⁴⁸Isaiah 24:15. The sense of that verse is thus that for the glory of G-d they should let the whole world know the miracle and the wonder which had been done to them. So also, ‘Me’urath’ the basilisk³⁴⁹Ibid., 11:8. means his [the serpent’s] hole, where his fire and great heat are, just as he is indeed called saraph [the serpent, but literally, “the burning one”]. And I have seen in the Midrash:³⁷⁹Pesikta d’Rabbi Kahana, 21. “Arise, ‘uri’ (shine).³⁸⁰Isaiah 60:1. Therefore glorify ye the Eternal ‘ba’urim.’³⁴⁸Isaiah 24:15. How do you glorify Him? Rabbi Yeivo bar Kahana said, ‘With these torches such as the lanterns which burn in synagogues³⁸¹This is one of the earliest sources for establishing the religious duty of kindling lights in a synagogue. See my edition of Kithvei Rabbeinu Bechaya, pp. 89-90. in all places, even in the isles of the sea,³⁴⁸Isaiah 24:15. to the glory of G-d.’” Thus it is clear that the Rabbis understood the word ba’urim as an expression of fire, in accordance with its simple sense.

וימת הרן על פני תרח אביו, during his father’s lifetime. Something parallel occurred when the two sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu died during the lifetime of their father (Numbers 3,4).

וימת חרן על פני תרח אביו, “Haran died during the lifetime of his father Terach.” Some commentators hold that until that time children did not die during the lifetime of their fathers except for Peleg (Genesis 11,18). Hence the Torah reported that this was an exception. A similar expression is used in Numbers 3,4 when the appointment of Elazar and Ittamar as priests during the lifetime of their father Aaron is reported. [I do not think the argument is sound, as Lemech, Noach’s father died during the lifetime of his own father Methuselah. Ed. (5,31)]

The Midrash Aggadah. Rashi [offers the Midrashic explanation] because of a question on the simple meaning: What does it matter to us whether Haran died during Terach’s lifetime or after his death? Whereas according to the Midrash Aggadah, it teaches us the miracle of Avraham being saved while Haran was burnt [to death].

בארץ מולדתו, the Torah mentions this seeing that Terach, Haran’s father did not die in the land where he had been born, but died in Charan after having emigrated there. This became the reason why Lot emigrated with his grandfather Terach from Ur Kasdim.

בארץ מולדתו באור כשדים, “in the country of his birth in Ur of the Chaldaeans.” According to Nachmanides these last words refer back only to Haran, whereas Avraham himself was not born in Ur, seeing that his forefathers were descendants of Shem, whereas the Chaldaeans were descended from the descendants of Cham. Compare Genesis 14,13 where Avraham is described as an Ivri, and not as a “Casdi.” We also have clear evidence from Joshua that the forefathers of the Israelites had originally resided on the east bank of the river Euphrates. (Joshua 24,2) If, at the time when Terach took Avraham, and Haran and family leaving Nachor behind, and settled in Charan which is hundreds of miles north east of Shinor the land of the Casdim, how could Eliezer who was bidden to seek out Avraham’s family, have looked for Rivkah in Charan rather than in Ur? The truth is that Terach and family originated in the land of Aram that is east of the Euphrates. (Ur, downstream, was immediately west of the Euphrates) When Bileam commenced his blessing in Numbers 23,7 he described how Balak had brought him all the way from Aram, which he defines as הררי קדם, the range of mountains in the east, hardly identical with the Mesopotamian valley in which Ur was situated. The Talmud (Baba Batra 91) reports that Avraham had been jailed for 10 years, 3 of them in a town called כותא. It is common knowledge that this town was in the land of the Casdim (lower Mesopotamia, near Ur) as we have a verse describing the King of Ashur as coming from Babylon and Kuta as well as from Gaza and Chamat.(Kings II 17,30) In these verses the exile of the ten tribes is described. It is clear that Kuta would not have been situated anywhere near the route described in Kings II as taken by the King of Ashur who had taken the ten tribes prisoner, and who was about to repopulate the cities of Samaria with people from elsewhere, so that the land he had captured would not become desolate. Apparently, Kuta was a town in the general region of Aram Naharayim, the town in which Nachor, grandfather of Rebeccah had made his home (compare Genesis 24,10) Kuta was a large city in those days between the land of Israel and the river Tigris. Terach had moved with his older son Avraham from there downstream to the land of the Casdim (Ur) .Haran, his younger son was born in Ur. Whereas Nachor had remained in what is referred to as עבר הנהר, the Torah testifies only concerning Haran that he had been born in Ur Casdim. This information has also been recorded independently in books dating back to ancient times as pointed out by Maimonides in his Moreh. He writes that Avraham who had been born in Kuta had disagreed with the religions of his contemporaries Most of them were sun worshippers. The king incarcerated him for his refusal to toe the theological line deemed politically correct in his time. After many years when the king became afraid that the people might adopt some of the views Avraham had spread, he exiled him to an area bordering on the land of Canaan. This occurred after he had first deprived him of all his earthly belongings. At any rate, the region still belonged to that known as Ur Casdim. Avraham experienced either a manifest miracle, by being saved from the persecution of the king, or at least he experienced what is known as a נס נסתר, a “hidden miracle,” such as a sudden unaccountable change of heart by the king not to sentence him to death and to release him from jail allowing him to emigrate to a country of his choice. Alternately, he might even have thrown him into a furnace from which G’d saved him by direct intervention in his fate. The nations of the world in those days did not record this miracle in their records as it did not suit them to publicize proof which would cause people to question their beliefs. They were not as truth-loving as Pharaoh’s advisers, the magicians who openly admitted that the G’d in heaven had manifested Himself when working the ten plagues. Moreover, even assuming that they had witnessed this miracle, they would not attribute it to Divine intervention by Avraham’s G’d, but would see in this the work of magicians, or invisible forces in nature. Do not allow Ibn Ezra to confuse you with his various questions on this subject, especially the fact that the Torah failed to mention such an outstanding miracle as G’d saving Avraham from a fiery furnace. The magicians of Pharaoh, until the third plague, that of the lice and vermin, also thought that Moses was a superior magician rather than an emissary from G’d who could call on G’d to perform miracles. Had the Torah reported on the miracle of Avraham’s survival of that experience in Nmirod’s furnace, it would also have had to devote some space reporting the refusal of the onlookers and especially Nimrod’s theologians, to acknowledge that this had proven the existence of an invisible G’d who was the Creator, and therefore able to control laws of nature. It suffices for the believers that the Torah wrote (Genesis 15,7) “I am the Lord Who has taken you out from Ur Casdim to give you this land (Canaan) as an inheritance.” The very expression הוצאתיך, “I have taken you out,” alerts the reader to the fact that the Torah refers to something supernatural, to a miracle. Ever since G’d had saved Avraham miraculously, He had had in mind to commence the process that would lead ultimately to Avraham’s descendants inheriting the land of Canaan. From that day on, both Terach and his son Avraham had intended to get away as far as possible from lands under the control of Nimrod. Their arrival in Charan must be viewed as a way station (halfway house) on the way to the land of Canaan. The advantage of Charan was the fact that they had relatives there, people who spoke their language. As a result, what was intended as a brief stopover became a prolonged stay in Charan. While he was in Charan, G’d commanded Avraham to do what had been in his mind already, namely to emigrate to the land of Canaan. He therefore left his aging father behind in Charan. Whereas Terach died in his birthplace Charan, Avraham took his wife and his nephew Lot to move to Canaan with him. This is what Joshua had in mind when he reminded the people shortly before his death of their origins, and how G’d had taken their forefather Avraham from a region called עבר הנהר, “the far side of the river Euphrates.” (Joshua 24,2-7) The reference to that region was meant to tell the people that this is where Avraham was commanded to begin his pilgrimage. G’d made Avraham traverse the entire length of the land of Canaan According to our sages (who say that Nimrod had thrown Avraham into a fiery furnace for his refusal to toe the theological line of his time) the words אור כשדים are to be understood literally, i.e. “the fire of the Chaldaens.” This expression is used in a similar sense in Isaiah 44,16חאח, חמותי, ראיתי אור, “hurrah, I am warm, I can feel the heat.” Terach had not been thrown into the furnace, so he did not need to be saved. The Torah concentrates on the principal personality in that episode, leaving out some details. The principal character was Avraham, hence it was only he to whom G’d referred to when He reminded him of the purpose for which he had been saved. Alternately, the reason why that place was namedאור כשדים, was on account of the miracle which had occurred there when Avraham was saved. We have numerous occasions when locations where the Israelites stopped on their journey through the desert were given names based on what had occurred there, such as תבערה, (Numbers 11,3; or קברות התאוה, Numbers) The verse in our portion would allude to the fact that when Avraham came out of the furnace the whole family fled from that region. This would be parallel to the use of the wordאורים in Isaiah 24,15 באורים כבדו ה' where it means: “therefore honour the Lord in the lands of the mountains where they light signal fires to communicate news items over long distances.” This would be a veiled reference to communicating the miracle that had happened to Avraham in the fiery furnace of Nimrod. The expression מאורות צפעוני, is a description of the lair of a serpent whose poison is as burning as hot fire. This serpent is also known as שרף, [from שרפה, “burning.” Ed.]

באור כשדים, a place known nowadays as Ur Kasdim, It could not have had that name at the time Terach and Avraham lived, as כשד the son of Nachor had not been born until later (Genesis 22,22) The offspring of this Kessed became were known as the Kasdim.

אור, the word means: “valley.” It occurs in this sense also in Isaiah 24,15 על כן באורים כבדו ה', “therefore honour the Lord in the valleys.” The view of our sages in the Midrash that the name is a reference to the place where Avraham was saved from the furnace of Nimrod is well known. (Bereshit Rabbah 38,13) They understand the word אור as meaning “fire.”

יסכה JISCAH — This was Sarah; she was also named Jiscah (from a root meaning “”to see”, “to look”) because she could see the future by holy inspiration, and because everybody looked (gazed) at her beauty (Megillah 14a). The name Jiscah also has reference to princely dignity (נסיכות) just as the name Sarah (שרה) has an allusion to “ruling’’(שררה).

ויקח ארם ונחור, the singular mode here where we would have expected a plural mode, seeing that each of the brothers took himself a wife, is similar to the singular mode used by the Torah in Exodus 7,10 ויבא משה ואהרן, “Moses and Aaron came,” where we would have expected the plural mode, seeing that two people came. The Torah mentioned the names of the wives in honour of Avram. G’d changed Sarai’s name to Sarah. Seeing that Rivkah was the granddaughter of Milkah and became the wife of Yitzchok they were deserving of mention by name.

This was Sarah. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Furthermore: What does it matter that Yiskah is Sarah? The answer is: Rashi knows this because before it is written that Haran was “the father of Milkah and Yiskah,” and it lists Haran’s [female] offspring. If so, why does it not mention Sarah as well, who was a daughter of Haran? Perforce, Yiskah is Sarah. Furthermore, Sarah is בג"ץ in the alef beis ofא"ת ב"ש , [in which א equals ת, and ב equals ש, etc]. And בג"ץ has the same numerical value as יסכה. Rashi offers three explanations for the name Yiskah because [the name hints to all of them, so] which one should be ruled out? Alternatively, it is because Sanhedrin 69b mentions two of them. And Rashi added a third, “princely”, because he is answering the question: Why was she not called by her actual name, שרי? It must be that יסכה means “princely,” and is thus similar to שרי, which means “ruling”. (source unknown)

יסכה, according to Rash,i this is another name for Sarah. If So, Haran must have sired her when he was only 6 years old, according to the list of the names of Terach’s children. Avraham was supposed to have been a year older than Nachor, whereas Nachor was a year older than Haran, which means that Avraham was two years older than Haran. When we allow a year until Milkah and her sister Yiskah each were born, and we know that Avraham was 10 years older than Sarah from the Torah’s own report, it follows that Haran could not have been older than 8 years when Sarah was born. Allowing for the pregnancies preceding the birth of Milkah and Yiskah, Haran could not have been older than 6 years when he slept with his wife. (B’reshit Rabbah 38,14) Other examples of products of such early unions are Betzalel and Bat Sheva, as well as Er and Onan, sons of Yehudah, son of Yaakov. (Compare Sanhedrin 69)

בת הרן אבי מלכה ואבי יסכה. This is an unusual sequence the daughter being referred to before the father. Seeing that the Torah had written earlier that Haran had begotten Lot, (verse 26) I might have formed the impression that he had not fathered any other children. To make sure we do not make such a mistake, the Torah, after telling us the names of these girls, reminds us that Haran also fathered these two girls. Our sages in Megillah 14 state that Yiskah was identical with Sarai. This is very plausible, seeing that in 20,12 Avraham refers to her as “my sister the (grand)daughter of my father. From these words of Avraham it is clear that Sarai was Haran’s daughter. Still, it is surprising that the two daughters of Haran are not described as בנות הרן in the plural mode, but each one is referred to separately as בת הרן, a daughter of Haran (singular mode). Perhaps, Sarai was the daughter of a daughter of Terach, although the Torah had not mentioned specifically that Terach had fathered daughters.

ותהי שרי עקרה אין לה ולד. Sarai remained barren, she had no child. Why did the Torah have to add "she had no child?" Our sages (Yevamot 64) comment that she had no womb. The Talmud there elaborates that both Abraham and Sarah were congenital טומטמאים, people with undeveloped genitals. The Talmud bases this on Isaiah 51,1: "Look to the rock you were hewn from, to the quarry you were dug from. Look back to Abraham your father and to Sarah who brought you forth." Rashi comments there that "hewn from" and "dug from" refer to G'd having supplied male and female genitals to Abraham and Sarah (after they were adults). The Talmud also states there that when someone marries a woman and lives with her for ten years and she bears no children during that time, he should divorce her and pay her כתובה, her marriage settlement. This is based on Genesis 16,3 where Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to have children with after she had failed to bear children after ten years in the land of Israel. The Talmud questions why we do not rather take Isaac as an example. He lived with Rebeccah for at least twenty years and did not take another wife but prayed and as a result had children from Rebeccah. The Talmud answers that actually the reason the Torah mentions the number of years Abraham lived in the land of Israel before he married Hagar was to enable us to compute Ishmael's age in comparison to Isaac's. This also enables us to calculate Jacob's age during different periods of his life. Tossaphot comment that actually Isaac too waited only for ten years before he prayed, seeing that Rebeccah was three years old when he married her and her normal child-bearing years did not commence until after Isaac was married to her for ten years. Tossaphot concludes that a) not all Midrashim agree on the subject; b) in those days girls were able to bear children at a much younger age than nowadays. They also say that even assuming that Abraham had been born without visible genitals, by the time he married he had obviously developed in this respect. However, we must accept the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah who holds that once a טומטום, such a person is unable to sire children even after his genitals have become visible. Of course, one must assume that Sarai's genitals too, had become visible by the time Abraham married her. [there is no good reason that Abraham a) would have married while suffering such a crucial physical blemish; b) that Sarah would have been given in marriage to anyone while she was similarly afflicted. Ed.] Even according to the view that once the genitals of a טומטום have become visible he is no longer totally sterile, it is unlikely that such people will be capable of siring or bearing children. The Torah therefore adds the words אין לה ולד in the case of Sarah to tell us that though she was no longer a טומטום, her condition had not changed materially, and she still did not conceive.

ותהי, the Torah makes clear that Sarai was barren, and that even if at a much later stage in her life she did give birth to a son, Yitzchok, this was not a natural development but was a miracle which could not be explained scientifically. This is the reason why the Torah did not simply content herself with the words ותהי שרי עקרה, “Sarai remained barren.” When Sarah did eventually bear a child, not only was the fact that she gave birth a miracle, but her age at the time, long after she had passed the child-bearing age, was an additional miracle. Although Sarai’s sister did not bear a child for many years, she is not reported as having been genetically barren. She apparently suffered some disease which was not connected to her basic ability of bearing children.

ותהי שרי עקרה, אין לה ולד, “Sarah remained barren, she had no child.” Some women remain childless for many years, appearing to be barren; at the end of a number of years they become pregnant and have children. Our verse informs us that in addition to Sarai being עקרה, “barren,” she was unable to conceive any children by nature, i.e. אין לה ולד. This is why both Avram and Sarai decided to leave their home and to move to the land of Canaan hoping that due to the additional merit of the Holy Land they would be able to have children. Although the words “Terach took his son Avram, etc.” convey the impression that Terach was the prime cause of that move, this is not true. The fact is that the family undertook the whole journey only on account of Avram. We find later on that after Terach died, his grandson Lot joined Avram (12,4; 13,1) who was the enterprising member of the family.

עקר, verwandt mit אגר: einsammeln, חגר : gürten nund chaldäisch lahm, Grundbedeutung: ein Einhalten und Zusammenhalten der Kräfle, daher auch ein Einhalten und Hemmen der Bewegung. Daher heißt auch עקר sowohl derjenige Punkt, in welchem die Kräfte einer Bewegung konzentriert sind, von wo sie ausgehen, עֵקֶר und chaldäisch עִיקָר: die Wurzel, als auch: die Bewegung in diesem ihren Ausgangspunkte hemmen, עקור הנטוע, die Wurzel ausreißen und עקר: ein Tier lähmen. Davon denn auch עקר und עקרה, die in der Wurzel der Fortpflanzung Gehemmten, organisch Unfruchtbaren. Verwandt damit auch הקר, der Wurzel- und Quellpunkt eines Wesens, und das Treffen, Erreichen dieses Punktes, Grund und Ergründen. Eigentümlich ist die Verwandtschaft der Radix עכר, trüben, betrüben, mit diesen Begriffen. So wie שמח und שוש, Freude und gesteigerte Freude, nichts als das geistig innere Wachsen und Blühen, צמח und צוץ ist, so ist, wie עקר das Hemmen des physischen, עכר: das Hemmen dieses geistig inneren Wachsens und Blühens, d.i. betrübt machen.

ותהי שרי עקרה אין לה ולד, “Sarai remained barren, she had no fetus.” I find the last three words difficult to understand, as they do not seem to add anything to the statement that she was barren. It seems therefore that this was to tell us that she had no means of releasing a fetus even if she had been able to become pregnant. The Talmud in tractate Yevamot folio 64, states that both Avram and Sarai were hermaphrodites, possessing both male and female organs which had to be treated surgically. It quotes Isaiah 51,1-2: הביטו אל צור חצבתם ואל מקבת בור נקרתםת, followed by: הביטו אל אברהם אביכם ואל שרה תחוללכם as support for its statement, “Look to the rock you were hewn from to the quarry you were dug from; look back to Avraham your father, and to Sarah who brought you forth. For he was only one when I called him, but I blessed him and made him many.” A different interpretation of our verse. The statement that she was barren refers to her present status, whereas the reference to the fetus was meant to predict something in the future. This is analogous to Genesis 21,2: ותהר ותלד שרה, “Sarah became pregnant and gave birth, etc.” We find a somewhat similar description in Leviticus 11,10 when the Torah refers to fish which have

עקרה, אין לה ולד, whereas originally she had not even had a womb, by the time she became pregnant with Yitzchok she had grown a womb.

אין לה ולד, as long as she lived in the land of Ur Casdim she had no child, but in the land of Israel, eventually she did give birth. This is part of the reason why G’d, when He told Avram to emigrate, said: לך לך, “go for your own sake.” G’d had added that once there He would make Avram develop into a great nation [although this was not a promise that his children would be born by Sarah. Ed.]

Furthermore, Rabbi Yehudah is of the opinion that the rule that a טומטום remains sterile even after his genitals become visible, applies only to the male. A female is quite likely to conceive once her genitals have been laid bare. According to this view our verse means that a) first Sarah was barren, i.e. her inability to conceive was not due to her genitals not being visible, a defect suffered by her husband but not by her. In her case it was simple barrenness that prevented her from giving birth. The Torah had to add the words אין לה ולד, to teach us that this was not due to a visible deformity.

According to the view that she did not have a womb, we must understand the verse as follows: It turned out she was barren due to an invisible deformity, i.e. the lack of a womb. This deformity only came to light after her genitals had become visible, i.e. after her visible deformity had been cured. The expression ותהי is not appropriate except for a new development, not for a condition which existed already, [many commentators do not share that view of the meaning of ותהי. Ed.] The words אין לה ולד therefore are meant to draw attention to her not having a womb to carry an embryo in.

ויצאו אתם AND THEY WENT FORTH WITH THEM — ויצאו אתם Terah and Abram went forth with Lot and Sarai.

AND THEY WENT FORTH WITH THEM FROM UR OF THE CHALDEES. Because Abram was more important than his father and those that followed his counsel and for whose sake they went, Scripture says, And they went forth, [rather than “he went forth”] even though it says at the beginning of the verse, And Terah took. Lot and Sarai, however, went with them to the land of Canaan on account of Abram, for even after Abram separated from his father they went along with him.³⁸²The Tur concludes: “Thus it should have said, ‘and they walked with him,’ that is with Abram. But out of respect to his father, Scripture ascribes it to both of them.”

ללכת ארצה כנען, this land is prepared for enabling its residents to acquire all intellectual advantages, and, as far as G’d is concerned, it is the most preferred of all the countries on earth. We have this on the authority of the Torah itself which says of that land (Deuteronomy 11,12) ארץ אשר ה' אלוקיך דורש אותה תמיד עיני ה' אלוקיך בה מרשית השנה ועד אחרית שנה, “and concerning which G’d enquires constantly, His eyes being trained on it from the beginning of the year until the year’s end.” The climate of the land of Canaan had not been negatively affected by the rains of the deluge, as had the climate of all other parts of the globe. We have this on the authority of Ezekiel 22,24 ארץ לא גשמה ביום זעם, “a land which did not experience rain on the day of the fury.” This may well be the reason why the sages (Baba Batra 58) said that the climate of the land of Israel makes people smarter.

ויקח תרח את אברם בנו. Terach took his son Abram, etc. We must understand this verse as an extension of a popular proverb quoted by Baba Metzia 75, that if someone experiences bad luck in one location and he does not move to another location he only has himself to blame if his bad luck continues. When Terach realised that his son Abram did not beget children in Ur Casdim he left in the direction of the land of Canaan to see if his luck would improve. The Torah shows us that Abraham was so important in the eyes of the other members of his father's household that they all joined in the migration in order to stay close to him. This is why the Torah adds the words ויצאו אתם, "they emigrated with them (Abraham and Sarah)."

ויקח תרח, After G’d had told Avram to move to the land of Canaan (12,1) and Avram had told his father about this vision, Terach took him and set out on the journey towards the land of Canaan. Seeing that Terach was willing to accept these instructions Avram had received from G’d, he deserved that the initial stages of this trip be credited to him. After all, he was the father, and the sons were his offspring. Seeing that Lot’s father was no longer alive, and he had to depend on his family, Terach took his whole family with him.

Terah took Abram his son...to go to the land of Canaan. Even though there was not yet a divine word to Abraham our Father, still there was a heavenly illumination and he saw the sanctity of the land from afar...since Abraham was immersed in Godly ideas or wisdoms and was unable to direct the journey for him and his household he delegated the trip to his father who took Abram and all the baggage upon himself

ויצאו אתם מאור כשדים, “they departed from there with them.” Rashi explains that the plural mode ויצאו, refers to Terach and Avraham, Lot and Sarai, Avraham’s wife. I find his commentary difficult to accept as he represents the major personality in the story, i.e. Avraham, as secondary to the minor player, Terach. This is something most unusual. Furthermore, according to Rashi’s interpretation why would Avraham be paired with Terach, for according to Rashi Terach was the principal in the verse, seeing that he had taken Avraham and Lot with him as well as Sarai, and the correct reading should have been: ויצא תרח אתם, “Terach departed with them.” Nachmanides writes that seeing that Avraham was a more distinguished person than his father and the other people journeying with them, the Torah employs the plural mode: “they went with them,” seeing that, as the Torah writes, Terach had taken the initiative in emigrating. To the onlookers it appeared as if Avraham had gone along with his father’s decision in the matter. The other members of the entourage continued to travel with Avraham as their leader also after Avraham had left his father behind in Charan. (Genesis 12,4)

To go to the land of Canaan. However, once they arrived in Charan, which was outside of Nimrod’s domain, they settled there. Providence prevented Terach from continuing on so that Avraham could separate himself from his father’s idol-worshipping household and so that only Avraham would receive Hashem’s blessing and the promise of the land.

Terach and Avram went forth. [Theoretically,] it could be the other way around: Lot and Sarai went forth, bringing along Terach and Avram. Thus, Rashi is telling us that Terach and Avram were primary while Sarai and Lot were secondary. But if so, why is it written before: “Terach took his son Avram...” implying that Terach [alone] took them out, while here it implies that also Avram took them out? The answer is: Also Avram took them out. Nevertheless, he accorded the honor to his father as if his father alone took them out, which is why it is written, “Terach took...” And if not for, “With them they departed,” we would assume that in truth, Terach alone took them out. (Nachalas Yaakov)

כַלָה von כלה, die Vollenderin, weil sie das letzte Glied ist, das die Familie des Schwiegervaters vollendet. Auch die Wurzel כלל, von welcher nach Jeremias 2, 2 כלה zu stammen scheint, hat die Bedeutung vollenden, vollkommen machen. So כללו יפיך Ezechiel 27, 4. Die Schwiegertochter tritt in den Kreis des Schwiegervaters ein, der ihr gegenüber חָמִיהָ, von חמה, ihre Mauer heißt; er umschließt sie mit in seinen Kreis. Während in anderen Sprachanschauungen das Verhältnis der Schwiegertochter und des Schwiegersohns zu dem Schwiegervater ganz gleich begriffen wird, blickt die hebräische Sprache tiefer. Schwiegervater und Schwiegersohn sind zu einander חותן und חתן, ihr Verhältnis ist ein gegenseitiges, sie "mit einander verbindendes". Das Verhältnis der Schwiegertochter zum Schwiegervater ist aber ein viel innigeres "Aufgehen" und "Aufnehmen". Er empfängt und "umfängt" sie als die kommende Vollenderin der Seinen in seinem Kreis.

ויקח תרח את אברם בנו, Terach took his son Avram, etc;” he intended to take him all the way to the land of Canaan, seeing that he was descended from Shem and that land had been given by G-d to the descendants of Shem as we know from Genesis 9,27. Lot and Sarai went with Terach, seeing they were the survivors of Haran’s family.

ויצא אתם, this is the first time that the departure from Ur Casdim is portrayed as having been initiated by Avram, his father appearing as traveling with his son. The reason is that the command to migrate was issued to Avram (and wife) and not to Terach. The latter joined Avram and he took his grandson and his livestock with him. This is why the Torah added the word אתם, “with them.”

Wie רמב"ן gründlich nachgewiesen, war Therachs und Abrahams und Nachors heimatlicher Geburtsherd nicht Ur-Kasdim, sondern Aram, wo auch Charan lag. Nur Haran war in Ur-Kasdim geboren, es war ארץ מולדתו. Sollte er dort vielleicht auch gewohnt und geheiratet haben und nach der Überlieferung Sarai und Jiska identisch, somit auch Sarai Harans Tochter, Lot und Sarai demnach aus Ur-Kasdim gewesen sein, so fände das: ויצאו אתם seine Erklärung. Sarai und Lot gingen mit Therach und Abram aus ihrem Geburtslande.

ויצאו אתם מאור כשדים, “they emigrated with them from Ur of the Chaldeans at the command of G-d.” The basis for this interpretation is found in Genesis 15,7, where G-d is quoted as telling Avraham: “I am the Lord Who has taken you out of Ur Casdim;” (not Terach). According to this interpretation, we do not know precisely where G-d had told Avram to leave Ur Casdim. The author of this interpretation is Ibn Ezra.

ללכת ארצה כנען, actually, G’d had not told Avram to go to the land of Canaan, as anyone reading 12,1 will have no difficulty in ascertaining. He had reserved for Himself the right to tell Avram a specific destination at a later stage. The fact was that the first country under a different rule they encountered would be the land of Canaan. Avraham was aware that once in the land of Canaan he could expect further directives from G’d so that it would become clear which country G’d wanted him to settle in.

Die Erzählung von der Auswanderung der Therach׳schen Familie macht ganz den Eindruck, als ob sie die Anschauung wiedergibt, in welcher dieses für die ganze Zukunft so folgenreiche Ereignis in Aram und für die dort Zurückbleibenden erschien. Es wusste es keiner, dass Gott es war, der zu Abraham gesprochen לך לך. "Unangenehme Familienereignisse veranlaßten die Leute zum Auswandern" Im übrigen sahen wir, dass Therach und die übrigen Familienglieder dem Entschluß, nach Kanaan zu wandern, auf halbem Wege untreu wurden. Sie blieben in Charan, wo wir sie ja auch später wieder finden. Nur Abram folgte, mit Lossagung von seinem Vaterhause, dem Gottesrufe, womit das folgende Kapitel anknüpft.

ויבאו עד הרן, “they came as far as Charan.” Terach was not able to complete the journey all the way to the land of Canaan, and died in Charan.

וישבו שם, they experienced a delay in Charan. Terach, after initially agreeing to move to the land of Canaan, had changed his mind in the interval since leaving Ur Casdim. He simply could not completely sever his links with his birthplace. He felt that by settling in Charan, which was on the border between Ur Casdim and the land of Canaan, he had complied with G’d’s command to Avraham to emigrate. By staying in Charan he felt he would not be too distant from Avraham, while not having severed his ties with his homeland completely. Avraham moved on. When the Torah described Avram’s wife Sarai as Terach’s daughter-in-law, something that appears to be self-evident, this is only meant to convey to us the readers, that Sarai was very willing to uproot herself and to move on with her husband. She was his wife in the first instance, and her relationship to Terach both as daughter-in-law and as granddaughter was of a secondary consideration. She had full faith in the Lord, the G’d of Avram, and was prepared to carry out His will.

וימת תרח בחרן AND TERAH DIED IN HARAN after Abram had left Haran (as related in the next chapter) and had come to the land of Canaan and had been there more than sixty years. For it is written, (Genesis 12:4) “And Abram was seventy five years old when he left Haran”, and Terah was seventy years old when Abram was born (Genesis 11:26), making Terah 145 years old when Abram left Haran, so that there were then many years of his life left (i. e. he lived many years after that — as a matter of fact, 60 years, as he was 205 years old when he died). Why, then, does Scripture mention the death of Terah before the departure of Abram? In order that this matter (his leaving home during his father’s lifetime) might not become known to all, lest people should say that Abram did not show a son’s respect to his father, for he left him in his old age and went his way. That is why Scripture speaks of him as dead (Genesis Rabbah 39:7). For indeed the wicked even while alive are called dead and the righteous even when dead are called living, as it is said, (2 Samuel 23:20) “And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada the son of a living man”.

AND TERAH DIED IN HARAN. After Abram had left [Haran, as related in the next chapter, and had come to the land of Canaan], Terah remained alive for many years after that.³⁸³Abram was seventy-five years old when he left Haran (12:4), and Terah was seventy years of age when Abram was born (11:26), making Terah 145 years old at the time Abram left Haran. Terah thus lived for sixty more years as he died at the age of 205 (11:32). Why then does Scripture mention the death of Terah before the departure of Abram? [The answer is that Scripture does so] in order that this matter [of leaving his home during his father’s lifetime] might not become publicized to all, lest people say that Abram did not show a son’s respect to his father and mother³⁸⁴“And mother.” Not in our text of Rashi. as he left his father in his old age and went his way. That is why Scripture speaks of Terah as dead. Moreover,³⁸⁵“Moreover.” Not in our text of Rashi. for the wicked, even while alive, are called dead. Thus the words of Rashi which are found in Bereshith Rabbah.³⁸⁶39:7.
But I wonder about their words for this is the customary way for Scripture to relate the life of a father, his begetting a son, and his death, and afterwards to begin the narration of the son in all generations. This is the usual manner of Scripture. Noah himself lived yet in the days of Abraham,³⁸⁷Noah lived 350 years after the flood (9:28), and the total number of years of all ten generations from Noah to Abraham was less than 300 years. Thus Noah was still alive in the time of Abraham. and his son Shem lived thoughout Abraham’s life span.³⁸⁸Shem lived 500 years after the flood (11:11). See also Baba Bathra 121 b: “Jacob saw Shem.” Now it is possible that the Rabbis came to conclusion of this Midrash because with respect to Terah, Scripture departed from the format of the entire chapter. Regarding Shem and his descendants, Scripture did not mention their death at all, nor did it total the sum of their years. But here with Terah it again follows the first order it used concerning the longevity of the people from Adam to Noah³⁸⁹Above, 5:5-31. and totals up all the days of Terah and mentions his death. In addition, it mentions the place of death as having been in Haran, the same place it had mentioned concerning Abraham, [i.e., that he had gone there, in Verse 31]. That is why the Rabbis expounded that all this was to make it easily apparent that Abraham was there with Terah when he died. Moreover, because Scripture had already begun the subject of Abraham and told how he had gone forth with his father from Ur of the Chaldees to go into the land of Canaan,³⁹⁰Verse 31 here. the Rabbis found it difficult to understand why Scripture did not systematically arrange Terah’s life and death, and write it chronologically. [That is why they made the aforementioned interpretation.]
And as for that which the Rabbis also said in Bereshith Rabbah³⁸⁶39:7. — “First you interpret³⁹⁰Verse 31 here. that the wicked, even while alive, are called dead” — this too I find surprising, for the Sages³⁹¹Bereshith Rabbah 34:4; 38:18. have already deduced from the verse,³⁹²Genesis 15:15. “And thou shalt come to thy fathers in peace. [His father was an idolater, and yet G-d informed Abraham that after death he would go to him! Clearly the verse teaches you] that He announced to Abraham that his father would have a portion in the World to Come.” Perhaps the intent of the Rabbis was that Terah repented at the time of death, but he lived all his days in wickedness and therefore was called “dead.” In the words of Rashi:³⁹²Genesis 15:15. “Scripture teaches you that Terah did repentance at the time of death.” Perhaps it may be that our Sages, of blessed memory, say³⁹³Sanhedrin 104a. that Terah has a portion in the World to Come by virtue of his son. And that was the announcement, for Abraham did not know it until he was informed of it at the time G-d told him, And thou shalt come to thy fathers in peace.³⁹²Genesis 15:15. And so I found in a Midrash:³⁹⁴Possibly Ramban refers to Vayikra Rabbah at the beginning of Chapter 7. “All kinds of wood were valid for use in the altar fire save only the wood of the olive and the vine,³⁹⁵Tamid 2:3. One of the reasons stated for this law is that it maintains the cultivation of Eretz Yisrael. for since oil and wine were offered upon the altar, the fruits save the trees. And so we find in the case of Abraham that he saved Terah, as it is said, And thou shalt come to thy fathers in peace.”³⁹²Genesis 15:15.
Lech Lecha

וימת תרח בחרן, he had not made an effort to realise his intention of moving all the way to the land of Canaan as he had set out to do in verse 31. He never even visited his son Avraham in the land of Canaan, never observing with his own eyes what a great name Avraham had made for himself and G’d there. Lot, on the other hand, did the opposite for a while at least, having joined Avraham, kept him company and this is why both he and his offspring benefited from this both immediately, such as when Lot became rich in Egypt, as well as much later when Israel was not allowed to conquer the lands belonging to Lot’s descendants, i.e. Ammon and Moav. (compare Nachmanides on Pinchas 25,18)

ויהיו ימי תרח חמש שנים ומאתים שנה. Terach lived to be 205 years. The reason the decription of Terach's age differs from the description of the other people listed in this chapter, i.e. "all the days of so and so were, etc." is twofold. It can either mean that Terach lived longer than the years originally allocated to him, or it can mean that he did not live all the years that had originally been allocated to him. Here the absence of the words "all the days of his life" most likely mean that he lived longer than the years originally allocated to him. He accumulated merit because of his extraordinary concern for the welfare of his son Abraham. One proof may be seen when we compare Terach's lifespan with that of his father Nachor. The latter had only lived for a total of 148 years (11,24-25). Terach lived 57 years longer than his father. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 65,12) have said that when a man approaches to within 5 years (either side) of the age at which his parents died he should begin to be concerned about his own death approaching.

ויהיו ימי תרח, Terach lived for 205 years. Seeing that the Torah had told us that he was 70 years old when Avram was born, Avram was 135 years old at the time his father died. According to the report in Seder Olam, Avram buried his father two years before the death of his wife Sarah, a statement that is absolutely correct. We know that Avraham was 137 years old when Sarah died, as he had previously been reported as being 10 years Sarah’s senior. This means that Terach must have died 2 years before his granddaughter Sarah.

וימת תרח בחרן, “Terach died in Charan.” According to Rashi, Terach still lived for many years, so that we must wonder why the Torah appeared anxious to report his death already at this juncture. Rashi answers that this was so that people would not accuse Avraham of having abandoned his father in his old age. Therefore, the Torah treats Terach in its report as if he had already died. Nachmanides is dissatisfied with this explanation, although it follows the opinions handed down in Bereshit Rabbahwriting that it is perfectly normal for scripture to report on the life of the father, followed by the birth of his son, followed by the report of the father’s death. Having reported the death of the father, scripture resumes the thread by informing us about important aspects of the son’s life. We know that Noach’s life overlapped with the early years of Avraham, and still the Torah had reported his death already in Genesis It is possible that the reason why the Midrash wrote in the vein quoted by Rashi, was that scripture here departed somewhat from its normal syntax when reporting on Terach. Normally, since Shem, Noach’s son, we have not heard about any of the generations’ leaders dying; the Torah had only reported the fact that they were born and for how many years they had lived, leaving the reader to conclude that at the end of the respective number of years, the person referred to had died. Terach is the first person after Noach whose death the Torah had seen fit to devote a line to. (except the premature death of Haran which was reported in Genesis 11,28) In our verse the Torah resumes speaking about Terach, although this had been interrupted with the report of the premature death of his son Haran. Not only does the Torah report on his death at the age of 205 years, but it even stresses the fact of where he died. In view of this, the sages of the Midrash looked for the reason why the Torah had changed its style here. It is also possible that seeing that the Torah had already given us some details about Avraham’s life including the fact that he emigrated from Ur Casdim with his father, intending to proceed to the land of Canaan. The Torah felt constrained to point out that as opposed to Avraham, the son, the father never did reach the land of Canaan but died in Charan. As to the comment of the sages in the Midrash that wicked people are already described as dead even while they are physically still alive, the Torah later on informed Avraham the son, that his father had a share in the world to come, seeing that G’d phrased Avraham’s own arrival in that region as “you will join your fathers in peace in a ripe old Age.” (Genesis 15,15) Perhaps G’d hinted to Avraham that his father had become a penitent shortly before his death and that therefore he had not forfeited his share in the world to come. Apparently, this is the way Rashi understood our verse. Alternatively, in accordance with a view expressed in Sanhedrin 104, Terach was rewarded with a share in the hereafter as a gift by G’d to his son Avraham. [according to that view and the view that the events in chapter 15 took place 5 years before Avraham settled in the land of Canaan (according to Rashi’s own calculations), G’d would have informed Avraham at the age of 70 that his father would have a share in the hereafter!. Ed.]

[People] would say, “[Avraham] did not show...” The Re’m writes: I do not understand about which time period Rashi is concerned [that “people would say”]. If it is referring to Avraham’s time period, what does it help that “Scripture refers to him as dead”? The Torah was not written in Avraham’s days! And if it is referring to the time period after the Torah had been written, why would people say Avraham “did not show respect for his father”? The next verse says, “Adonoy said to Avram, ‘Go from your land...’” Obviously, Avraham could not stay with his father and disobey Hashem’s command! It seems the answer is: It is after the Torah was written. And they would say Avraham did not respect his father because he did not take his father with him to Canaan as he did when he left Ur Kasdim. But in fact Avraham did not take his father along because his father was wicked and worshipped idols. Although Terach repented before he died, Avraham left him in Charan when he was still wicked. But it seems to me that [he who answered this] did not understand the Re’m. The whole reason Hashem said to Avraham, “Go from your land... and from your father’s house” was because He did not want Avraham to take his father with him! Hashem did not want Avraham to make himself secondary to his father as he did in the first journey, where it is written, “Terach took his son Avram...” Moreover, it is not true that Avraham took his father along when he left Ur Kasdim. On the contrary, Terach took Avraham, as we explained above. Thus, the Re’m’s question stands. (Tzeidah L’Derech) See what I cited above (v. 31) from the Nachalas Yaakov, and you will find a good reply to this rebuttal. [For the Nachalas Yaakov proves that Avraham did not truly make himself secondary to his father; he merely accorded honor to his father.]

בחרן IN HARAN — The נ is inverted to tell you that until the time of Abraham, the fierce anger (חרון) of the Omnipotent was kindled against the world.

וימת תרח בחרן, this line tells us that Terach had not abandoned his idolatry and had moved to Charan only out of love for his son Avraham. Following Avraham who had obeyed instructions given to him in a vision, did not mean that Terach changed his philosophy or lifestyle. This is why he saw nothing wrong in remaining in Charan until the time of his death. [even though his son had attained great prominence in the land of Canaan during the intervening 62 years. Ed.] If he had really done teshuvah, and returned to the G’d of his forefathers, he surely would have followed in his sons footsteps and have moved to Canaan. Possibly, Terach did keep the other Noachide laws, except for his idolatry, seeing that Avraham his son had become his guide in matters of theology as far as it concerned the dealings with is fellow man. The conviction that natural forces represent independent powers, even though they in turn might have to obey a higher law, was something he could not rid himself of, as he, as well as his contemporaries, were too deeply steeped in such a world outlook. We know that Joshua testified concerning Terach (Joshua 25,2) when he addressed the Israelites shortly before his death: ”your forefathers dwelled in the land beyond the river (Euprates), Terach the father of Avram and Nachor. They served alien deities , etc.” If Terach had indeed become a penitent and had returned to monotheism, it is inconceivable that Joshua would not have credited him with such a meritorious deed. The final letter ן in the word חרן is meluffaf, i.e. inverted, and our sages explained concerning this (Rashi and Torah Shleyma 115) that Terach died while being out of favour with his Creator, seeing that he had failed to repent his erstwhile idolatry. [Having had a son such as Avraham, his obstinacy was less forgivable than that of other idolaters. Ed.] There is, however, a different explanation offered by Bereshir Rabbah 38,12 based on G’d promising Avraham that he would die of a ripe old age before joining his fathers, etc (Genesis 15,15) This is understood as G’d telling Avraham that his father had indeed become a penitent before he died, how else could the prospect of joining his father after his death be a sort of comfort for Avraham?

Inasmuch as Terach lived many years longer than his father, the Torah reports his death in conjunction with his migration to Charan to indicate which merit added the extra years to his life. Had the Torah merely stated the usual "ויהיו כל ימי תרח, all the years of Terach were, etc., we would have assumed that G'd had originally allocated to him a lifespan of 205 years although this would have been quite wrong. There is also support from the text for the view that Terach lived fewer years than had been allocated to him originally. The Torah reports that he set out on his way to Canaan. However, the Torah also reports that he died in Charan which is on the way. Terach had failed to make good on his vow to move to Canaan and settled in Charan. G'd shortened Terach's lifespan because he did not make good on his vow.

I have had an inspiration which enables me to explain why Abraham left his father in Charan though the latter had migrated for his sake all the way from Ur Casdim. When Abraham moved to Canaan Terach was 143 years old. He was 68 years old when Abraham was born and Abraham was 75 when he moved to the land of Canaan. [I presume that verse 26 which describes Terach as 70 years old when his three sons were born must refer to his age when the youngest was born. Ed.] It seems difficult to understand that Abraham abandoned his father for so many (62) years, even though G'd had told him לך לך.

I believe the answer is simply that Abraham had good reason to expect that his father would die soon after his departure for Canaan, seeing that he was within 5 years of the age at which his grandfather Nachor had died. G'd may even have given Abraham a subtle hint when He told him לך לך, go on "your acccount." The words "on your account," were to indicate that even if Abraham's father were to live additional years he had only Abraham's merit to thank for those years. Abraham therefore did not have to blame himself for "abandoning" his aged father.