Kommentar zu Bereschit 12:22

לך לך GET THEE OUT (literally, go for thyself) — for your own benefit, for your own good: there I will make of you a great nation whilst here you will not merit the privilege of having children (Rosh Hashanah 16b). Furthermore, I shall make known your character throughout the world (Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 3)

AND THE ETERNAL SAID UNTO ABRAHAM ‘LECH LECHA’ (GET THEE OUT). This means, “For your own benefit and for your own good. And there I will make of you a great nation whilst here you will not merit the privilege of having children.” Thus the language of Rashi.
Now there is no need for it¹Ramban’s intent is that it is unnecessary to explain the word lecha (literally, “to you”) as meaning “for your own benefit” for it is merely the idiomatic usage of the Hebrew language, as explained further in the text. for such is the normal expression of the Hebrew language as in the verses: The rain is over and gone ‘lo’;²Song of Songs 2:11. Literally, “gone to itself.” I will get ‘li’ unto the great men;³Jeremiah 5:5. Literally, “get to me.” Rise up, and get ‘lachem’ over the brook Zered;⁴Deuteronomy 2:13. Literally, “and get to you.” and many similar examples. Our Rabbis, however, have made a Midrash — (a homiletical interpretation) — concerning the verses [addressed to Moses] which state, And thou shalt make ‘lecha’ an ark of wood,⁵Deuteronomy 10:1. Literally, “make to thee.” The Midrash of the Rabbis is as follows: “Here the verse states, And ‘thou’ shalt make an ark, meaning Moses, but in Exodus (25:10) it states, And ‘they’ shall make an ark! This teaches us that the people of a community are commanded to do the work of a Torah-scholar who resides in their midst.” (Yoma 72b.) and Make ‘lecha’ two trumpets of silver,⁶Numbers 10:2. Literally, “make to thee.” The Rabbis commented: “As though it were possible, I would prefer it to be from that which is thine to that which is theirs.” (Yoma 3b.) since it was not his work and it would have been proper for these verses to be stated in the same way as that concerning the tabernacle, i.e., And thou shalt make the tabernacle.⁷Exodus 26:1.

אל הארץ אשר אראך, to the specific area within the country which I will show you in a heavenly vision. This is why Avram kept moving further into the land without pitching his tent to settle down until he received the appropriate sign from G’d. This occurred when he reached Shechem, where we are told that G’d appeared to him (verse 7)

ויאמר ה׳ אל אברם, G'd said to Abram, etc. There are two reasons for the most unusual phenomenon of G'd speaking to Abraham without having first appeared to him in some kind of vision. 1) Abraham's constant endeavour to get to know his Creator, something no one had ever done before him. According to our tradition Abraham already recognised his Creator at the age of five without having received any guidance from a teacher. G'd therefore did not have to prove His existence to Abraham by appearing to him in a vision. He could take it for granted that Abraham was aware of who was speaking to him.

ויאמר ה' אל אברם לך לך מארצך וממולדתך ומבית אביך אל הארץ אשר אראך, in this instance the word ויאמר refers to something G’d had already said to Avram before he had even moved away from Ur Casdim, a move he made at the command of G’d. We know this from Genesis 15,7 where G’d reminds him that “I am the Lord Who has taken you out of Ur Casdim.” It is possible that G’d repeated this directive once more while Avram was in Charan. As to the meaning of the word lecha, i.e. “for your own good,” this does not have any special significance, being a commonly used figure of speech. One example would be Exodus 18,27 וילך לו where Yitro’s return to Midian is described in a similar way, and no one suggests that he did so “for his own good.” Another such example is found in Jeremiah 5,5 אלכה לי, “I am going,” where no one suggests that Jeremiah had ulterior motives in going to the wealthy people to speak to them in the belief that they knew the ways of the Lord. Still other examples of a similar construction are found in Numbers 22,34 אשובה לי or in Genesis 45,19 קחו לכם.

ויאמר ה' אל אברם לך לך, “The Lord said to Avram: “go forth for yourself, etc.” Rashi interprets the words לך as meaning “for your own benefit, and for your own satisfaction.” Rashi explains this verse in this fashion, although he was aware that our sages considered this verse as introducing one of the ten trials G’d subjected Avraham to. Having to move away from his birthplace was considered one of these trials. Nachmanides does not interpret the word לך as meaning “for your own benefit,” i.e. the repetition of the words לך לך. He feels that the wording לך לך is not at all unusual, and therefore does not call for a special interpretation at this point. He quotes Song of Songs 2,11 הגשם הלך לו, “the rain has ceased,” as well as the preceding words לכי לך, “go forth,” as examples of the pronoun לך appearing without any ulterior meanings having to be looked for. Other similar examples are (Jeremiah 5,5) אלכה לי אל הגדולים, “so I will go to the wealthy, etc.” However, our sages (long before Rashi) have used this kind of syntax in order to derive additional meanings from it. (Deut. 10,1) ועשית לך ארון עץ, “make yourself a wooden ark; or Numbers 10,2 עשה לך שתי חצוצרות כסף “make for yourself two silver trumpets.” The Talmud Yuma 3 explains the word לך to mean that these trumpets were to be Moses’ personal property, and in fact they were hidden after his death so that no one else could make use of them. In view of the above, there is no reason for Nachmanides to criticize Rashi’s interpretation of the word לך in our verse. (seeing that the Tabernacle was not Moses’ personal property, the expression לך used in connection with it would not fit the interpretation Rashi gave it here, whereas the trumpets were specifically not communal property.)

It is there that I will make you into a great nation. Rashi is explaining his comment of above: “For your own benefit, for your own good.” What is the good? “I will make you into a great nation.” And what is the benefit? “I will make your character known to the world.” Since the next verse elaborates by saying, “I will make you into a great nation ... and make your name great,” we learn that it was for this purpose that Hashem told Avraham to go there. The [repetitive phrase] לך לך does not present a difficulty, for [similarly] it is written in Shir HaShirim 2:11: הגשם חלף הלך לו. Thus we could explain the phrase לך לך is common in Scripture. Nevertheless we explain [such a phrase] where possible, [as Rashi does here]. So wrote Re’m, but it seems to me that it indeed presents a difficulty everywhere it appears. With הגשם חלף הלך לו, it means that the rain ceased, following its nature and inclination. But here, Hashem told Avraham to “Go from your land” against his will, [so that explanation does not fit]. Thus Rashi explains, “For your benefit...” The Maharshal writes: There is a difficulty with Rashi’s first explanation, [“It is there that I will make you into a great nation.” For in v. 2,] we need to insert the phrase, “It is there that.” Thus Rashi offers the second explanation, “I will make your character known to the world.” But according to this explanation, a question arises: What is meant by (v. 2), “I will make you into a great nation”? Therefore, Rashi needs both explanations.

לך לך. Wenn hiermit nur gesagt sein sollte: reise von Aram nach Kanaan, so würde es nicht heißen: לך לךָָ, sondern לֵך, oder vielleicht צֵא. Es wäre dann aber auch, mit der räumlichen Entfernung von dem Vaterlande schon eingeschlossen, die Entfernung von dem Geburtsorte und dem Vaterhause gegeben, das ממולדתך ומבית אביך wäre überflüssig, ja in einer der Wirklichkeit entgegengesetzten Reihenfolge ausgesprochen. Die Trennung geschieht in entgegengesetzter Folge: vom Hause, vom Orte, vom Lande. Der satzteilende Akzent auf מבית אביך macht ohnehin das לך לך zu einer für sich geschlossenen Anforderung. Die Pronominalbeifügung bei הלך, wie וילך לו אל ארצו ,אלכה לי אל הגדולים usw. und ebenso קומי לך רעיתי usw. gibt immer der Bewegung eine besondere, individualisierende, oder isolierende Richtung.

ויאמר ה' אל אברם לך לך, The Lord said to Avram: “go for yourself, etc;” While Terach and Avram were still in Ur Casdim, G-d told Avram to leave his homeland. He did not specify his ultimate destination. A different interpretation of the words: מארצך, “from your homeland.” “Leave the land in which you are currently residing.”

OUT OF THY COUNTRY, AND FROM THY BIRTHPLACE. Rashi wrote,⁸In Verse 2 here. “But had he not already departed from there together with his father and reached as far as Haran?⁹Above, 11:31. But thus, in effect, did the Holy One, blessed be He, say to him, ‘Go still further away from thy father’s house.’”
And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained the verse as follows: “And G-d had already said to Abram, ‘Get thee out of thy country,’ since this command came to him when he was still in Ur of the Chaldees, and there He commanded him to leave his country, his birthplace and his father’s house, in which he was.”
But this is not correct, for if so, it would follow that Abram was the central figure in the journey from his father’s house by command of G-d, while Terah his father voluntarily went with him. Yet Scripture says, And Terah took Abram his son,⁹Above, 11:31. which teaches us that Abram followed his father and that it was by his counsel that Abram went forth from Ur of the Chaldees to go to the land of Canaan! Furthermore, [according to Ibn Ezra, who says that the above command came to Abram when he was still in Ur of the Chaldees], the verse stating, And I took your father Abraham from beyond the river and led him throughout all the land of Canaan,¹⁰Joshua 24:3. should have stated, “And I took your father from Ur of the Chaldees and led him throughout all the land of Canaan,” for it was from there that he was taken, and it was there that he was given this command. In addition, the following difficulty may be put to Rashi and Ibn Ezra: when Abraham commanded Eliezer to get a wife for his son, he said to him, ‘But thou shalt go unto my country and to my birthplace,’¹¹Genesis 24:4. The word moladeti, generally translated “my kindred,” connotes, according to Ramban, both “my birthplace” and “my family.” This is made clear further on in the text. and he went to Aram-naharaim, to the city of Nahor.¹²Ibid., Verse 10. Aram-naharaim is Mesopotamia. See Ramban above, 11:28. If so, that is his “country” and his “birthplace!” And there, Scripture further says [when Eliezer recounts Abraham’s charge to him], But thou shalt go unto my father’s house and to my family,¹³Ibid., Verse 38. thus clearly indicating that there (in Mesopotamia) were his father’s house and his family which is “his kindred.” This is not as Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra erred in interpreting, “Unto my country,¹¹Genesis 24:4. The word moladeti, generally translated “my kindred,” connotes, according to Ramban, both “my birthplace” and “my family.” This is made clear further on in the text. Haran; and to my birthplace, Ur of the Chaldees.” Now since Ibn Ezra says here that in Ur of the Chaldees it was said to Abraham, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, Abraham would thus have many countries!¹⁴Ramban points out the following contradiction in Ibn Ezra’s interpretation: Here in our verse he says that the command was given to Abraham in Ur of the Chaldees. Accordingly, Ur of the Chaldees is Abraham’s “country” for the verse says, from thy country. And further (Chapter 24, Verse 4) Ibn Ezra interprets my country as meaning “Haran,” which is Mesopotamia! Thus Ibn Ezra has “many countries” assigned to Abraham. But the essential principle you already know from what we have written in the preceding Seder,¹⁵Above, 11:28. namely, that Haran is Abraham’s country, and there is his birthplace, it having always been his father’s country, and there Abraham was commanded to leave them. In Bereshith Rabbah,¹⁶39:8. The Rabbis here interpret the double expression of the verse as signifying two departures which Abraham is to make: one from Mesopotamia generally, and one from his city in particular. the Rabbis similarly say “Lech lecha: one departure from Aram-naharaim, and one from Aram-nahor.”
The reason for mentioning out of thy country, and from thy birthplace, and from thy father’s house is that it is difficult for a person to leave the country wherein he dwells, where he has his friends and companions. This is true all the more if this be his native land, and all the more if his whole family is there. Hence it became necessary to say to Abraham that he leave all for the sake of his love of the Holy One, blessed be He.
UNTO THE LAND THAT I WILL SHOW THEE. He wandered and went about from nation to nation, from kingdom to another people,¹⁷Psalms 105:13. until he came to the land of Canaan, where He said to him, Unto thy seed will I give this land.¹⁸Verse 7 here. Then the promise, Unto the land that I will show thee, was fulfilled, and Abraham tarried and settled there. The verse which states, And they went forth to go into the land of Canaan,¹⁹Verse 5. means that he was not heading for Canaan for the purpose of settling there since he did not as yet know that he had been commanded concerning this land. Rather, the righteous one²⁰Abraham. set his goal towards the land of Canaan for that was his intention as well as that of his father when they originally set forth from Ur of the Chaldees. This is the reason why Abraham later said, And it came to pass, when G-d caused me to wander from my father’s house:²¹Further, 20:13. he was indeed gone astray like a lost sheep.²²Psalms 119:176.
It is possible to say that Abraham knew from the first that the land of Canaan was “the inheritance of the Eternal,” destined that His special Providence be bestowed upon it, and he believed that the Divine promise, Unto the land that I will show thee, alluded to the land of Canaan either in its entirety or to one of all those lands [which together comprise Canaan]. He set his direction towards the land of Canaan generally for [he was certain that] there was the land which He would indeed show him.

"Go, yourself," A hint to him, "When you will be 100 years old (30+20+30+20), then I will make you a great nation." For then Isaac will be born.

מארצך, G’d had to add this as it is difficult for a person to leave a homeland in which he had dwelled for many years, all the more so if that land was at the same time the place where he had been born. This is why G’d added: וממולדתך, since it is doubly difficult to separate from one’s family also and to go to a country where one knows no one. This is the meaning of מבית אביך, “away from your father’s house.”

מארצך וממולדך ומבית אביך, “from your homeland, your birthplace, and from your father’s house.” The trial became progressively more difficult, as separating from one’s father’s house is more difficult than separating from the land one has been born in.

2) During the ten generations since Noach that preceded Abraham not a single human being had recognised his G'd so that G'd had found him worthy to speak to. G'd therefore decided to test Abraham before speaking to him. He did this by demanding of Abraham that he leave his home, etc. Only after he had successfully passed that test did G'd decide to reveal Himself to Abraham in a vision as we find in 12,7. G'd did not relate in this manner to later generations because those generations had already absorbed a measure of faith in G'd through the example of their patriarch Abraham. They were born into an environment of some sanctity, an advantage not enjoyed by Abraham. As a result, G'd was able to commence His communications with such people by granting them a vision before He spoke to them. In Psalms 45,11 the Psalmist refers to Abraham's experience when he says: "Take heed, lass, and note, incline your ear; forget your people and your father's house." Our sages declared that the first half of that verse שמעי, listen, applied to our patriarch Abraham, i.e. when G'd spoke to him in 12,1. The second half of the verse where the Psalmist speaks about דאי, i.e. a visual experience, refers to 12,7 when G'd is reported to have appeared to Abraham in a vision. The sound and the vision did not occur simultaneously. To signify this the Psalmist did not say שמעי וראי בת, but placed the word בת in the middle. The best proof for the correctness of our view is the comparison with Moses' experience at the burning bush (Exodus 3,2-4) when a visual phenomenon preceded G'd speaking to him.

הלך verwandt mit חלק, geteilt sein, d. h. so, dass zwei Stoffe in keiner Ver- bindung mehr mit einander stehen, und glatt sein, d. h. eine Oberfläche haben, an welcher gar nichts mehr haftet; daher auch עלג, die getrennte, unzusammenhängende Sprache: stammeln, stottern. In הלך liegt also schon an sich das sich Lossagen, sich Trennen von dem Standpunkte, auf dem man sich befindet. Diese Entfernung kann nun ein Mittel sein, um ein Ziel, einen anderen Standpunkt zu erreichen; kann aber auch Selbstzweck sein, die Bewegung selbst kann schon an und für sich ein bedeutsames Ziel in sich tragen. Durch die Pronomialbeifügung ist dies noch mehr präzisiert. לך לך: "Gehe für dich, isoliere dich!" So bei Jithro: וילך לו er leistete auf die Vorteile Verzicht, die ihm die Verbindung mit Israel gebracht hätte. So auch Josua zu den Söhnen Gad und Reuben: ועתה פנו ולכו לכם לאהליכם (Josua 22, 4), jetzt habt ihr der Pflicht gegen die Gesamtheit genügt und könnt nun "für euch" gehen. Also hier: Gehe für dich, deinen eigenen, von deinem Lande usw. von allen deinen bisherigen Verbindungen dich isolierenden Weg. Die erste Auswanderung aus Ur-Kasdim war vielleicht ein Fortgehen um einer Rettung willen. Diese Anforderung setzt die Entfernung zum Selbstzweck.

וממולדך, “G-d added this to prevent Avram from returning to his birthplace, Ur Casdim. ומבית אביך, “and from the house of your father.” G-d did not want Avram to ever return to his father’s house in order to receive his share of the inheritance. He promised to reward him far beyond anything he could expect as his share of his father’s estate. Rashi here adds a peculiar comment, writing that here the meaning of בית אביך is that where Avram had resided thus far he would not be able to become a father of children. Apparently, he bases himself on our sages in the Jerusalem Talmud, Taanit: 2,1: that there are three things which are apt to cancel a decree against someone siring children: changing the place of one’s residence, changing one’s name, and observing a fast, praying for children. (Compare also B’reshit Rabbah 44,11)

…and for this reason it did not say at the beginning of this vision, ‘and Gd appeared to him’ but rather only once he (Avraham) had entered the land, because then he was prepared to behold visions of the Divine Presence. Beforehand, when he was still outside the land, he only heard a voice speaking of things. This is because Gd did not appear to him until he came to the land, as is explained shortly. Therefore he called that place the ladder of Tzur (sulma shel tzur) as it says in the Yalkut on this portion (remez 62) that once Avraham arrived at the ladder of Tzur he said ‘let my portion be in this land.’ Who told the author of this midrash that Avraham arrived at the ladder of Tzur? He certainly meant Mount Moriah, because that was the location of the ladder which Yaakov saw standing in the house of Gd (Bet El). Via that ladder souls ascend and descend, and there is the bedrock from which the body is hewn as it says, “…look at the rock whence you were hewn...” (Isaiah 51:1) because from that rock, which is called the foundation stone, the world in general was founded. Also man, who is called a microcosm (olam katan), was fashioned from the place of that rock, which is the also the place of the ladder for the soul as stated. For this reason it says “go to you” (lech l’cha) here and at the binding of Yitzchak, and so too in the verse “…I will go to the mountain of myrrh…” (Shir HaShirim 4:6) and so too “…the rain is over, and gone (to itself – halach lo)” (ShirHaShirim 2:11) it returned to the place of its source, 'because a mist comes up from the land' (compare Bereshit 2:6 and Taanit 9b). The same construction is found in the verse “Now get up and cross (to yourselves) the brook of Zered…” (Devarim 2:13) that is, so too into the land of Israel. And also “I will go (to me) to the great ones…” (Jeremiah 5:5) because there is the dwelling place of the whole ones. This is true of all ‘to me, to him, to you, to them’ (li, lo, lecha, lahem) in the Bible that they should be interpreted so. Therefore Avraham understood from the phrase go you (to yourself – lech lecha) to go to the land of Canaan, even though it was not stated to which land he should head.

אל הארץ אשר אראך, if G’d had told Avram that He would show him a land which was rich, fertile, good, etc., it would not have been as difficult to comply with such a directive. But the fact that G’d did not add these inducements made it more difficult for Avram to decide. The reason why G’d did not offer these inducements was to show us, the readers, how great was Avram’s love of G’d that he unquestioningly abided by what G’d had asked him to do. He was determined to carry out the wishes of his G’d.

אל הארץ אשר אראך, “to the land which I will show you.” It is an additional hardship to be ordered to undertake a journey the destination of which has not been revealed beforehand. Avraham considered all this as easy, as he was anxious to fulfill G’d’s request out of a feeling of love for Him. Rashi queries that this commandment was not new, seeing that Avraham had already left his homeland a number of years ago when he went to Charan with his father? He therefore explains that we must understand what G’d is reported to have said here to Avraham to make an even more drastic break with his past by leaving his father’s house. Ibn Ezra views the basic commandment as having been formulated by G’d already when G’d said to him לך לך מארצך as well as ממולדך ומבית אביך, at a time when he was still in Ur Casdim. G’d had known that Terach, Avraham’s father, would not go beyond Charan. In fact, Terach died 60 years after Avraham had continued his journey to the land of Canaan. Nachmanides disagrees, writing that if correct, the paragraph describing the move from Ur Casdim should have portrayed Avraham as the principal, instead of describing Terach as having taken the other family members with him. (11,31) Clearly, at that time Avraham followed his father’s instructions, not G’d’s. No mention had been made of G’d having communicated with Avraham as yet. Furthermore, in the verse from Joshua 24,3 G’d is quoted as having said: “I have taken your father (Avraham) from beyond the river Euphrates.” If Ibn Ezra were correct, Joshua should have quoted: “I have taken your father from Ur Casdim, etc.” Still another proof that Ibn Ezra is not correct can be found in the instructions Avraham issued to his trusted servant Eliezer when he sent him to get a wife for Yitzchok. In Genesis 24,3 Avraham instructs Eliezer to take a wife for Yitzchok from ארצי ומולדתי, “my homeland and the place where I was born.” Eliezer proceeded to travel to Aram Naharyim, not to Ur Casdim in order to discharge his master’s mission. Ibn Ezra is wrong when he interprets the words in that verse as meaning ארצי=חרן and מולדתי as Ur Casdim. How could he say here that this directive was given to Avraham while he was still in Ur Casdim? Avraham had a number of countries that he called “his country” at different times, though he had only one birthplace and one father’s house. The fact is that Charan was both his homeland, his birthplace, and the location of his father’s house.

לך לך מארצך. "Go forth for yourself from your country." Why did G'd tell Abraham to leave his birthplace after He had already told him to leave his country? Surely, leaving one's country includes leaving one's birthplace?

UNTO THE LAND THAT I WILL SHOW THEE. He wandered and went about from nation to nation, from kingdom to another people,¹⁷Psalms 105:13. until he came to the land of Canaan, where He said to him, Unto thy seed will I give this land.¹⁸Verse 7 here. Then the promise, Unto the land that I will show thee, was fulfilled, and Abraham tarried and settled there. The verse which states, And they went forth to go into the land of Canaan,¹⁹Verse 5. means that he was not heading for Canaan for the purpose of settling there since he did not as yet know that he had been commanded concerning this land. Rather, the righteous one²⁰Abraham. set his goal towards the land of Canaan for that was his intention as well as that of his father when they originally set forth from Ur of the Chaldees. This is the reason why Abraham later said, And it came to pass, when G-d caused me to wander from my father’s house:²¹Further, 20:13. he was indeed gone astray like a lost sheep.²²Psalms 119:176.
It is possible to say that Abraham knew from the first that the land of Canaan was “the inheritance of the Eternal,” destined that His special Providence be bestowed upon it, and he believed that the Divine promise, Unto the land that I will show thee, alluded to the land of Canaan either in its entirety or to one of all those lands [which together comprise Canaan]. He set his direction towards the land of Canaan generally for [he was certain that] there was the land which He would indeed show him.

מולדת ,ארץ und בית bilden zusammen den Boden, aus welchem die ganze Persönlich keit erwächst. Aus ארץ, dem Vaterlande: die Nationalität mit allen leiblich, geistig und sittlich gestaltenden und bildenden Einflüssen, die diesem Begriffe innewohnen. ארץ, als Land, ist ארם: das unserem ganzen Wesen Angetraute, ערש, die Wiege, in der wir zum Dasein und Hiersein erwachen, ערס: der "Trog" in dem wir gebildet werden, ערץ: das Gewaltige, dem sich niemand entzieht. ארץ, "als Erde, ist unsere"Wiege׳ und darüber steht in שמים unser שם, unsere Zukunft. — ארץ gibt also unserer Versönlichkeit das nationale Gepräge und den partiellen Anteil an der Macht und Würde einer Nation. — מולדת, der Geburtsort, gibt uns die bürgerliche Stellung und Selbständigkeit. — בית, das Haus endlich, ist der engere Raum, in welchem unser Wesen individuell erblüht und individuelle Pflege und Entwicklung findet. בית ist lautverwandt mit בגד und בגד .פקד ist das Gewand, die Hülle, die sich eng dem Menschen schützend und darstellend anschließt. Auch בית ist nichts als das erweiterte Kleid, als die den sich entwickelnden und wirkenden Menschen schützend und fördernd umgebende Begrenzung. Der Mensch hal drei Hüllen: כשר, den Leib (בסר, die Fruchthülle), das Kleid und das Haus. Auch פקד ist nichts anderes als bekleiden, denn פקד heißt ursprünglich: einem Gegenstande die entsprechende äußere Umgebung geben. So zunächst vom göttlichen Verhängnis. Gott gibt jedem Individuum seine äußeren, ihm entsprechenden Verhältnisse, sie bilden sein Kleid, seine äußere Erscheinung. Dann: im Geiste einen Gegenstand in den Kreis, in die Atmosphäre seiner Attribute einsetzen, ihn sich mit seinen Prädikaten vergegenwärtigen, d. i. ihn denken. Dann sozial: ihn in ein Amt einsetzen, entgegengesetzt zum deutschen; hebräisch bekleidet das Amt den Menschen, die Aufgabe, die das Amt involviert, bildet den Kreis, in welchem er sich zu bewegen hat. Daher auch הפקיד, jemandem etwas in Verwahrung geben, eigentlich: es bei ihm seine Stätte finden lassen. —

אל הארץ, “to the land;” the definitive article ה, is to remind Avraham that seeing he was descended from Shem, he had a legal claim to this land. This conforms to how Rashi (Verse 6) explains why he was instructed to walk throughout this land (Genesis 13,17) in order to claim it through having set foot in it. G-d Himself guided him.

אל הארץ אשר אראך, “to the land which I will show you.” He would be wandering until he would eventually get to the land of Canaan. Having arrived in the land of Canaan, G’d told him (verse 7) that He would give that whole land to his (non existent) descendants. When we had been told earlier (11,31) ויצאו אתם מאור כשדים ללכת ארצה כנען, “They departed together from Ur Casdim to go to the land of Canaan,” this was not a journey designed to settle in that land, as Avraham had not yet known at that time that G’d’s commandment had envisaged the land of Canaan as his ultimate destination. We have proof of this from when he explained to Avimelech (Genesis 20,13) that G’d had made him wander without a specific objective through many locations, so that he had adopted the practice of describing Sarai as his sister in all the locations where they had stopped for a period of time. It is possible that Avraham had known that the land of Canaan was G’d’s inheritance on earth, and that therefore he had been heading in that direction. He had understood that the words “to the land which I will show you” were a hint that he should head towards the land of Canaan.

The Torah lists the departures according to the pain of leave-taking involved. It is less painful to leave one's country than to leave one's birthplace, and it is even more painful to leave one's family. Abraham is commanded to leave in an ascending order of the nostalgia involved. He complied with the most difficult part of the test by leaving his parental home. The manner in which the Torah describes the process indicates that Abraham received an additional reward for each stage. We have a similar description of the gradually increasing difficulty of complying with G'd's command when G'd told Abraham to take: "your son, your only one, the one you love," as an introduction to the עקדה in Genesis 21,2.

Wir haben an diese jüdischen Sprachgedanken erinnert, um zu vergegenwärtigen, wie tief und innig schon unsere Sprache den Wert des Vaterlandes und der Heimat fühlt und würdigt, und es gewiß nicht Geringschätzung dieser Momente ist, wenn hier die Pflanzung des ersten jüdischen Keimes die Lossagung von Vaterland, Geburtsort und Vaterhaus, die Lossagung von Nationalität und Heimat fordert. Vielmehr liegt gerade in der Würdigung dieser Momente die Größe der hier geforderten Isolierung. Diese Anforderung selbst setzte Abraham in den entschiedensten Gegensatz zu der herrschenden Richtung seiner Zeit. Nicht Individualisierung, nicht Anerkennung des Wertes und der Bedeutung des einzelnen, vielmehr Zentralisierung, die den Menschen seinen persönlichen Wert verlieren lässt und ihn zum Handlanger, zum Ziegelstein für den Ruhmesbau einer angeblichen Repräsentanz der Gesamtheit erniedrigt, das war, wie wir gesehen, die Richtung der Zeit, die unter der Parole ihres נעשה לנו שם den Turmbau des Menschenruhmes begann. Diese Richtung erzeugt den Wahn einer überall und für alles geltenden Majorität, macht, dass zuletzt alles, was in dem Vaterlande der Majorität als Höchstes gilt, auch damit schon ohne weiteres von jedem als Höchstes angesehen und verehrt wird. Es sollte allerdings eine jede Gesamtheit die Vertreterin des wahrhaft Höchsten und Heiligen sein, und in dieser Voraussetzung würdigt auch das Judentum den Anschluß an die Gesamtheit in seiner vollen Bedeutung. Jedoch an der Spitze des Judentums steht: לך לך "das für sich gehen" als das noch Höhere. Niemand darf sagen: ich bin so gut, so gerecht, als es eben Mode ist. Jeder ist Gott für sich selbst ver- antwortlich. Wenn nötig: "mit Gott — allein!" wenn es sein muß, wenn das in der Majorität vergötterte Prinzip nicht das wahrhaft göttliche ist — dies Bewusstsein ward von Abraham als der Ausgangspunkt für seine und seines einstigen Volkes Bestimmung gefordert. Wohl lehrt, wie wir gesehen, schon unsere Sprache in den Worten mit wie starken Banden der Mensch an beide geknüpft ist: jedoch stärker ,בית und ארץ als das Band, das uns mit Vaterland und Familie verbindet, soll das Band sein, das uns mit Gott verknüpft.

It is also possible that whereas Abraham's departure from Ur Casdim had included a migration of his whole family, now G'd demanded that he leave his family behind. Abraham did not understand this correctly; this is why he took Lot with him. Alternatively, Abraham did understand that he was not supposed to take Lot with him, but the latter was so attached to him that he insisted on coming along on his own. When the Torah says in 12,5 that he did "take" Lot with him, the meaning is merely that he did not push him away until he found a suitable pretext as he did not want to shame his nephew. As soon as Abraham found a minor pretext to separate from Lot, such as when the shepherds of Lot and those of Abraham began to feud, he used that incident as an excuse to separate from Lot (13,8). It sounds quite uncharacteristic for Abraham, the model of making people welcome in his environment, to push someone away with both hands by saying: "if you want to go to the right, I will move to the left; if you want to move to the left, I will move to the right." The fact that G'd had not communicated with Abraham for a while until immediately after he separated from Lot (13,14), indicates that G'd had been waiting for the moment when Lot would finally separate from him. Only then did G'd show Abraham the extent of the land that would eventually belong to his descendants. G'd delayed fulfilling the last part of the promise contained in our verse until Abraham had rid himself of Lot.

Wie hätten wir existieren können und könnten wir existieren, hätten wir nicht von vorn herein von Abraham den Mut einer Minorität erhalten!

An additional meaning of the instruction to Abraham to "go for yourself," is not so much that he was to be alone but that he was to benefit spiritually by this migration. Although man's success in this world does not depend on the amount of effort he invests in his material progress as we know from Psalms 75,7: "for what lifts a man comes not from the east or the west or the wilderness of hills;" our sages say that every time the word הרים, mountains appears in the Bible it means mountains except in this instance. In Psalms 75,7 the word describes a spiritual uplift. This comment of our sages notwithstanding, the fact that a change of one's physical environment brings in its wake an improvement in one's fortune is not to be ignored. This was why G'd commanded Abraham specifically to leave his country. Our sages (Chulin 95) say that there are three things, which do not actually constitute forbidden superstition even if one does pay attention to them. However, such attention borders on superstition. They are: בית, תינוק, ואשה. [If the enterprise one undertakes after building himself a house, after a baby is born to one, or after one has married, turns out well, it may be taken as a good omen. If not, it may be a sign that one should not persevere with that particular endeavour. Rabbi Eleazar adds that one should not be influenced by such failure unless it occurred three times in succession. Ed.] Baba Metzia 75 also said that if one experiences bad luck in one place without moving to another place one has oneself to blame if one's fortunes do not improve.

Zeitgemäßes Judentum! Der lauteste Protest dagegen ist das erste jüdische Wort: לך לך! War Abrahams erstes Auftreten zeitgemäß? In Mitten von Chaldäa, Babylon, Assyrien, Phönizien, Ägypten! Vergötterung der Sinnlichkeit und der Macht war da die zeitgemäße Predigt, vergöttertes Genussleben in Asien, Vergötterung der Menschenmacht und Ertötung des freien Menschen in Ägypten; der Gedanke "Gott" war bis auf wenige Spuren verschwunden, — da soll ein Abraham auftreten, und während die ganze Welt sich fest anzusiedeln, sich anzubürgern trachtet, soll er seine Heimat, sein Bürgerrecht aufgeben, sich freiwillig zum Fremdling machen, den von allen Nationalitäten vergötterten Göttern den Protest ins Angesicht sprechen; das erfordert den Mut und die Überzeugung von der Wahrhaftigkeit der inneren Gesinnung und des Gottesbewusstseins, das fordert das jüdische Bewusstsein, den jüdischen "Trotz" — und das war das erste, worin Abraham seine Berufung zu bewähren hatte.

וממולדתך, and from your birthplace. The lesson here is that living in a place endangered by lions is preferable to living in a place surrounded by sinners, though the latter appeared secure.

So begreifen wir auch wohl, wie unsere נביאים, jene von Gott bestellten Zeiten Wächter, צופים, die ihrem Volke die Merkzeichen aller erlebten und noch zu erhoffenden Zeitenenden, Erlösungsausgänge, unverlierbar in die Endbuchstaben seines Alphabets ,קצים hineingeschrieben haben, und die ganze jüdische Weltgeschichte in den doppelt-^ doppelt-ö, doppelt-!, doppelte und doppelte, des לך לך des Abraham, עצמת ממנו des Jizchak, הצילני נא des Jakob, פקוד יפקוד der צמח שמו ותחתיו יצמח ,גאולת מצרים der einstigen des Abraham den ersten Ausgangspunkt לך לך zusammenfassten, wie sie in dem גאולה der גאולה erblicken konnten. Mit dem Isolierungsrufe, welchem Abraham gehorchte, war die jüdische Welterlösung entschieden.

אל הארץ אשר אראך, to the land which I will show you. G'd did not tell Abraham if he was meant to set out on his journey immediately or if he should wait till He would specify the exact location He wanted Abraham to move to. This ambiguity was part of the test to which G'd subjected Abraham. G'd also hinted that He would show Abraham the whole of the land of Israel by broadening his field of vision, etc, as we know from 13,14: "lift your eyes from where you are and look northward, southward, eastward, and westward."

G'd also hinted that Abraham should move to ארץ ישראל, a land suitable for the Presence of G'd to become manifest, and for people who are worthy to experience such a manifestation. The Sifri on Numbers 35,34 states that (full) manifestation of G'd's presence depends on the Jewish people being in the land of Israel. Accordingly, the meaning of the word אראך is both: "I will show it (the land) to you," and: "I will show you to it (the land)." One will not achieve its full potential without the other.

ואעשך לגוי גדול AND I WILL MAKE OF THEE A GREAT NATION —Since travelling is the cause of three things—it decreases (breaks up) family life, it reduces one’s wealth and lessens one’s renown, he therefore needed these three blessings: that God should promise him children, wealth and a great name (Genesis Rabbah 39:11).

AND BE THOU A BLESSING. You will be the blessing by whom people will be blessed, saying, “G-d make thee as Abraham.” To this He added that all families of the earth²³Verse 3 here. will cite him in blessing, not just the people of his country alone. It may be that the expression, And in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed,²³Verse 3 here. means that they will all be blessed on his account.
Now this portion of Scripture is not completely elucidated. What reason was there that the Holy One, blessed be He, should say to Abraham, “Leave your country, and I will do you good in a completely unprecedented measure,” without first stating that Abraham worshipped G-d or that he was a righteous man, [and] perfect?²⁴Above, 6:9. As was the case with Noah. Or it should state as a reason for his leaving the country that the very journey to another land constituted an act of seeking the nearness of G-d.²⁵Psalms 73:28. This may indeed be an illuminating personal remark shedding light on Ramban’s journey, towards the end of his life, to the Land of Israel; the very journey constituted to him a religious experience of “seeking the nearness of G-d.” The custom of Scripture is to state, “Walk before Me,²⁶Genesis 17:1. and hearken to My voice, and I will do good unto you,” as is the case with David²⁷See I Kings 2:4. and Solomon,²⁸Ibid., 3:13-14. as well as throughout the Torah: If ye walk in My statute;²⁹Leviticus 26:3. And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the Eternal thy G-d.³⁰Deuteronomy 28:1. And in the case of Isaac, it says, For My servant Abraham’s sake.³¹Genesis 26:24. But there is no reason for G-d to promise [Abraham a reward merely] for his leaving the country.
However, the reason [for G-d’s promising Abraham this reward] is that the people of Ur of the Chaldees did him much evil on account of his belief in the Holy One, blessed be He, and he fled from them to go to the land of Canaan, tarrying for a time at Haran, whereupon the Eternal told him to leave these places as well and to fulfill his original intention that his worship be dedicated to Him alone and that he call upon people [for the worhip of] the Name of the Eternal in the Chosen Land. There He would make his name great, and these nations would bless themselves by him, not as they treated him in Ur of the Chaldees, where they abused and cursed him, put him in prison or in the fiery furnace. He further told Abraham that He will bless those who bless him, and if some individual will curse him, he will be cursed in turn.
This then is the meaning of this portion of Scripture. The Torah, however, did not want to deal at length with the opinions of idol worshippers and explain the matter between him and the Chaldeans in the subject of faith, just as it dealt briefly with the matter of the generation of Enosh³²Above, 4:26. See also above in Seder Noach, Note 280. and their thesis concerning the idol-worship which they instituted.

והיה ברכה, a true blessing by G’d is when G’d rejoices in our deeds and actions. Our sages (Berachot 7) illustrate this when they quote a conversation between the High Priest Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha who, while offering incense on Yom Kippur, had a vision of the angel Katriel sitting on the throne of G’d. The latter said to him: “Yishmael, My son, bless Me.” He said to him: (in the words attributed as being G’d’s own ‘prayer’) “may it be Your will that Your mercy will subdue Your anger and may Your mercy exile Your justified attribute to punish Your people for their sins, and may Your mercy prevail so that You deal with Your children by applying the attribute of Mercy.” When G’d’s representative, the angel Katriel heard this, he touched the High Priest on the head, which the latter took as a sign that the blessing uttered by an inferior creature for a superior should not be dismissed as worthless.” [I have stuck more closely to the text of the Talmud than did the author here. Ed.] G’d here blessed Avram, with becoming the one who would preach monotheism including awareness of the benevolence of G’d which He extends to all of His creatures.

ואעשך לגוי גדול. I shall make a great nation out of you. Since G'd had given Abraham a threefold commandment, He now promised that fulfilment of these three steps would result in three benefits to Abraham. 1) The promise that Abraham would become a great nation was the reward for leaving his country. 2) The promise to bless Abraham and make him a great name was a reward for his leaving his birthplace. 3) The promise that Abraham himself would become a source of blessing was a reward for his leaving his father's home. These three promises were compensations for things people normally enjoy when they are in familiar surroundings. 1) They have many friends and acquaintances. 2) They enjoy a degree of honour and respect within their family. 3) Inasmuch as they are part of a family their economic needs are taken care of should they fall on hard times. When a person emigrates to a totally strange country, he knows that he gives up the mental and economic stability that he took for granted in his home.

ואעשך לגוי גדול, even though your wife is barren, I will cure her and in this country she will bear a child.

והיה ברכה, “and become a blessing.” You will be the blessing by whom the nations will bless themselves when they quote you as a role model when blessing others and wishing that they should turn out to be like Avraham.

ואעשך לגוי גדול, “and I will make you into a great nation.” Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 39,15) explain that being a traveler, a nomad, brings in its wake three negative phenomena. It results 1) in a decrease of one’s fertility; 2) a decrease of one’s financial resources; and 3) in a decrease of one’s standing amongst one’s peers. G-d promised Avraham that he would not suffer from these negative phenomena. By saying: “I will make you into a great nation,” G-d told Avraham that his ability to procreate would not only not suffer but would be enhanced. By adding: “I will bless you,” G-d hinted that Avraham would prosper financially. By further adding “I will make your name great,” He countered Avraham’s concern that his standing amongst his peers would decline due to his becoming a nomad.
It is noteworthy that G-d did not use the customary expression ואשימך לגוי גדול, “I will let you become a great nation,” but He said ואעשך לגוי גדול, “I will make you into a great nation.” This is equivalent to G-d saying: “I will make you into an entirely new phenomenon.” The expression G-d used is comparable to when the Torah said (1,7) ויעש אלוקים את הרקיע, “G-d made the sky.”
The deeper meaning of the words לגוי גדול, “to a great nation,” is a reference to the Jewish nation which is described in Deut. 4,8 as ומי גוי גדול אשר לו חקים ומשפטים צדיקים, “and who else is a great nation which has righteous decrees and ordinances?” The words: “I will make you into a great nation,” are alluded to when we refer to G-d as the G-d of Avraham,” the words “I will bless you,” are alluded to when we refer to G-d as “the G-d of Yitzchak;” the words “and I will make your name great,” are alluded to when we speak of G-d as “the G-d of Yaakov.” The words והיה ברכה “and be a blessing,” prompted our sages when they formulated the first benediction in the principal עמידה prayer to conclude with reference to Avraham only when we say מגן אברהם, “the shield of Avraham” at the conclusion of that benediction.
The deeper meaning of these words והיה ברכה, “and be a blessing,” is that G-d had said: ”up until now when I created My universe and it needed My blessing in order to endure I blessed Adam and Chavah as we read (1,28) ‘G-d blessed them.’” This was repeated when Noach and his family required G-d’s blessing after the deluge in order to rebuild mankind. At that point (9,1) the Torah wrote: “G-d blessed Noach and his sons, etc.” From here on is the power to bless was entrusted to Avraham who could use it to bless whomever he saw fit to qualify for a blessing.

Since traveling causes three things. Rashi is answering the question: Why did Hashem give Avraham these three specific blessings, and not other blessings?

ואעשך לגוי גדול. Auch ganz oberflächlich betrachtet, ergibt es sich schon, dass Abraham alles Aufgegebene und zwar in bedeutend gesteigertem Maße durch Gott wieder erhalten sollte. Indem er sich מארצו lossagt, gibt er seine Nationalität auf; statt aber sich einer andern anzuschließen, spricht Gott: du selbst sollst Boden einer neuen Nationalität werden. Mit dem Aufgeben seiner Heimat, מולדתו, soll er den Quell des berechtigten Gedeihens nicht vermissen, ואברכך, vielmehr in Gott das Bürgerrecht zur Blüte auf Erden gewinnen; und indem er seine Familie verlässt und damit Ehren und ererbtes Familienansehen aufgiebt, אגדלה שמך, soll in ihm ein neuer Name zur Ruhmes- größe erwachsen.

ואברכך, “I shall bless you;” I personally, not through any agent of mine.

ואעשך לגוי גדול, “I am going to make you into a great nation, etc.” G-d, being aware that Avram’s wife is presently barren, tells him that notwithstanding this fact he will become the founding father of a great nation. We had been told in Genesis 11,30, of Sarah’s inability to have children. A different interpretation of this verse: The Torah does not write: ואשימך לגוי גדול, “I will make you to be a great nation, which could have been misinterpreted.” G-d stressed that He would perform an act that would neutralise any negative decree from which Avram suffered, i.e. changing both his and his wife’s name. People called: Avraham, and: Sarah, had never been decreed to remain childless. According to the Midrash, originally Avram lacked 5 important organs: eyes, ears, as well as the glans. The glans is called “the head of the body,” as sacrificing, i.e. circumcising it is equivalent to offering one’s entire body as an offering to G-d. (Compare Talmud, Nedarim 32.) When G-d added the letter ה to his name, He supplied these missing 5 organs of his body. This is meant when G-d invited him to become תמים, “whole, a perfect specimen. (Genesis 17,1)

ואברכך AND I WILL BLESS THEE —with wealth (Genesis Rabbah 39:11).

ואברך, I will give you additional goodness, such as material wealth, possessions and honour, as we read in 13,2 “Avram was very rich in cattle, silver, and gold.”

Therefore, these three blessings were necessary. Question: How did these three things that are diminished by traveling pertain to Avraham? He had no children. Also, he had no wealth, for on his way [down to Egypt] he bought everything on credit [see Rashi on 13:3]. Furthermore, he replied to the King of Sedom (14:23): “So you will not be able to say, ‘I have made Avram wealthy’” — [implying that beforehand, he indeed was not wealthy]. And nowhere does it say he had acquired fame. [Since he never had these things, he need not fear losing them on account of traveling!] It seems the answer is: Rashi means that for one who has them, traveling inhibits these things. And one who lacks them surely will not acquire them on account of traveling. Thus Avraham needed these three specific blessings in order to acquire them, being that they are contrary to the norm, for traveling inhibits them. (Nachalas Yaakov) This refers to valuing the mitzvah of the Akeidah, [not Yitzchok]. (Tzeidah L’Derech)

Die Weisen in ב"ר ל׳ט erinnern, es heiße nicht: אשימך לגוי גדול, dass Gott etwa nur Schutz- und Schirmherr der nationalen Entwicklung seiner Nachkommen sein werde, ähnlich dem das Wachsen und Blühen anderer Völker schirmenden göttlichen Walten, sondern: אעשך, machen, schaffen werde ich dich zu einem großen Volke; alle äußeren natürlichen Umstände sollen dagegen sprechen und es soll augenfällig Gott hier als Schöpfer des Volkes als solcher erscheinen. Schon das Alter und die Kinderlosigkeit des zur Wurzel eines künftigen Volkes erwählten Paares widersprach nach allen natürlichen Voraussetzungen der verheißenen Zukunft. Nur Gott konnte den Abraham zu seinem großen Volke machen. So sollte von vornherein schon das bloße Werden und Dasein dieses Volkes eine Offenbarung Gottes sein. —

ואגדלה שמך, “I will make your name great.” I will add a letter to your name, so that its numerical value will amount to 248, corresponding to the number of limbs in your body. Your body will then be found to be whole, matching your name.

ואגדלה שמך, “I will make your name great.” This was accomplished by adding a single letter to his name. Through this addition the numerical value of the letters in his name amounted to 248, the total number of limbs in a perfectly formed human (male) specimen. [Incidentally, this is also the total number of positive commandments in the Torah. Ed.] Avraham then had a perfect body and a perfect, whole name.

והיה ברכה AND BE THOU A BLESSING — Blessings are entrusted to you; hitherto they were in My power — I blessed Adam and Noah — but from now on you shall bless whomsoever you wish (Genesis Rabbah 39:11) Another explanation is: AND I WILL MAKE THEE A GREAT NATION, this alludes to the fact that we say in our prayer “God of Abraham”; AND I WILL BLESS THEE — that we say, “God of Isaac”; AND I WILL MAKE THY NAME GREAT — that we say, “God of Jacob”. One might think that we should conclude the benediction in which these invocations are recited by mentioning again the names of all the patriarchs — the text therefore states “Be thou a blessing” meaning, with you (i.e. with your name only) shall they conclude the benediction and not with them (their names) (Pesachim 117b).

ואגדלה שמך, your name will be known throughout many nations due to how blessed you are, due to your good deeds, and the success of your undertakings. Examples were Avram’s defeat of the four most powerful kings on earth at that time, when he freed Lot and the King of Sodom. The Canaanites (בני חת) said to him when he wanted to buy a burial plot for Sarah “you are a prince in our midst” (Genesis 23,6). We find a similar statement which G’d made to David in Chronicles I 17,8 ועשיתי לך שם בשם הגדולים אשר בארץ, “I will make you as renowned as the greatest men on earth.” This is part of the good that G’d does for people.

He promised him children, wealth and fame ... Rashi seems to be saying: since traveling inhibits having children, Hashem therefore promised him that traveling will not harm him. If he were not to travel he would have had children, so too he will have children, in spite of his traveling. But this contradicts what Rashi said before: “Here you will not merit having children.” Similarly, since traveling lessens fame, Hashem promised him that traveling will not harm him. If he were not to travel he would have fame, so too he will have fame in spite of traveling. But this contradicts what Rashi said before: “I will make your character known to the world,” implying that outside of Eretz Yisrael he had no fame at all. A further question: Why does Rashi first explain והיה ברכה and only then say, “An alternate explanation: ואעשך לגוי גדול...” which is contrary to the verse’s order? Moreover, why does Rashi first explain ואעשך לגוי גדול and only then explain מארצך וממולדתך, which is contrary to the verse’s order? The Re’m answers that Rashi cited the Bereishis Rabbah’s teaching [of “Traveling causes three things...”] at the end, to show that it disagrees with the previous explanation of “For your own benefit, for your own good.” But there is another, more intricate answer: When Rashi says, “Traveling causes three things...” he is not explaining ואעשך לגוי גדול [differently than before]. Rather he is challenging what he said before, “Here you will not merit having children” — for in Bereishis Rabbah it says that “traveling causes three things...” and this implies Avraham would indeed have children without traveling to Eretz Yisrael. And lest we claim that the text of the Midrash Rabbah is inaccurate, as children and fame are mentioned in the verse while wealth is not, Rashi then explains that wealth is also mentioned: ואברכך refers to wealth. And lest we still claim that the Midrash is inaccurate, as it attempts to interpret all the extra words in the verse, but how will it interpret והיה ברכה? To answer this, Rashi explains that והיה ברכה comes to teach that, “The blessings are entrusted to you....” Perforce the Midrash is accurate, and therefore it presents a difficulty on Rashi’s first explanation. Rashi answers: “An alternate explanation is ... the basis of the opening Shemoneh Esrei prayer...” Rashi is saying that the Midrash Rabbah itself has an additional explanation for ואעשך לגוי גדול. Consequently, when Rashi said, “Here you will not merit having children,” is in line with the Midrash Rabbah’s alternate explanation. (author’s commentary)

Eine zahlreiche Nachkommenschaft macht aber noch kein Volk. Damit eine Masse eine גוי, eine Volkseinheit bilde, dazu bedarf sie eines gemeinsamen Bandes. Überall sonst ist dies das gemeinsame Land, das Zusammenwohnen unter denselben Einflüssen, das Getragenwerden von dem gemeinsamen Boden der Existenz. Abrahams Nachkommen aber sollen auch ein Volk, nicht aber durch gemeinsamen Boden, sondern wiederum nur durch Gott werden. Abrahams Geist soll sich in seinen Nachkommen wiederholen und: was anderen Völkern ihr Boden ist, das sollst du deinen Nachkommen sein. Mit der Abstammung von dir sollen sie auch das volkbildende Einigungselement erben. Dadurch, dass wir noch jetzt אלקי אברהם, Gott, wie ihn Abraham erkannt, wie er sich ihm offenbart und in der Leitung seines Geschickes gezeigt hat, אלקינו, unseren Gott nennen — und wir bedürfen dieser Bezeichnung, nicht zur partikularistischen Absonderung, sondern gerade zur reinhaltenden Unterscheidung des abrahamitischen und allgemeinsten Gottesbegriffes קונה שמים וארץ, von jeder partikularistischen Trübung — dadurch, durch dieses von Abraham überkommene gemeinsame geistige Erbe sind wir noch heute ein Volk, nachdem wir schon längst das Band des gemeinsamen Bodens verloren. Und darin, dass nicht nur Abraham, sondern auch sein Sohn und Enkel solche Persönlichkeiten wurden, in welchen sich Gottes Waltung also manifestierte, dass auch sie mustergültig für die ganze jüdische Nation blieben, und wir nicht nur אלקי אברהם, sondern auch אלקי יצחק und אלקי יעקב sprechen: darin erkennen die Weisen zunächst die dem Abraham gewordene Segnung und Größe. Und gerade in אלקי יעקב verwirklicht sich das ואגדלה שמך Jakobs, in dessen Geschick es sich vor allem mustergültig zeigte, dass die jüdische Bestimmung unabhängig von äußerer Größe und äußerem Glanze sei. Je weniger ein Mensch hat, um so größer erscheint seine Persönlichkeit. Die Größe, der Segen, den ein Unbemittelter verbreitet, känn nur in seiner Persönlichkeit wurzeln. Wenn ein יעקב groß ist, wenn eine Nation glänzt, die seit Jahrhunderten nicht in Kriegsruhm usw. exzelliert, so kann dies eben nur in ihrer geistig sittlichen Persönlichkeit liegen, eben יעקב ist מגדל שמך. —

והיה ברכה, “your blessing will precede My blessing,” i.e. when referring to you, in their daily prayers, people will first describe Me as מגן אברהם, “the Shield of Avraham,” before they will refer to Me as מחיה מתים,”the G–d who revives the dead.” An alternate interpretation: of the words: והיה ברכה “and be a blessing;” up until now, for the last two thousand years, I have been the only source of blessing for mankind; from now on the power to bless has been transferred to you, and you can bless whosoever you see fit to provide with a blessing. This is the reason why, when wanting to transfer this power to bless to his son Yitzchok, when he foresaw prophetically that Yitzchok would sire an Esau, Avraham could not bring himself to transfer this power to Yitzchok before he died, and he left it to G–d to decide if that power were to be transferred to him. This is why we read in Genesis 25,11, that after Avraham had died G–d bestowed this power on his son Yitzchok. The matter can be illustrated by a parable. A king owned a valuable orchard which he entrusted to one of his intimate friends to look after, and to irrigate properly. The friend began to undertake his task and found that there were two trees, one of which laden with a fruit containing a deadly poison, the other with an elixir of life. Both trees needed to be irrigated, but he found that the two trees were positioned in such a way that it was impossible to irrigate the one without at the same time also irrigating the other. He said to himself that if he irrigated the beneficial tree, he would simultaneously also prolong the existence of the poisonous tree. How was he to resolve this dilemma? He therefore resolved to leave well enough alone until the next time the owner of the orchard would visit it, when he could consult with him. At that time, he would follow the owner’s instructions. Another interpretation of the words: והיה ברכה. This is not so much to be understood as a blessing itself, but as a command to become the source of blessings. Wherever his journeys would take him, he was to make it his concern to spread the knowledge about his Creator and to bless the person with whom he came into contact. This is also what Avraham did, as we know from Genesis 12,8; ויקרא בשם ה', “He proclaimed the Name of the Lord,” (praising Him). Seeing that the people did not respond to his sermons positively, G–d resorted to bringing on a famine in the land.

והיה ברכה, “as a result you will become a source of blessing.” We find a parallel to this expression in Isaiah 19,24: ביום ההוא אשים את ישראל ברכה בקרב הארץ, “on that day I will set up Israel as a blessing in the midst of the earth.”

מארצך FROM THY LAND — But had he not already departed from there together with his father and had reached as far as Haran (Genesis 11:31)? But thus God in effect said to him: Go still further away — leave now thy father’s house also.

והיה ברכה, the construction והיה is similar to the future tense (not imperative) תהיה, i.e. “you will become.” [the author, presumably, finds it difficult for man to be commanded to be a source of blessing. How does one go about carrying out such a directive? Ed.] We encounter a similar construction as an imperative when G’d orders Moses to ascend the mountain and to die there on the mountain, עלה ומות בהר, seeing that “dying” is understood to be something passive, not active. Hence he would translate that verse also as “ascend the mountain where you will die.” (Deuteronomy, 32,48-50) Similar constructions which describe something impossible are found in Ovadiah 1,4 ואם בין כוכבים שים קנך, where one cannot order someone to make his nest among the stars. These formulations are substitutes for regular future tenses. G’d is telling Avram that his blessings and his fame will be so great that they will spill over to benefit those around him. This promise has become fulfilled to such an extent that when people bless their children they wish them: “may the Lord bless you with the blessing of Avraham”

This is when we say: “God of Avraham.” The verse implies this explanation, since only about a multitude is it said, “God of.” For instance, it says, “God of Israel” (33:20), “God of the Hebrews” (Shemos 3:18) and “the gods of the peoples” (Devarim 6:14). The Torah never says “God of” about an individual. Accordingly, Hashem told Avraham: “I will make you into a great nation” — you will be as a great nation, since they will say about you “God of Avraham.” And since “I will bless you” connotes additional blessing, it means that also Avraham’s son will be so blessed, that they will say “God of Yitzchok.” And since “I will make your name great” connotes further greatness, it means that also Avraham’s grandson will be so blessed, that they will say “God of Yaakov.” The reason this blessing was dependent on his traveling to Eretz Yisrael, and he could not receive this blessing outside of the Land [of Yisrael], is because it says in Kesubos 110b: “Anyone who lives outside the Land [of Yisrael] is considered as if he has no God.” Therefore, “God of Avraham” could not be said unless he traveled to Eretz Yisrael. Rashi offers this alternate explanation, [about the Shemoneh Esrei,] because according to the [first] explanation, the verse should say והיה מבורך [rather than והיה ברכה] — as the verse is speaking about the one who offers blessings. Thus Rashi gives the alternative explanation [in which the verse speaks about the blessing itself]. Then Rashi goes on to explain the whole verse accordingly. And Rashi’s explanation of והיה ברכה [is based on] the gematria ofוהיה , which is the same as that of י-ה-ו-ה. It hints that only with mention of Avraham do we conclude the [first] blessing [of the Shemoneh Esrei] and say: ברוך אתה ה' מגן אברהם. (Maharshal)

Bei näherer Betrachtung dürfte mit diesen ersten drei Sätzen Abraham die ganze Summe der jüdischen Geschichte in nuce in die Hand gegeben sein. In 1: לך לך מארצך וגו׳ erscheint Abraham bloß als Individuum, "wage es, allein zu sein!" In 2: ואעשך לגוי וגו׳, tritt schon das Volk hervor, aber noch außer Berührung und Beziehung zu den andern Völkern. 3: ואברכה וגו׳ zeigt uns das jüdische Volk im Zusammenhang mit anderen Völkern, der Segen Abrahams ist schon bedingt durch den Segen anderer, ja es können schon andere wagen, ihm zu fluchen. — Abrahams Aufgabe war, sich zu isolieren, Wandel allein mit Gott. Zweites Stadium: die Schöpfung eines Volkes aus diesem Abraham. Wenn es hervortreten soll, dass dieses Volkes Dasein eine zweite Schöpfung Gottes in der Geschichte sei, so kann dieses Volk nur auf dem Wege der Heimatlosigkeit, des גלות und גרות zu einem Volke werden. Sesshaft wäre es kein אצבע אלקי׳, kein ׳מעשה ד gewesen. ואעשך לגוי גדול: von יצחק bis ואברכך .יציאת מצרים, dann werde ich dich einpflanzen in ein ואגדלה שמך ;ארץ זבת חלב ודבש, nicht אגדל Gott kann Menschen und Völker segnen, aber dass sie zu einer solchen sittlichen .שמך Größe gelangen, um ein mustergültiger Mensch, ein mustergültiges Volk genannt zu werden, das kann Gott nur wünschen, das ist durch die Treue bedingt, die dem göttlichen Gesetze gezollt wird. Ebenso heißt es nicht: והיית ברכה oder: ותהיה ברכה, sondern והיה ברכה "werde ein Segen", in diesen zwei Worten die ganze sittliche Aufgabe zusammenfassend, deren Lösung eben die Erfüllung jenes Wunsches bedingt: "ich möchte deinen Namen groß werden lassen, werde du ein Segen!" Ich möchte dich zu einem Volke machen, auf welches die Völker nur hinzublicken hätten, um sich ihrer Aufgabe bewußt zu werden, und diese Aufgabe, die du im Gegensatz zu allen sonstigen Völkerbestrebungen zu lösen haben sollst, heißt: Segen werden!

אשר אראך WHICH I WILL SHOW THEE — He did not reveal to him at once which land it was in order that he should hold it in high esteem and in order to reward him for complying with each and every command. Similar is, (Genesis 22:2) “Take thy son — thine only son — whom thou lovest — even Isaac”; similar is (Genesis 22:2) “upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of”; similar is, (Jonah 3:2) “And make unto it the proclamation that I shall tell thee of” (Genesis Rabbah 39:9).

Keep distancing yourself from there. Regarding “your father’s house,” where Avraham was living, לֶךְ could only mean “leave.” But regarding “your land,” which Avraham had already left, it could only mean “further distance yourself.” Thus Rashi was forced to explain לֶךְ both as “distancing” and as “leaving.”

Alle anderen streben danach, nicht להיות ברכה sondern להיות ברוכים Segen zu gewinnen, gesegnet zu werden, und vor allem Völker. Die Redlichkeit, Menschlichkeit und Liebe, die man von dem einzelnen noch fordert, wird im Verhältnis von Volk zu Volk zur Thorheit, gilt der Diplomatie und Politik für nichts. Trug und Mord, die den einzelnen zum Kerker und Henker führen, werden "zum Besten der Staaten", von Staat gegen Staat im großen geübt, mit Orden und Lorbeer bekränzt. Die abrahamitische Nation hat von allen diesen Nationalinstitutionen nichts, sie weiß nichts von einer Nationalpolitik und einer Nationalökonomie. Derjenige, der der Träger ihrer Nationalwohlfahrt sein wollte, braucht keine Subsidien zu geben und auf keine Koalitionen und Bündnisse zu rechnen. Zu seinem Gebote stehen der Regen und der Sonnenschein, die Kraft und das Leben, die Macht und der Sieg. — אם בחקתי תלכו, dann macht sich alles andere von selbst. In Mitte der Menschheit, die נעשה לנו שם ihrem ganzen Streben als Devise aufprägt und die Selbstvergrößerung und den rücksichtslosen Ausbau der eigenen Wohlfahrt als maßgebendes Ziel anstrebt, soll Abrahams Volk im Einzeln- und Gesamtleben nur dem einen Rufe folgen: היה ברכה, Segen zu werden, sich mit aller Hingebung den Gotteszwecken des Welten- und Menschenheils zu weihen, darin mustergültig die Wiedererstehung des reinen Menschentums, des אדם in seiner ursprünglichen Bestimmung, zur Anschauung zu bringen, dann werde Gott seinen Segen zu frischer Lebenstätigkeit geben und zur Weckung und Erziehung der Völker zu gleichem Streben den Namen des Abrahamvolkes weithin leuchten lassen: ואברכך ואגדלה שמך. Dieses zweite Stadium sollte in ארץ ישראל zur Verwirklichung kommen, dort sollte Israel in seiner unnahbaren Isolierung von den Völkern, nicht nur das Gesegnete, sondern in erster Linie das Segen verbreitende, ein Segensquell geworden sein — וישכן ישראל בטח בדר עין יעקב — dann hätte alles, was jetzt uns erst באחרית הימים winkt, sich bereits seit Jahrtausenden erfüllt, und der ganze Entwicklungsgang der Menschengeschichte wäre seitdem ein anderer gewesen.

In order that it be precious in his eyes. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse elaborate so much, by writing from where he left? It is obvious that he left his father’s house, as he was then living there. Scripture should simply have written, “Go to the land...” Rashi explains: The verse elaborated in order that Avraham’s own homeland will become more precious in his eyes. And this was to reward him for every word [Hashem spoke] and for every footstep [he took]. The more Hashem describes the land he is leaving, the more precious it becomes in his eyes, and the more will he be more pained upon leaving it. Thus his reward will be greater, since “The reward is according to the pain.” That is why there so many descriptions are written: “From your land, from your birthplace, and from your father’s house.” This fits well with what Rashi wrote next: “Similarly: ‘Your son ... Yitzchok.’” Hashem elaborated about Yitzchok, using many descriptions, to make him precious in Avraham’s eyes and give Avraham great reward for every word. The many descriptions served to increase Avraham’s pain in sacrificing his son and parting with him. For the same reason, here Hashem did not tell Avraham where he was going, [so he would think:] “Perhaps it is worse than the place I am leaving,” and he will be more pained. And this will increase his reward. (Re’m) The Maharshal explains that Rashi is answering two questions: 1.Why does the verse elaborate so much? It should say right away, “...From your father’s house.” Why did Hashem not tell him immediately [where he was going]? Rashi answers: 1.The purpose of the elaboration was to make his homeland more precious in his eyes. He did not tell him immediately [where he was going], to reward him for every word. Then Rashi explains that Hashem similarly elaborated in order to make Yitzchok precious to Avraham, and did not reveal the place in order to reward him. I agree with this explanation, except [for one point:] my teacher Maharam Yafeh is right that when Rashi says, “In order that it be precious in his eyes,” it refers to the land mentioned previously, [which is Eretz Yisrael]. For Rashi said right before, [regarding Avraham’s destination,] “He did not immediately reveal which land it was.” Whereas the land Avraham left was not mentioned at all. How could that be the land Rashi refers to? Similarly with, “Please take your son...” (22:2), about which Rashi says: “So that he value the mitzvah.”

Allein diese erste Verheißung an Abraham scheint auf ein drittes Stadium hinzuweisen — schon, wie bereits bemerkt, stellt das optative ואגדלה die Verwirklichung jenes zweiten Stadiums nur als bedingten Wunsch hin — der dritte Satz scheint einen Zustand anzudeuten, in welchem das Abrahamsvolk mit seinem Segen und Fluch von Menschen abhängig erscheint, wo Menschen es segnen, Menschen ihm fluchen können; es wäre dies somit das Stadium des גלות, dem dieses Volk entgegengeht, wenn es seine Aufgabe vergißt und, statt להיות ברכה, den Völkern gleich sich dem Streben hingiebt להיות ברוכים; und hier, für dieses Galuth, wo es hinausgestreut unter die Völker, abhängig von ihnen und ihrem Segen und Fluch preisgegeben erscheint, hat Gott das große Wort gesprochen: ואברכה מברכיך, die dich segnen, die dich fördern, die dein Prinzip würdigen und anerkennen und sich deiner Sinnlichkeit und Gottesverehrung fördernd unterordnen, die werde ich segnen — und auch hier wieder tritt diese Verheißung optativ auf, Israel möge sich in der Zerstreuung also bewähren, dass seine Förderung die Förderung des Völkerheils bedeute. —

ומקללך אאור, nicht אוררך אאור, sondern מקללך. Der ברכה stehen zwei Begriffe gegenüber: קללה und קלל .מארה, wovon קל (leicht) und קללה, also materielle Verringerung, leicht machen, einer Sache oder einer Person die materiellen Mittel, die Fülle schmälern. ארר verwandt mit חרר, ausdorren, ausglühen, und ערר, rad. von ערירי kinderlos und ערער vereinsamt, also ארר: nicht bloß Schmälerung der materiellen Mittel, sondern auch der inneren Kräfte und Säfte. Was קלל extensiv ist, ist ארר intensiv: jemandem die innere Lebensfähigkeit rauben, Saft und Kraft entziehen, ihn zum ערער und ערירי machen. Dagegen ברכה: segnen, zur inneren und äußeren Entwicklung Kräfte geben. So ist bei דגים in äußerer Beziehung, bei שבת die innere, geistige Entwicklung durch ברך ausgedrückt. — Also: auch ins Leben unter den Völkern begleite ich dich hinaus; je nachdem die Nationen dem jüdischen Geiste huldigen werden, je nachdem werde ich sie segnen. Wer aber — nicht dir die innere Lebensfähigkeit nimmt, denn das vermag kein Volk — wer aber den Abrahamiten die Existenz beschränkt und verkümmert, sie nicht die Mittel zu ihrer Entfaltung finden lässt, dem — nicht אקלל — sondern dem nehme ich die innere Lebensfähigkeit der eigenen Fortentwicklung.

Indem es also heißt, dass nur diejenigen Völker zum Segen gelangen, die die Entwicklung deines Prinzips nicht nur nicht verlümmern, sondern ihm huldigend fördern, so ist von selbst damit gesagt, dass durch dich משפחות האדמה gesegnet werden; je mehr sie dir huldigen, desto mehr ברכה empfangen sie; Gott versichert aber, dass zuletzt כל משפחות האדמה, alle Völkerfamilien dieses Segens teilhaftig werden, indem sie alle ihr Leben auf demselben Wege begründen werden, der den Boden deines Lebens bilden soll. — So scheint es. —

קלל ist verwandt mit גלל und גלל ילל: rollen, Kreis, Rad. Dasjenige kann am leichtesten gerollt werden, das am wenigsten Seiten hat, die ihm einen Stütz- und Ruhepunkt gewähren, am meisten also das, was gar keine der Unterlage parallele Flächen bietet, die vollendete Kugel. Dies geistig übertragen, bezeichnet einen Schicksalszustand, wo die äußeren Verhältnisse gar keine Unterlage, keinen Stütz- und Ruhepunkt gewähren, wo sich der Mensch völlig halt- und ruhelos findet, von allen äußeren Verhältnissen zurückgestoßen, geistig נע ונד. Sein Ausdruck wird יללה: die wehevollste Klage. Was nun nicht durch die äußere Form, sondern durch inneren Mangel an Stoff und Wesenheit, keinen Ruhepunkt findet, ruhelos fortbewegt wird, leicht ist, heißt: קל, das Leichte. Andererseits wird dasjenige, was keines Zusammenhanges mit allem außerhalb mehr bedarf, weil es bereits sämtliches zu ihm Gehörige in sich trägt, das in sich Geschlossene, der Kreis und das Ganze, Vollendete, durch כלל ausgedrückt. כלכל heißt, in jemandes Kreis alles, dessen er bedarf, hineintragen: versorgen; geistig ומי יכלכל את יום באו, alles in den Begriff eines Wesens hineintragen, was in ihn gehört, gänzlich ermessen.

ונברכו בך AND IN THEE SHALL BE BLESSED — There are many Agadoth concerning this but the plain sense of the text is as follows: A man says to his son, “Mayest thou become as Abraham”. This, too, is the meaning wherever the phrase ונברכו בך “And in thee shall be blessed” occurs in Scripture, and the following example proves this: (Genesis 48:20) בך יברך “By thee shall Israel bless their children saying, “May God make thee as Ephraim and Manasseh”.

ונברכו, a composite, from the word מבריך, מרכיב, refining through adding superior ingredients. The Torah chose a passive mode to express this blessing.

ואברכה מברכך, I shall bless those who bless you. This additional blessing was to compensate Abraham for G'd's failure to tell him the destination he was headed for. After all, G'd did not even tell Abraham which country to head for! It was a tremendous test for Abraham to just leave his home, etc., without having the slightest idea where he was to make his new home. The fact that Abraham did not query G'd in his mind or by prayer is considered as extremely praiseworthy. As a result of this blind faith in G'd, Abraham encountered success wherever he went. His spiritual stature grew constantly.

ואברכה מברכך, your allies and those who seek your welfare.” A reference to Oner, Eshkol, and Mamre, Avram’s allies, as well as others whom the Torah has not named. The blessing‘s effect is that people displaying sympathy and love for Jews will be recompensed by G’d. A prominent example of this is that the house of Potiphar was blessed as a result of Potiphar’s positive attitude to Joseph, his Hebrew slave. (Genesis 39,5) Even Yaakov’s arch enemy Lavan, admitted that his presence with him had resulted in G’d making him rich. (Genesis 30,27)

ואברכה מברכיך, “I will bless those who will bless you.” The plural ending in the word מברכיך is a hint that there will be more people blessing you than people cursing you. Some commentators say that the verse is a prophecy concerning the priests who will be descended from Avraham and whose task it will be to bless the people.

ואברכה מברכך, “I shall bless those who bless you.” According to Midrash Tanchuma, section 4 on our portion, G–d had told Avraham that from him would come forth a tribe who would bless His (G–d’s) children. He referred to the priests who would come forth from Aaron and who would bless the Jewish people, as is written in Numbers 6,27: ושמו את שמי על בני ישראל, ואני אברכם, “so shall they put My name on the Children of Israel;” when Avraham asked: “who will bless them (the priests)?” G–d answered: “I shall bless them.” I believe that this is the correct interpretation of what the Talmud tractate Chulin folio 49 meant when the question was asked: “whence do we know that the priests themselves will be blessed, and the Talmud pointed to our verse as the answer to this question, i.e. “I shall bless those who bless them.”

ואברכה מברכיך, “I will bless those who bless you.” You must never think that there are no people on earth that are psychologically close to you and are potential saviours of you, for I love those who love you and I hate the people who hate you. [in other words I know that there are people who love you. Ed.]

ומקללך אאור, it is not customary to use the plural mode when speaking of curses. Seeing that there would be very few people, if any, who would curse Avram, this is hinted at in the use of the singular mode in the word ומקללך, “someone who curses you.”

ונברכו בך כל משפחות האדמה, “and all the families on earth will be blessed through you.” Not only Avraham’s direct descendants will be blessed through him, but far wider circles, all the families on earth. Some commentators derive the expression from the causative form of the root ברך, meaning to refine through genetic improvement, מבריך. The term is applied especially to improving the qualities of certain grapes and the wine they produce. In our case it would mean that all the families of the earth would be improved through intermarriage with descendants of Avraham. Avraham having married Hagar, of Egyptian descent and siring a son from her would be a case in point. Later on, he married Keturah who was of the descendants of Yaphet and sired 6 sons from her.

We are entitled to ask why the wording of the Torah is different in respect to those who bless Abraham from that to those who curse him. In the former case G'd mentions that He will bless such people even before they have actually blessed Abraham. In the case of people who curse Abraham, G'd is not described as cursing such people until after they have actually cursed him. If G'd were to curse the potential curser prior to his cursing Abraham, that person would never become aware of the reason G'd cursed him. On the other hand, G'd does not cause any harm by blessing those who intended to bless Abraham already in anticipation of their good deed.

ונברכו בך כל משפחות האדמה, “and all the families of the earth shall count themselves blessed if they can establish family ties with you.” The root of the word ונברכו is the same as that of מבריך, “to graft.” They will consider it an accomplishment to have Abrahamitic blood in their veins.

ואברכה מברכיך ומקללך אאור, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you;” you may question why elsewhere G-d uses the reverse order, i.e. “he who curses you, and I will bless him who blesses you” (Genesis 27,29). The reason for that formulation is that as a general rule, the righteous first experience trials and tribulations in their lives, whereas their relative serenity does not occur until they are well advanced in age.[When Yaakov was well advanced in years and thought the time had come for him to “retire,” according to Rashi in his commentary on B’reshit Rabbah 84,3, he attributes his problem with Joseph to Yaakov expecting worry free life in this world also. Ed.] The answer to the above question is that we must distinguish between who does the blessing and cursing. When the subject is a human being, a righteous person who bestows a blessing, he will commence by mentioning the negative first and the positive as the conclusion (as did Yitzchok when he blessed Yaakov, thinking that Esau was righteous, as in Genesis 27,29) When the subject is G-d Himself, as when G-d blessed Avraham, here, it is more appropriate that He should commence by mentioning the positive aspects first. Furthermore, as generally speaking there are likely to be more people who bless a man such as Avraham, seeing that they are the majority, they are mentioned first, whereas the Torah speaks of מקללך, “he who curses you,” in the singular mode, not “they who curse you,” in the plural mode.ונברכו, a weak conjugation, according to Rash’bam, in the sense of refining through mixing. Through mixing with your descendants many nations will become spiritually uplifted. This is also why the Torah refers here to: משפחות האדמה, “the families on earth.”

ונברכו בך כל משפחות, all the families of the earth within whose radius Avram would make his residence, such as the land of Canaan, Egypt, and the land of the Philistines, would experience a special blessing due to the proximity of Avram.

It is also noteworthy that the Torah speaks about the people who will bless Abraham in the plural, whereas the reference to anyone who might curse Abraham is phrased in the singular.

Perhaps this is best explained in connection with what the rabbis said to the son of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai in Moed Katan 9. They wished him: תזרע ולא תחצד, "may you sow and not harvest," and a few more such strange sounding wishes. The Talmud describes how Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai explained to his son that though these wishes sounded like curses they were actually blessings. The reference to sowing and not harvesting was a blessing i.e. that he should father children but not have to bury them. It is not the actual phraseology that matters but the intent. G'd told Abraham that there are some people who clothe their curses in words that sound like blessings. He told him that He would also bless the individual who blessed Abraham in such an unusual manner as did the rabbis who blessed the son of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. The word מקללך applies both to what preceded it and to what follows it. Accordingly there are two kinds of people who might curse Abraham; the ones who dress up the curse to sound like a blessing, and the ones who curse outright. The first category is alluded to when you read the word ומקללך as if it belonged to the word מברכיך which preceded it. The other kind of curser is the one who curses without provocation and without hypocrisy. When the Torah says of G'd אאר, this refers to both categories of people cursing Abraham.

An alternate way of explaining this is based on the statement in Taanit 20: "better the curse of an Achiyah Hashiloni (a prophet, compare Kings I 14,15) than the blessing conferred upon the Jewish people by Bileam." The former used words of a curse to give the Jewish people an incentive to overcome the curse, the latter praised them excessively, hoping to lull them into a kind of spiritual nirvana that would make them easy prey for the evil urge. Concerning the person who bestows the kind of Achiyah Hashiloni's curse on Abraham, G'd says that He will bless a person who curses with such good intentions, whereas concerning the one who does the reverse, G'd will curse him though he couched his curse in words which seemed to convey a blessing.

ונברכו בך כל משפחות האדמה, and all the families of the world will receive a blessing thanks to you. This is the difference between people who bless you and those that are indifferent to you, neither blessing Abraham not cursing him. G'd will bless directly anyone who blesses Abraham; the ones who do not bless Abraham will receive only an indirect blessing, i.e. via Abraham.

וילך אברם, Abram went, etc. In view of verse 5 which describes Abraham's journey in detail, this entire verse seems superfluous.

וילך אברם, he came as far as Charan where he left his father behind, and proceeded to the land of Canaan.

ואברם בן חמש שנים ושבעים שנה בצאתו מחרן, “Avraham was 75 years of age when he emigrated from Charan.” The reason why the Torah recorded Avraham’s age at this stage was to show that he left his father in order to obey G’d’s instructions. According to the ancient historical text known as סדר עולם, Avraham undertook two emigrations, this being his second. He had gone to the land of Canaan the first time at the age of 70 where G’d had made the promises to him that are recorded in chapter 15. This is based on the Torah saying in Exodus 12,40 that the total period the Israelites spent in Egypt amounted to 430 years. Seeing that in chapter 15 G’d spoke about a period of 400 years during which his descendants were to be either strangers or strangers and slaves in a foreign country, it follows that until the birth of Yitzchok when Avraham was 100 years of age the fulfillment of that prophecy could not have commenced. Seeing that Avraham was in the land of Canaan for a brief period at that time, the countdown for the realization of this prophecy could begin from that time on. Furthermore, at the time when Avraham defeated the kings who had taken Lot prisoner he was 74 years of age. This is arrived at by the fact that he was 48 years old at the time when these city-kingdoms were founded and populated. For 12 years the political situation had remained stable with the kings of these cities paying annual taxes to Kedorleomer. Thus Avraham was 60 years old at the time when the city-kingdoms rebelled and refused to continue paying their taxes. 14 years later the four kings, including Kedorleomer, mounted the punitive expedition as a result of which Lot was taken prisoner. This means that Avraham was 74 years at the time. As the Torah reports him as 75 years of age at the time of his emigration in our chapter, he must have been in the land of Canaan previously, a time when G’d made the covenant between the pieces with him, as described in detail in chapter 15. In other words, Avraham departed from Charan twice. The difficulty with all this is that we read in the same סדר עולם that during the 5 years preceding his emigration from Charan Avraham had been in Charan. If so, he had been in Charan at the time when the war broke out, not as described in 14,13 in Eloney Mamre (Kiryat Arba nowadays). One can possibly answer this apparent contradiction by justifying the text in סדר עולם that Avraham spent those five years in Charan, and that the words והוא שוכן באלוני ממרא האמורי “he was living at Eloney Mamre,” in 14,13 refer to the פליט, the escapee who had brought him the news that his nephew had been taken prisoner. In order to make this plausible, consider why the Torah bothered to add that in Eloney Mamre there were in addition to Mamre also his brother Aner and Eshkol, all of whom had a mutual defense treaty with Avraham. Surely, the reason is to explain why the escapee brought the news to the three brothers in Eloney Mamre of whom he knew that they were allies of Avraham. These brothers in turn would relay to Avraham what they had heard about the fate of his nephew. In fact, the escapee may have chosen refuge in Eloney Mamre believing that Kedorleomer would not dare harm allies of Avraham. The weakness with this supposed scenario is that the author of סדר עולם lists as the year when Avraham left Charan permanently the same year in which these wars had been fought. If that were so, what difference would it make if Avraham was 70 years of age the first time he left Charan or not. Who needs to know? [furthermore, a more serious flaw in the sequence listed in סדר עולם is the question of when Lot took up residence in Sodom, and when did the falling out with Avraham which led to his being taken captive? Ed.] If, as stipulated, Avraham was only 70 years old at the covenant between the pieces which was reported in chapter 15, there is no alternative but to conclude that the Torah’s reports are not chronologically sequential. Another difficulty is found in the opening words of chapter 15: אחר הדברים האלה, “after these events.” If the events in this chapter occurred prior to the events related in either chapter 12 or chapter 14 what do these opening words mean? G’d reassures Avraham, (if we assume that the events of chapter 15 occurred subsequent to the events related in chapter 14) that in spite of his victory over the four kings, a victory due to G’d’s manifest assistance, his merits had not been used up so that he had reason to worry about G’d protecting him in the future.) We would have to say that the wordsאחר הדברים ,האלה, refer to the entire sequence previously related and that only the short paragraph concluding withוהאמין בה' ויחשביה לו צדקה (15,6) are related out of chronological order. That particular conversation between G’d and Avraham had taken place prior to the conquest of Sodom by the four kings.

Es heißt hier wohl nicht ohne Grund דִבֶר und nicht אמר .אמר würde sich auf die ganze gnadenreiche Verheißung beziehen, mit welcher Gott den Befehl לך לך begleitet hatte, und die wohl geeignet gewesen sein dürfte, für diese Anforderung Abrahams Gemüt willfährig zu öffnen. Abraham folgte aber nicht der Verheißung, sondern dem Ausspruche Gottes; er ging, weil Gott es gesprochen. — Abraham war 75 Jahre alt, als Gott ihn erwählte. Auch Mosche und Aharon hatten bereits ein ganzes Leben zurückgelegt, als Gott sie zu seinen Werkzeugen erkor. —

ואברם בן חמש שנים ושבעים שנה בצאתו מחרן “and Avram was seventy five years old when he left Charan.” At first glance this statement is puzzling as the covenant of the pieces is reported as if it had occurred later than Avram’s departure from Charan (chapter 15). According to our tradition it took place 30 years before the birth of Yitzchok, and this is what the statement that the Israelites spent 430 years in Egypt, reported in Exodus 12,40 is based on. We know as a fact from the Torah that Avraham was one hundred years old when Yitzchok was born. According to Rashi, thirty years elapsed between the covenant of the pieces and the birth of Yitzchok. If so, Avraham could not have been more than 70 years old at that event. Lot joined him and was taken captive after having separated from Avraham during that same year still, and Avraham defeated the armies which had taken him captive, after which event G–d appeared to him as reported in chapter 15. He returned to Charan once more, and when he was 75 years old, G–d commanded him to move to the land of Canaan, i.e. “the land which I will show you.” (12,1) I have found confirmation of these dates in the book called Seder Olam, an ancient historical record, considered reliable by our sages. I am quoting verbatim from that text: “Avraham was 48 years old when G–d confused the languages of the people and they moved apart from one another. When G–d spoke to him at the covenant of the pieces, he was 70 years old. (this was while he was on the soil of the land of Canaan). He returned to Charan where he stayed for another five years. It follows that 27 years elapsed between the destruction of the Tower and Avraham’s departure from Charan a second time” Our verse refers to the second departure.

וילך אתו לוט, “Lot (his nephew) went with him.” Seeing that the death of Lot’s father Haran was indirectly due to Avraham who had been saved from Nimrod’s furnace a deed Haran emulated, but only after having seen Avraham being saved Avraham did not feel he could reject him at this stage. He adopted him as if he had been his own son.

'כאשר דבר אליו ה, he did not ask G’d for further instructions thereby “testing” G’d, but continued on his journey because he believed that G’d would keep His promise as He had said.

The Torah wants to show Abraham's love for G'd. He set out immediately without waiting for G'd to elaborate on His original instructions. The letter כ at the beginning of the word כאשר, describes the time, i.e. how Abraham acted immediately G'd finished speaking to him, how he left his father and his birthplace without further ado. The Torah adds that though Lot was so closely attached to Abraham that he insisted on accompanying Abraham, he did not do so for the same reason, i.e. a divine command. Abraham had tried to leave Lot behind in an elegant way but had not succeeded. [Had Lot joined Abraham as a religious gesture, the Torah would have described this by writing עמו instead of אתו. Ed.]

ואברם בן חמש ושבעים שנה, “and Avram was 75 years old;” the Torah told us how old Avram was at the time in order to show that he followed G-d’s instructions and abandoned the house of his father, an aged man still alive.

בצאתו מחרן, perhaps, prior to leaving his father behind, he had spent a few days trying to convince him to come along with him. At the time he left Charan he was 75 years old. [it is hard to see why he would have tried to persuade his father to come along, as he then would not have complied with the commandment to leave his father’s house. Ed.]

The Torah writes the verse for yet another reason. Inasmuch as G'd had promised Abraham a number of rewards if he would fulfil His command, the average reader might assume that Abraham was primarily motivated by the promises G'd had made to him. The Torah wants us to know that the reason Abraham left his home and his father was because G'd had said so to him, not because of any secondary considerations such as the promise of becoming a man of great prominence. The Torah chose the words כאשר דבר, as G'd had told him firmly, not כאשר אמר, which would have corresponded to the opening statement of our פרשה where it said: ויאמר השם. When G'd uses the word דבר, this always implies that it is not easy to comply with G'd's command; when G'd uses the word אמר the implication is that it is relatively easy to comply.

בצאתו מחרן, “when he left Charan.” The Torah repeats this, as already pointed out in Seder Olam, an ancient historical text deemed reliable by the sages. According to that text, Avram had first returned to Charan and five years later departed from there once more.

Another message we are to derive from this verse is that though Abraham did not yet know which country G'd wanted him to go to, he had already set out without using the excuse of waiting for further instructions before leaving his home. In verse 5 the Torah lists all those who accompanied Abraham to show that the test did not consist of who went with him but it consisted of Abraham not knowing where he was supposed to head for.

אשר עשו בחרן [THE SOULS] THAT THEY HAD GOTTEN (literally, made) IN HARAN — The souls which he had brought beneath the sheltering wings of the Shechinah. Abraham converted the men and Sarah converted the women and Scripture accounts it unto them as if they had made them (Genesis Rabbah 39:14). However, the real sense of the text is that it refers to the men-servants and to the maidservants whom they had acquired for themselves. The word “עשה” is used here as (in Genesis 31:1), “he has acquired (עשה) all this wealth”, and (Numbers 24:8), “And Israel acquires (עושה) wealth” — an expression for acquiring and amassing.

ויצאו ללכת ארצה כנען, a land of which they had heard that it was singularly suited for people of their religious beliefs, a land in which the true G’d could be worshipped without hindrance.

ויקח...ואת לוט בן אחיו, seeing that Lot was amenable to his uncle’s invitation, Lot left his grandfather behind, preferring the company of his uncle.

And Sarah would convert the women. Rashi knows this because it is written אשר עשו בחרן, in plural — referring to both Avraham and Sarah. It seems that [Rashi knew they made converts because] a convert is regarded as a newborn. Thus it is considered as if they “made” them. (Nachalas Yaakov)

רכושם, rad. רֶכֵש, wovon auch רֶכֵש, ‎רתם המרכבה לרכש‎ (Micha 1). רֶכֶש scheint das Zugpferd zu sein, während סום allgemein Pferd und speziell insbesondere neben רכש das Reitpferd bedeutet. Verwandt mit רגן ,רגש ,רכס, Grundbedeutung: gebunden sein einer Mannigfaltigkeit von Dingen an sie bewegende Hebel. Bloß in רכס tritt vielleicht die Bewegung zurück :רוכסי איש .וירכסו החשן künstlich verbundene Pläne, oder in Bewegung gesetzte Mittel. רגש: das in Bewegung setzen der Massen durch einzelne, כבית אלקי׳ נהלך ברגש .למה רגשו גוים, nicht: in ehrfurchtsvoller Stimmung, sondern: ins Gotteshaus pflegten wir zu gehen, wenn draußen die Massen in Bewegung, in Aufruhr waren. רגז: die Erschütterung: die ein Ruhendes durch äußeren Anstoß erleidet, Erschütterung, Zittern. רכוש: die fahrende Habe, מטלטלין, die durch משיכה erworben werden, nicht Immobilien, קרקעות, auch nicht das dem Menschen frei nachfolgende מקנה, die Heerde, vielmehr: lebloses, bewegliches Besitztum, das der Mensch mit sich fortzieht. —

ואת לוט בן אחיו, “and Lot, the son of his brother.” Lot was a brother of Sarai, as we had been told in Genesis 11,31. The Torah had also stated that Haran was the father of Milkah and Yiskah in verse 29 there. Our sages in Megillah 14 state that “Yiskah” is identical with “Sarah.”

ויבאו ארצה כנען, as opposed to Terach, who had also set out originally to go to the land of Canaan but had stopped at Charan, these people with Avram at their head made good on their intention.

אשר רכשו, the plural ending refers to both Avram’s and Lot’s possessions.

ואת הנפש אשר עשו; wo עשה als erwerben vorkommt, da liegt dieser Begriff nicht in עשה, sondern in dem beigefügten Objekt כבוד ,חיל usw. Hier aber bei נפש kann es nur mit den Weisen: bilden heißen, neuschaffen. Dass diese von ihnen neugebildeten Personen wahrscheinlich ihre Hausgenossen, ihre Dienerschaft waren, und dass diese sich auch geistig ihnen angeschlossen hatten, sehen wir aus Elieser, der in Wahrheit als גר צדק erscheint. Die Bedeutsamkeit des sich in diesem Anschluss bekundenden nachhaltigen, erziehenden Einflusses zeigt Lots Gegensatz, auf den doch Abraham sicher zunächst eingewirkt hatte, und ihn doch nicht dauernd bei sich zu fesseln vermochte.

ואת הנפש עשו בחרן “and the proselyte (to monotheism) they had made in Charan.” Our sages Avodah Zarah 9, claim that this is the first stage of Matan Torah, the giving (revealing) of the Torah. The manner in which Targum Onkelos renders this phrase is further evidence of this. [He speaks of Avraham communicating, i.e. converting to Torah. Ed.]

ואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן, the male and female servants they had acquired in Charan. The word עשו must be understood as similar to Deuteronomy 8,17 עשה לי את כל החיל הזה, “has gotten me this wealth.” According to Onkelos, the word עשו refers to the people whom Avram and Lot had succeeded in bringing back to monotheism, i.e. the same religion as that professed by Avram. Lot too, professed the belief in the one and only invisible G’d, the Creator of the universe Lot did not merely join Avram because he was his uncle and much younger than his grandfather, but he shared his religious beliefs and was active as an evangelist for that faith himself. This is the reason why the Torah wrote the word עשו in the plural mode instead of the singular. According to our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 39,14) the plural mode of the word עשו is meant to prove that both Avram and Sarai, each were active in converting their respective friends to monotheism. The use of the root עשה to describe such “brainwashing,” is also found in Samuel I 12,6 אשר עשה משה את משה ואת אהרן, where it refers to G’d having been the mentor of both Moses and Aaron.

Sie gingen fort ללכת ארצה כנען; Gott hatte zu Abraham gesprochen לך לך, trenne dich von deiner Heimat, und hatte hinzugefügt אל הארץ אשר אראך. Man nimmt dies gewöhnlich in dem Sinne: welches ich dir "anweisen" werde. Dies heißt aber אראך nie, immer nur: sehen lassen. Ferner kann man ja gar nicht jemandem gebieten: gehe hin zu dem Orte, den ich dir bestimmen werde; er müßte ja dann so lange warten, bis ihm mindestens gesagt würde, nach welcher Richtung hin er sich bewegen sollte. Abraham hätte ja, um so zu sprechen, nicht gewusst, "zu welchem Tore er aus Charan hinaus" gehen sollte. Deshalb dürfte der positive Befehl nur gewesen sein, gehe fort, gleichgültig wohin, und wandere so lange, bis du an eine Stelle kommst, wo ich dich durch ein sichtliches Kennzeichen erkennen lassen werde, dass du dort bleiben sollst. Abraham wählte aus eigenem Entschlusse den Weg nach Kanaan. Vergegenwärtigen wir uns die Bedeutung dieses Landes, so dürfte uns klar werden, warum es Abrahams, ja früher schon Therachs Absicht gewesen sein konnte, nach Kanaan zu gehen.

ויצאו ללכת, they were all ready to go to the land of Canaan with Avram and they carried out their intention.

Obgleich Kanaan im Besitze des entartesten Stammes der Noachiden war, finden wir doch in diesem Lande מלכי צדק מלך שלם, nach der Überlieferung: Schem, also gerade denjenigen dort zurückgeblieben, dem die Gotteserkenntnis am reinsten geblieben. Eine fernere Überlieferung lehrt uns, dass auf Moria, wo Abraham die עקדה vollbrachte, wo später der Altar, der Tempel sich erhob, dort auch Noa geopfert, Hebel geopfert, ja den Weisen zufolge, von dort auch, von der Stätte der כפרה, d. i. ja, von der Stätte der steten geistig-sittlichen Wiedergeburt des Menschen, der Staub genommen worden, die erste Menschenhülle zu bilden. Nehmen wir dies alles zusammen, so dürfen wir sagen: wenn Abraham aus Chaldäa flüchtig werden sollte, weil er mit seiner Überzeugung allein stand und den Dynasten und Pfaffen in Chaldäa gefährlich war, so war es ganz natürlich, dass er sich dahin wandte, wo, nach der Erinnerung der Menschen, die Menschen in einer Zeit gewandelt, in welcher sie Gott noch näher gestanden. Dass er sich nach diesem Lande seiner historischen und vielleicht auch physischen Beschaffenheit wegen sehnte, erscheint ganz naturgemäß.

ארצָה כנען sowie das dem Ende eines Raumbegriffs angefügte ה die Stelle eines vorgesetzten ל vertritt, somit eine Bewegung zu dem Raume hin bedeutet, ebenso drückt das dem Futur und Imperativ angefügte ה eine geistige Hinbewegung, ein Hinstreben zu dem futuralen oder imperativen Begriffe aus. אדבר: ich werde sprechen, אדברה: ich bin in der Bewegung dahin, da ich sprechen werde, d. h. ich wünsche zu sprechen; דבר: sprich, דברה: setze dich in Bewegung zu sprechen, wolle sprechen usw. Auch der durch das feminine ה ausgedrückte Begriff der Weiblichkeit dürfte als eine Hinneigung, Zugehörigkeit, ein Anlehnen des Weiblichen an das Männliche aufgefasst sein, und darum seine Bezeichnung ebenfalls im ה Femininum gefunden haben; אשה ,איש: die אשה ist מלכה ,מלך גלאיש: die מלכה ist למלך usw.

ויעבר אברם בארץ AND ABRAHAM PASSED THROUGH THE LAND —he entered it.

AND ABRAM PASSED THROUGH THE LAND. I will tell you a principle by which you will understand all the coming portions of Scripture concerning Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is indeed a great matter which our Rabbis mentioned briefly, saying:³³Tanchuma Lech Lecha, 9. “Whatever has happened to the patriarchs is a sign to the children.” It is for this reason that the verses narrate at great length the account of the journeys of the patriarchs, the digging of the wells, and other events. Now someone may consider them unnecessary and of no useful purpose, but in truth they all serve as a lesson for the future: when an event happens to any one of the three patriarchs, that which is decreed to happen to his children can be understood.
Concerning all decisions of “the guardians [angels],”³⁴Daniel 4:14. know that when they proceed from a potential decree to a symbolic act, the decree will in any case be effected. It is for this reason that the prophets often perform some act in conjunction with the prophecies, just as Jeremiah commanded Baruch his disciple, And it shall be, when thou hast made an end of reading this book, that thou shalt bind a stone to it, and cast it into the midst of the Euphrates, and thou shalt say: Thus shall Babylon sink.³⁵Jeremiah 51:63-64. Likewise is the matter of Elisha when he put his arm on the bow [held by Joash, King of Israel]: And Elisha said, Shoot. And he shot. And he said, The Eternal’s arrow of victory, even the arrow of victory against Aram.³⁶II Kings 13:17. And it is further stated there, And the man of G-d was wroth with him, and said, Thou shouldst have smitten five or six times; then hadst thou smitten Aram till thou hadst consumed it whereas now thou shalt smite Aram but thrice.³⁷Ibid., Verse 19. It is for this reason that the Holy One, blessed be He, caused Abraham to take possession of the Land and symbolically did to him all that was destined to happen in the future to his children. Understand this principle. Now, with the help of G-d, I will begin to explain in detail the subject matter of the verses.
And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Shechem. This is the city of Shechem for such was the name of this place,³⁸Ramban differs with Ibn Ezra’s comment that the name Shechem was non-existent in the days of Abraham but is used here because Moses called it by the name by which it was known in his time. and Shechem the son of Hamor³⁹Genesis 34:2. was called by the name of his city. Now Rashi wrote, “He entered it unto the place of Shechem in order to pray on behalf of Jacob’s sons when they would come grieved from the field.”⁴⁰Ibid., 34:7. In our text of Rashi: “when they would come to fight against Shechem.” This is correct. And I add that Abraham took possession of this place at the very beginning, even before the land was given to him.⁴¹As told later in Verse 7. His taking possession of Shechem is stated in the preceding Verse 6. It was thus hinted to him that his children would first conquer this place⁴²Reference is to the capturing of the city by the sons of Jacob. See further, 34:25. before they would merit it and before the guilt of the dwellers of the land was full⁴³Further, 15:16. to warrant their exile therefrom. It is for this reason that the verse here states, And the Canaanite was then in the land.⁴⁴He took possession of this place even though the Canaanite was yet in the land. (Tur.) And when the Holy One, blessed be He, gave him the land by His Word, Abraham journeyed from there and pitched his tent between Beth-el and Ai for this was the place that Joshua captured first.⁴⁵In battle. (Joshua 8:1-24.) The capture of Jericho earlier was effected by a miracle.
It is possible that Scripture mentions, And the Canaanite was then in the land, to teach us concerning the substance of this chapter, i.e., to state that Abram came into the land of Canaan, but G-d did not show him the land He had promised him. He passed to the place of Shechem while the Canaanite, that bitter and impetuous nation,⁴⁶Habakkuk 1:6. was yet in the land, and Abram feared him. Therefore he did not build an altar to G-d. But when he came to the vicinity of Shechem at the oak of Moreh, G-d appeared to him and gave him the land, and as a result his fear departed from him for he was already assured in the land that I will show thee, and then he built an altar to G-d in order to worship Him openly.
Now eilon Moreh (the oak of Moreh) is in the vicinity of Shechem and is also called eilonei Moreh, as it is written over against Gilgal, beside ‘eilonei Moreh.’⁴⁷Deuteronomy 11:30. There in Shechem, near the Jordan, are Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal, where the Israelites arrived at the beginning of their entrance into the land.⁴⁸Sotah 36 a: “On the day Israel crossed the Jordan, they came to Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal.” Eilonei Mamre,⁴⁹“The oaks of Mamre.” (Genesis, 18:1.) however, is a place in the land of Hebron,⁵⁰As is clearly stated: Mamre… the city of Arba which is Hebron. (Ibid., 35:27.) far from the Jordan.
Know that wherever Scripture states, eilonei Mamre, the name Mamre is on account of an Amorite by that name to whom the place belonged, just as it says, And he dwelt at the oaks of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshkol and brother of Aner,⁵¹Ibid., 14:13. and wherever it says, eilon moreh or eilonei moreh,⁵²Deuteronomy 11:30. the places were so called on account of a man by the name of Moreh, but he was a Canaanite from the land of the Canaanites, who abide in the plains.⁵³Ibid. The end of this verse reads: beside the oaks of Moreh. From this Ramban derives the fact that Moreh was a Canaanite, unlike Mamre who was an Amorite. When Scripture mentions Mamre alone, it means the name of a city, just as it is said: And Jacob came unto Isaac his father unto Mamre, the city of Arba, which is Hebron;⁵⁴Genesis 35:27. Before Mamre which is Hebron.⁵⁵Ibid., 23:19. The man to whom the oaks belonged was called after the name of the city. A similar case is that of Shechem the son of Hamor, who was called Shechem after the name of the city Shechem.
In Bereshith Rabbah⁵⁶42:14. it is said, “In the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah, Mamre is the name of a place, and in the opinion of Rabbi Nechemyah, it is the name of a person.”

ויעבר אברם בארץ, Avram did not stop anywhere in his journey south through the land of Canaan until G’d appeared to him as He had said: “to the land which I will show you.” (verse 1).

ויעבר אברם בארץ. Abram traversed the land. The Torah informs us that Abraham kept moving from one location to another without any of the local inhabitants challenging him. This in spite of the fact that the Canaanites ruled in the land at the time.

ויעבר אברם..עד מקום שכם, until the outskirts of Shechem. Perhaps the locations mentioned in the Torah are the ones that any traveler who came from Charan to the land of Canaan encounters in the order in which they appear in our paragraph. Avram may have briefly lived in these locations until G’d told him to move on and criss cross the land in 13,17. According to a Midrash quoted by Rashi, Avram saw a prophetic vision of the rape of Dinah in that town, and how the sons of Yaakov would avenge that deed. He therefore stopped there and offered a prayer on behalf of the family of Yaakov, asking G’d to save them from the pursuit and hatred of the Emorites who would try and avenge their compatriots. We know that this prayer was answered from Genesis 35,5 ויהי חתת אלוקים על הערים וגו', “the fear of G’d was on these cities, etc.” [according to Eliyahu Mizrachi, the words עד מקום שכם instead of עד שכם, are hard to justify otherwise. Ed.]

ויעבר אברם בארץ עד מקום שכם, “Avram traversed the country (traveling in a southerly direction) as far as the site of the town of Shechem.” The location is mentioned to tell us that he offered a prayer there concerning the sons of Yaakov, who he foresaw, would encounter many problems associated with that location and who would engage in a war there in order to free their sister Dinah who had been captured and raped. This in spite of the fact that when he had described himself as ערירי, unable to sire offspring, G’d had assured him that he would not only have children but that he would found a great nation. He was concerned that perhaps due to a sin on his part, this promise would be long delayed in being fulfilled. Nachmanides writes that all the journeys of Avraham which are recorded here, as well as those of Yitzchok and Yaakov after him, are recorded to serve as illustrations of the principle מעשה אבות סימן לבנים, that the affairs of the patriarchs foreshadow experiences which occurred in the lives of their offspring during the history of the Jews as a people. The decrees announced by the prophets (the “wakeful ones,” according to Daniel 4,14) were based on their interpreting events in the lives of the patriarchs as foreshadowing the fate of their children and children’s children. When the prophets engaged in what appear to be merely symbolic actions [such as Jeremiah 51,63-64 giving instructions to Baruch, his disciple, to tie a stone to the book of Jeremiah after he has finished reading it, and to throw it into the river Euphrates and to say at that moment: “thus shall Babylon sink and never rise again, because of the disaster that I will bring upon it.”] Baruch was instructed to perform this act so as to make G’d’s decree more than just a potential judgment on the Babylonians. By performing a tangible, visible act, the decree was transformed from something merely potential to something actual, though the time for realization had not yet been determined. In a similar manner, all the stories related in detail about the patriarchs serve as the catalyst for eventual repetition in the lives of the Jewish people. We find a similar example in the days of Elisha (Kings II 13,15) who instructed King Joash to get a bow and arrows and to shoot out the window. Having shot an arrow, Elisha proclaimed this gesture to have been a symbol of victory for the people of Israel. He then instructed the king to pick up the arrows he had shot. The King complied. He was then instructed to strike the ground. The King struck the ground three times and stopped. (without having been told to stop) Elisha was very angry at the King and told him that if only he had continued another five or six times, he would have annihilated Aram. As it were, he would defeat the armies of Aram only three times. [Elisha was already sick at the time, close to death, and therefore especially frustrated by the King’s action. Ed.] The Bible does not tell us stories like this merely to embellish the study of our history. These symbolic actions are extremely important in helping certain decrees of G’d which were in the realm of the potential only, to become translated into reality. G’d provided the patriarchs with opportunities to perform such symbolic gestures, which in the course of Jewish history would prove to have been the trigger setting in motion important historic developments. This is the meaning of מעשה אבות סימן לבנים. The Torah stated והכנעני אז בארץ, that “the Canaanite was then in control of the land of Canaan,” a banal statement, for why else would the land be described as the land of the Canaanites? There is a far deeper meaning to this statement. Among other meanings, the Torah is on record that Jews had already moved around unopposed in the land of Canaan at a time when the time was not yet ripe for this people to be expelled from that land on account of what the Torah described as עון האמורי, “the sin of the Emorite.” (Genesis 15,16) It is also possible that the reason why the Torah saw fit to write the line והכנעני אז בארץ, is to explain why it took Avraham such a long time before he built the first altar dedicated to monotheism. He had been afraid, as the land was owned by the Canaanite and he could not expect that they would take kindly to a stranger publicly challenging their religious convictions. It was only after G’d had appeared to him and given him assurances that he was no longer afraid to do what he had in mind to do already previously. The promise that his children in due course would inherit this land, a promise given in verse 7, encouraged him to become an evangelist on behalf of his G’d. Elon (Moreh) (verse 6) is none other than Shechem. (Nablus in our time) The addition of the word מורה appears in connection with this location which is also defined as being opposite Gilgal and Mount Gerizim elsewhere. (compare Deut. 11,30) The meaning of the words ה-אל הנראה אליו, appears to imply that G’d instructed Avraham to build the altar at that location The word מורה, from הוראה, ”instruction,” was appended to the name of the place Elon to remind us that Avraham had received Divine instructions there. The very word אליו “directly to him,” is indicative of the fact that this revelation was of a more advanced nature than any previous communication by G’d to Avraham. There are some commentators who feel that the words והכנעני אז בארץ, were meant to stress the loving kindness of G’d towards Avraham in that He protected Avraham every step of the way in spite of the fact that the land was owned by a hostile nation [which had already succeeded in driving the Semites out of most of that land. Ed.] Avraham traversed this land with substantial herds, as if the whole land belonged to him. He was not challenged and not molested.

עד מקום שכם,“as far as a place called Shechem. This traversing of the land by Avraham and his moving away towards a mountain of which the Torah (verse 8) speaks as well as the fact that he established his tent (residence) between a place called Ai and a place known as Bet El are all references to matters and places which acquire significance for the Jewish people later on in their history. At this time, these places had not been known by the names reported here in the Torah. This is what the sages (Tanchuma Lech Lecha, 9) had in mind when they said מעשי אבות סימן לבנים, “experiences in which the patriarchs were involved him served as a preview of things that would occur in the lives of their descendants.”

He entered it. ויעבור usually means “he passed through” the land but did not dwell there. Thus Rashi needed to explain that here it is different, and means, “He entered it.” Rashi knows this because here it is written בארץ, not הארץ. Alternatively, because it is written: “Until the place of Shechem,” and Shechem is in Eretz Canaan.

(6-7)Abraham "zog an allem vorüber" — betrachtete keinen der Örter, an denen er "vorüber" kam, als die Stelle, wo er bleiben sollte, weil er auf das von Gott verheißene Zeichen harrte, das ihm den Ort seines Bleibens bezeichnen würde. — Der Kanaanite war אז, damals schon im Lande. Denn zur Zeit, als dies niedergeschrieben wurde, war der Kanaanite ja noch im Lande. Das Land war ursprünglich nicht dem chamitischen Stamm bestimmt, war jedoch zu Abrahams Zeit bereits in chamitische Hände übergegangen. Abraham aber zog immer weiter, bis Gott ihm zeigen werde, dass er bleiben solle. — וירָא, da trat Gott ihm sichtbar entgegen und sprach usw. Der ganze Nachdruck liegt auf diesem Sichtbarwerden. Der Altar wurde auch gebaut לד׳ הנראה אליו. Denn dies war das sichtbare Zeichen, dass dies der für die Zukunft Abrahams und seines Volkes erwählte Boden sei. Es ist dieser Ausdruck ja durchaus nicht der gewöhnliche, er kommt bei Abraham nur noch bei dem Gebot der מילה und der Verkündigung der Geburt Jizchaks vor. Weit entfernt, auch nur im geringsten der kühnen Vorstellung nachgehen zu wollen, wie Gott zu Abraham und den erwählten Männern gesprochen, haben wir uns doch gegenwärtig zu halten, was gesagt ist. Der Ausdruck sagt, dass nicht bloß die Stimme vernommen, sondern ויֵרָא, und zwar nicht הֵרָאה מ־ von Abraham gesehen worden, sondern: הֵרָאה אֶל, sichtbar worden zu Abraham, für Abraham. In dem ersten Falle ginge die Tätigkeit von dem Sehenden aus, das Faktum des Gesehenwerdens wäre bedingt durch die Fähigkeit und Willenstätigkeit des Schauenden und ginge von ihm aus. הראה אל bezeichnet aber den entgegengesetzten Vorgang: Heraustreten aus der bisherigen Unsichtbarkeit in die Sichtbarkeit für einen Bestimmten; die Tätigkeit geht von dem "sich offenbarenden" aus. Es ist dies tief bedeutsam und für eine alles verflachende und durch Umdeutung täuschende Zeit nicht überflüssig. Alle unsere Offenbarungen Gottes gehen von Gott aus an die Menschen. Gott spricht zu dem Propheten, nicht in ihm. "Die Gotteshand kommt auf den Propheten", nicht aus ihm: ׳היתה עלי יר ד. In allen hebräischen Ausdrücken für die Gottesoffenbarung ist der Mensch durchaus nur der empfangende, nicht der aktiv schaffende, und sind alle diese Ausdrücke die entschiedenste Verneinung aller jener die tatsächliche Offenbarung leugnender, diese Leugnung jedoch täuschend bemäntelnder Ansichten, die die Offenbarung Gottes mit Erzeugnissen menschlicher Phantasie und Begeisterung zusammenwerfen. Wie Gott zu unseren Männern gesprochen, mag uns ewig ein Geheimnis bleiben —den sei, auf dem zuerst die שכינה בתחתונים wiederkehren wollte, was ja allgemein das Ziel der Menschengeschichte sein soll und ist. Da, wo die Menschen zuerst gewandelt, wo, oder in dessen Nähe das גן עדן gewesen, der Boden, der, nach der Überlieferung, frei geblieben von der Zerrüttung der Sündflut, der also am jungfräulichsten geblieben, den Boden hatte sich Gott als denjenigen erwählt, auf dem die Wiederkehr des Göttlichen auf Erden beginnen sollte. Die Stelle nun, auf der nach 2000 Jahren das Göttliche zuerst wieder eintrat, wird bezeichnet: 1) als שכם .מקום שכם war nicht diejenige Örtlichkeit im gelobten Lande, die sich als die am meisten rühmenswürdige bewährte. Sie war vielmehr übelberüchtigt als שכיחי רוצחים, als eine Gegend, die heißblütige Menschen erzeugte, denen Mord und Totschlag nichts seltenes war, wie dies bei den Bestimmungen der Zufluchtsstädte hervortrat, und worauf die Charakterisierung des Propheten hinweist, Hosea 6. 9: דרך ירצחו שכמה, so wie das ihm parallel liegende transjordanische Gilead aus gleichem Grunde dort עקבה מדם genannt wird (Makkoth 9); 2) als אלון מורה Es war dies dieselbe Stelle, wo der Ebal und Garisim, wo auf einem und demselben Boden zwei Berge von entschiedenstem Gegensatze emporragten, der eine von unten bis oben wie ein Garten grünend, das Bild des vollendeten Gedeihens, der andere von oben bis unten in kahler Öde starrend, das Bild des völligen Unsegens. Und es heißt ferner 3) והכנעני או בארץ, dass schon damals, als hier mit dieser Offenbarung Gottes an Abraham die Wiederkehr der Schechina begann, der kanaanitische Völkerstamm im Lande war, und wir wissen, welchen Grad der sittlichen Gesunkenheit und Entartung dieser Menschenstamm auf diesem Boden erreichte, also, dass der barmherzige Gott selber Auswanderung oder Vernichtung über ihn verhängte. Wir sehen somit: es soll hier die Regenerierung des Menschengeschlechtes, die Wiederkehr des Göttlichen im Menschenkreise gepflanzt werden — und es wird hierfür ein Boden gesucht, der sich allerdings am vollendetsten dafür eignete, auf welchem allerdings Menschen, die dort nach dem Willen Gottes leben, die höchste geistige und sittliche Weihe erreichen können, auf dem aber schon damals wie in späterer Zeit Menschen, entartet, der Vernichtungswürdigkeit entgegenreiften! So ward auch die תורה in der Wüste gegeben, zu lehren: dass nicht an Zeit und Boden die Erhebung des Menschengeschlechts geknüpft ist. An dieselbe Stelle, auf welcher die Entartung der Menschen im höchsten Grade in die Erscheinung trat, knüpft Gott die Wiederkehr seiner שכינה an! Wohl, dürfte uns dies sagen, wohl ist die Beschaffenheit der Länder nicht ohne Einfluss auf Anlage und Beschaffenheit der Völker, aber das Göttliche im Menschen, dass der Mensch die "Gottesnähe" gewinne, das kann der Lappe in Lappland wie in Griechenland der Grieche erreichen. Da, wo ein Abraham wohnt, können auch רצחנים wohnen, und derselbe Boden kann neben dem רוצח einen נביא tragen. Gerade der Boden, der so verführerisch ist, dass auf ihm die Bewohner bis zur üppigsten Entartung also ausschweiften, dass sie "der Boden ausspie", ihn erwählte Gott und pflanzte dorthin sein Volk, das ja auch nicht zu den gefügigsten, zu dessen Grundcharakter קשה ערף gehörte, auf dass, wenn es gelinge — und es ist gelungen — dass das göttliche Feuer, das אשרת, selbst dieses Volk auf diesem Boden sich gewinne, es eben nirgends einen Menschenstamm mehr geben könne, der nicht durch dieses אש דת für dieses אש דת zu gewinnen wäre. Der Sieg des Göttlichen beginnt mit dem härtesten Volke (עז שבאומו) auf dem härtesten Boden (קשות ,הארצות האל, wie es später nach der Auffassung der Weisen heißt). Es ist nun möglich, dass dieses Entweder Oder dieses Bodens, der entweder den Gipfel des Sittlichen und Geistigen, oder den Gipfel der Vertiefung und Entartung, und demgemäß auch entweder den Segen oder den Fluch trägt, durch das Nebeneinander des blühenden Garisim und öden Ebal vergegenwärtigt war, und wäre es dann tief bedeutsam, dass der erste Nationalaltar beim Eintritt in dieses Land nicht auf dem Garisim, sondern gerade auf dem öden Ebal errichtet wurde. Der Segen ist nicht Bedingung, sondern Folge des göttlichen Aufbaues des irdischen Lebens. Es bedarf dieser Aufbau keiner äußeren Voraussetzung. Der Altar des göttlichen Gesetzes kann auf dem ödesten Boden erbaut werden. Unmöglich scheint es nun endlich nicht, dass אלון מורה — mag 81אל Baum, Hain, oder nach אונקלס Ebene bedeuten (Grundbegriff איל: Kraft der Fortentwickelung, wie ארז, verwandt mit ערץ, überhaupt Bäume das Bild stark fortschreitender Entwicklung darstellen, und daher אֵלה, chaldäisch אִילָן und hier אֵלון von diesem Grundbegriff den Namen von Bäumen bilden; so kann auch diese Anschauung auf eine langgestreckte Ebene übertragen sein, die in einem Gebirgsland sich weithin Bahn bricht) — unmöglich scheint es nicht, dass der Hain oder die Ebene um Garisim und Ebal deshalb מורֶה "belehrend" genannt wurde, weil hier jedem Nahenden durch den Anblick dieser beiden Berge die bedeutsame Lehre entgegengerufen wurde: "So habt ihr hier den Segen, da den Fluch, euer ist die Wahl!"

והכנעני אז בארץ, “and the Canaanites were in the land at that time.” Rashi interprets these words as meaning that at that period the Canaanites were in the process of capturing that land from the descendants of Shem whose king had ruled there in Jerusalem, then known as Shalem. It had been allocated to him by his father Noach. The difficulty with Rashi’s interpretation is that Rashi, when commenting on Hebron in Numbers 13,22, states that Hebron had been founded seven years earlier that Tzoan of Egypt. We know Cham had given that city (Chevron) to his oldest son [Kush and Mitzrayim having been twins? Compare table in Chronicles of Mossad Harav Kook Ed.]. It follows that Canaanites must have been in that land already long before Avraham came to it. This is also the conclusion in the Talmud, tractate Sotah folio 34. We must therefore assume that the details of this subject are the subject of a disagreement of the sages, and that Rashi was forced to side with one side, and chose this without mentioning that there is another opinion. [In the commentary of Haketav vehakabalah by Rabbi Mecklenburg, translated by this editor, the word שבעה in Numbers 13,22, is not understood as a number but as a reference to something superior, and the observation that fathers often treat younger sons with more affection than they have for the firstborn. According to the Bible, Canaan was Cham’s youngest son; (although that raises the question why Noach cursed him, instead of Cham’s eldest son) Ed. It is interesting that the Canaanites were allowed to exist without retribution by G–d for 47 years longer than the Egyptians, 7 years although they had been founded sooner, and 40 years because the first generation of Israelites had forfeited their right to inherit the land of Canaan as the result of the spies having badmouthed the land claiming that it devoured its inhabitants, and anyway could not be conquered by them. They were granted this extension because they agreed to have Avraham’s wife Sarah buried in Chevron.

.עד מקום שכם, as far as the location of Sh’chem (in Moses’ time). During Avraham’s time the city of Sh’chem did not exist yet

עד מקום שכם UNTO THE PLACE OF SHECHEM — In order to pray on behalf of Jacob’s sons, anticipating the time when they would come to fight against Shechem.

עד אלון מורה, he foresaw that there the Jewish people (at Mount Gerizim and Mount Eyval) would confirm that the Torah was binding for them, [especially those commandments that are essentially observed in private, their observance by individuals being difficult to confirm. Ed.] The word אלון is an allusion to the oath the people would swear in that location not to violate those commandments. (compare Deuteronomy 11,30) Avram prayed here to G’d asking Him to make the hearts of the people amenable at that time to take upon themselves this oath.

To pray for Yaakov’s sons. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it not recount that he came to Sukkos, the city closest to Eretz Yisrael’s boundary — as we see in Parshas Vayishlach (33:17)? Thus Rashi explains that [he came to Shechem] to pray. Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say, “The place of Shechem,” and not, “The city of Shechem,” as it is written later (33:18), “Yaakov arrived safely at the city of Shechem”? Thus Rashi explains that he came to pray, and it says “place” because he who prays should set for himself a fixed place for his prayer. This is preferable to Re’m’s explanation, that otherwise there is no reason to say, “Until the place of Shechem” [at all]. One might ask: If Avraham knew all this prophetically, why did he say later (15:2-3): “My Master, God, what will You give me since I continue to be childless ... and the manager of my household is Eliezer of Damascus. Behold, You have not given me children ... .”? We see he feared he would die without children! The answer is: Despite [his knowing about Yaakov’s sons], Avraham feared he would not have children until very old age, and Eliezer would take his wealth. (R. Noson)

The verse also hints that Abraham behaved like an itinerant traveller, not pretending to be a man of stature. This characteristic of Abraham came to the fore later when others refer to him as אברם העברי, Abram the transient. The reason that the Torah mentions the presence of the Caaanite in the land only in this verse, and not in verse 5 where we would have expected it, is to indicate exactly when the land of Israel passed into the hands of the Canaanites (having previously belonged to the descendants of Shem). The fact that the expression ארצה כנען is used already in verse 5 means only that the Torah refers to the name the country would be known by subsequently.

עד אלון מורה, “as far as the terebinth at Moreh;” according to Rashi, this is a reference to the mountains of Gerizim and Eyvol, which G-d showed Avraham on this occasion as a location where the Israelites would confirm their loyalty to the Torah. The Torah refers to this location again in Deuteronomy 11,30. According to our author, Elon Moreh and Elon mamre are the same location.

אלון מורה THE PLAIN OF MOREH — This is Shechem (Sotah 32a). He showed him Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal where Israel took upon themselves the oath to observe the Torah (cf. Deuteronomy 11:29 and Deuteronomy 111:30).

מורה, according to Onkelos this is the name of an individual, just as כנעני. אלון is the name of a plain, this plain bearing the name of a man known as מורה.

He showed him Mount Gerizim. Rashi is answering the question: If Shechem is the same as the Plain of Moreh — and it is written, “Until the place of Shechem” — why does it also need to be called the Plain of Moreh? Rashi answers, “He showed him Mount Gerizim and Mount Eival.” And it is written [regarding the oath that was taken there], “The Plain of Moreh” (Devarim 11:30). Where Israel accepted ... [אלון מורה is so called] because אלון is from the root of אלה (oath), and מורה is from the root of הוראה, which is Torah. (Maharshal)

Possibly the word כנען which has a numerical value of 190 is an allusion to Abraham and Sarah being 100 and 90 years old respectively when Isaac was born. The idea that this land would eventually be transferred to the Israelites therefore is already part of its very name. The latter became potential owners once Isaac was born.

והכנעני אז בארץ, “and the Canaanite was at that time in the process of conquering the Holy Land from the descendants of Shem. (according to Rashi) The justification appears to have been that Cham his father was senior to his brother Shem by two years. Rashi explains further that originally that land had been bequeathed by Noach to his son Shem. This is why G-d told Avraham that in due course, He would give that land back to Avraham’s descendants, as he was a descendant of Shem. In Numbers 13,22 as well as in Deuteronomy 11,10 Rashi states that Cham had built the city of Chevron for his son Canaan. According to this it would appear that the land of Canaan (Holy Land) had been given by Noach to his son Cham. We must therefore understand what Rashi wrote here as referring not to Shem personally, but as to one of Shem’s descendants. Perhaps he referred only to part, the northern section of Eretz Yisrael. His section included Jerusalem. The major section of the land of Canaan spread southwards in the direction of Egypt. Chevron was already part of the southern section. However, if we look at the wording in the Talmud in Ketuvot 112, where the Talmud challenges the underlying assumption that Cham built a city for his younger son Canaan before he built a city for his older son Mitzrayim, this sounds peculiar. According to the Torah in Numbers 13,22 Chevron was built seven years before Tzoan of Egypt. Clearly then the Torah had not spoken of Cham having built these cities, but of Noach. We may assume that the interpretation of the passage we quoted from the Talmud is to be understood as a question, i.e. “surely this is unbelievable?” [This is the way it appears in our versions of the Talmud. Ed.] Noach built Chevron for his younger son Shem, and subsequently he built Tzoan for his son who was 2 years older than Shem. The Torah, according to the Talmud, wished to state that the city of Chevron was seven times more successful than the city Tzoan. [The word שנים, usually meaning “years,” may also be used instead of פעמים, “repeated times.” Ed.] If we accept this interpretation, the line that the Canaanites were at that time trying to wrest the land of Shem from him, i.e. to conquer Chevron and Jerusalem, makes much better sense.

והכנעני אז בארץ AND THE CANAANITE WAS THEN IN THE LAND — They (the Canaanites) were gradually conquering the land of Israel from the descendants of Shem, for it had fallen to the share of Shem when Noah apportioned the earth amongst his sons, for it is said (Genesis 14:18) “And Melchizedek) king of Salem (Jerusalem)”. For this reason the Lord said to Abram (Genesis 12:7) “to thy seed will I give this land” — “I will in some future time return it to thy children who are descendants of Shem”.

והכנעני אז בארץ, all these places belonged to the Canaanite, one of the 7 tribes making up that nation. We encounter such a reference to the Canaanites as a generic term in Deuteronomy 11,30 בארץ הכנעני אשר יושב בערבה, “in the land of the Canaanite who dwells in the Aravah, wilderness.”

He gradually conquered. Rashi is answering the question: “Then” is qualifying word, implying that in Avraham’s days it was so, but afterwards, the Canaanites were not in the Land. But how can this be? They were still there in Moshe’s days! Thus Rashi needed to explain that it means “then but not before.” For [in Avraham’s days,] the Canaanites began conquering the Land.

Another lesson from the mention of the Canaanite "then being in the land," is that the Torah reminds us that Canaan was a slave, having been cursed by Noach who decreed that he should be עבד עבדים, "a slave to slaves (Genesis 9,25)." Slaves do not possess property rights. The Canaanite taking over the land from the Semites eventually opened the way for the Israelites to dispossess, them. The Semites, who had come by the land legally, would have presented G'd with a legal problem He had to solve before He could have disposessed them. Our sages have said that inasmuch as Abraham was a Semite, expelling the Canaanites and having the Israelites take over the land was only a return of the land to its rightful owners. Accordingly, the Torah phrases its description of the Canaanite presence in the land in such a way that the world understands that such a presence was never legal (compare Rashi and Nedarim 32).

והכנעני אז בארץ, the word: אז, “then,” (in the past) indicates that the Torah did not speak about the political situation at the time when the Jewish people were in possession, but about the political situation at the time when Avraham first wandered through that land.

אז בארץ, this is to teach us how G’d deals with those whom He loves. Avram was traveling through the land of the Canaanite with his herds and flocks. He was not challenged by anyone as being guilty of encroaching on their property, stealing their grazing land, etc. This was proof that G’d was with him. Avram was well aware that this was a demonstration of G’d’ keeping His promise to him that his very presence would be considered a blessing for the people surrounding him. There are commentators (Rashi) who say that the reference to the Canaanite occupying that land אז, at that time, means that until shortly before that time the whole land had belonged to Shem and his descendants, and that only at that time had the Canaanites begun to dispossess the Semites in that land. The proof quoted for this theory is 14,18 ומלכי צדק מלך שלם, that this king was Shem, the son of Noach who was still king in Jerusalem at that time. In other words, at the time Avram came to the land of Canaan, the Canaanites had not yet captured Jerusalem.

For it fell to the share of Sheim. This indeed contradicts what Rashi said in (Bamidbar 13:22) וחברון שבע שנים נבנתה לפני צען מצרים. [There Rashi said that Cham built Hebron, implying that all of Eretz Yisrael belonged to Cham — not Sheim — from the start.] Yet we can answer that these Aggados disagree with each other. But we cannot answer that all of Eretz Yisrael fell to Cham, except for Jerusalem and its vicinity which fell to Sheim. For Rashi says here, “He [the Canaanite] gradually conquered Eretz Yisrael from the descendants of Sheim,” implying that all of Eretz Yisrael was Sheim’s. (Re’m) However, the answer that only Jerusalem and its vicinity was Sheim’s seems better. For “The Canaanite gradually conquered Eretz Yisrael” could refer to the small part of Eretz Yisrael that Cham’s son Canaan did not already have. This is better than saying that the Midrashim disagree with each other. Mahara Ashkenazi writes: All Eretz Yisrael surely belonged to Sheim, as Rashi implies here. And what Rashi wrote on Bamidbar 13:22 should be understood as follows: If one man built two cities, it would make sense to identify which was built first. Thus if Cham was the builder, the Torah could very well be identifying which he built first, [by saying וחברון שבע שנים נבנתה לפני צען מצרים]. But it cannot be that Cham built both Hebron and Zoan, due to Rashi’s question there: “Could Cham have built Hebron for Canaan his youngest son, before building Zoan for Mitzrayim his eldest son?!” Thus we see that Sheim built Hebron, while Cham built Zoan. Consequently, the Torah cannot be saying that Hebron preceded Zoan by seven years, as different people built them, and there is no reason to identify their respective order. It follows that there is no contradiction at all [between what Rashi said in Bamidbar and what he said here]. And the verse in Bamidbar means, [as Rashi concludes there,] “Hebron was built up with everything good, seven times more than Zoan.”

Another reason the Torah mentions the presence of the Canaanites as conquerors in the land is to contrast this with G'd's promise to give the land to Abraham's descendants. Had the Torah not informed us of the fact that the descendants of Shem already lost most or all of the land to the Canaanites, we would not have considered G'd's promise as something special, seeing that Abraham was a descendant of Shem and as such already had a legal claim on that country.

As it is said: “Malki Zedek King of Shaleim.” Malki Zedek is Sheim the son of Noach, as Rashi explains on 14:18. And King of Shaleim means King of Yerushalayim. [Thus, the Land originally was Sheim’s].

ויבן שם מזבח AND HE BUILDED THERE AN ALTAR — in thanksgiving for the good tidings that he would have children, and for the good tidings that they would possess the land of Israel.

The sense of the expression, And there he built an altar unto the Eternal, who appeared unto him,⁵⁷Verse 7 here. is that he gave praise to the Glorious Name⁵⁸Deuteronomy 28:58. and offered unto Him a sacrifice of thanksgiving for His having appeared to him. Until now G-d had not appeared to him neither in a mar’eh nor in a machzeh.⁵⁹Mar’eh and Machzeh are terms for different degrees of prophetic vision. See Ramban further, 15:1. See also Moreh Nebuchim, II, 41-5, for full discussion of these terms and other prophetic experiences. Rather, the command, Get thee out of thy country, was said to him in a nocturnal dream or through Ruach Hakodesh.⁶⁰Literally, “The Holy Spirit.” See ibid., Chapter 45, beginning: “second degree of prophecy.” It is possible that the expression, Who appeared unto him, alludes to the mystery of the sacrifice. The one enlightened [in the mysteries of the Torah] will understand.

There he built an altar. God did not appear to Avraham when He gave him the order to go to Canaan because He does not grant visions outside of the Holy Land. Similarly, Avraham did not wish to build an altar where God does not allow His Presence to dwell.

וירא ה׳ אל אברם. G'd appeared to Abram. The Torah wishes to compliment Abraham on his great love for his Creator. G'd appeared to Abraham and promised him not only children but that his descendants would inherit the land he was on. Abraham considered the mere fact that G'd appeared to him as sufficient reason to build an altar for G'd. The feeling that G'd had deemed him worthy to appear to him was so overpowering that Abraham considered the promise of children and of the land as secondary. This is why the Torah stresses that he built the altar "to the G'd who appeared to him." This is what David said in Psalms 16,11: "In Your presence is perfect joy." Perhaps we find an echo of these sentiments when Ben Azzai declined to marry, saying that he was so in love with Torah that he could not do justice to the demands made upon him by marriage ( Yevamot 63).

וירא ה' אל אברם, at Elon Moreh, He appeared to him, telling him that this is the land He promised to show him.

For the tidings of children ... Rashi is answering the question: Why did Avraham build an altar now? If he built it on account of the Divine revelation, as the verse seems to be saying, then he should have built an altar in Charan as well — for Hashem appeared to him also there and said, “Go from your land.” Although it is not written there, “God appeared,” it was a Divine revelation nonetheless. Therefore Rashi explains, “For the tidings of children and for the tidings of Eretz Yisrael.” For it says, “To your descendants I will give this land,” and this contains both tidings. Furthermore, Rashi knows this because it is written, “To Adonoy Who had appeared to him.” Why is it not written just, “To Adonoy”? Because from “Who had appeared to him,” we learn that he built the altar on account of the vision he had now: the tidings of children and Eretz Yisrael.

ויאמר לזרעך אתן, G’d told him that although He had bidden him to leave his homeland and to come to this country and to settle in it, He had not said that He would give this land to Avram forthwith by dispossessing the present inhabitants, as this was not practical, Avram being only a single individual. Possession of this land was possible only after his descendants had become sufficiently numerous. As of the time G’d was speaking to Avram, the land, instead of being an inheritance, would be like a gift to him, and he was expected to familiarise himself with his gift. He would encounter only sympathy and goodwill from the local inhabitants. When, in due course, his descendants, more than 600.000 strong, would come back here they would encounter hostility, and the conquest would take quite a while, the inhabitants being killed or driven out in stages, as was spelled out in greater detail in Exodus 23,30.

ויבן שם מזבח, in response to this promise, Avram erected an altar there in honour of the G’d Who had appeared to him.

ויעתק משם AND HE REMOVED FROM THERE — supply the word אהלו “his tent”.

AND HE CALLED UPON THE NAME OF THE ETERNAL. Onkelos explained it as meaning that he prayed there, just as in the verse, I called upon Thy name, O Eternal, out of the lowest dungeon.⁶¹Lamentations 3:55.
The correct interpretation is that Abraham loudly proclaimed the name of the Eternal there before the altar, informing people of Him and of His Divine essence. In Ur of the Chaldees he taught people but they refused to listen. Now, however, that he had come to the land concerning which he had been promised, And I will bless them that bless thee,⁶²Verse 3 here. he became accustomed to teach and to proclaim the Deity. Scripture likewise tells of Isaac — when he went to the valley of Gerar where he was promised, Fear not, for I am with thee⁶³Further, 26:24. — that he built an altar there and invoked the name of the Eternal⁶⁴Ibid., Verse 25. since he had come to a new place where they had not heard of His fame or seen His glory, and he proclaimed His glory among these nations.⁶⁵See Isaiah 66:19. Now a similar statement is not made concerning Jacob, [i.e., that he proclaimed the name of the Eternal before the peoples of the land of Canaan], for since he begot many children — all of whom were worshippers of G-d — and he had a great community, which was called “the congregation of Israel,”⁶⁶Exodus 12:3, et al. it was through them that the Faith was proclaimed and became known to all people. Besides, the Faith had been proclaimed throughout the entire land of Canaan since the days of his ancestors. In Bereshith Rabbah⁶⁷39:24. the Rabbis similarly say, “And he called upon the name of the Eternal. This teaches us that he caused the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, to be in the mouth of all people.”

בית אל מים והעי מקדם, between two large cities, in order to attract large crowds who could hear him preach.

ויעתק משם ההרה. He moved on from there to the hills. Seeing that the word ויעתק is transitive, the object seems to be missing in this verse. Rashi says that the object is Abraham's tent. This seems inadequate. Perhaps we have an allusion here that Abraham moved a rock [simile for G'd] from the place where G'd had appeared to him. This would correspond to something the sages said in Berachot 5 about the verse in Job 18,4: "Will earth's order be disrupted for your sake? Will a Rock be dislodged from His place?" The lesson here would be that whenever Israel moves from a place it has offered prayers to G'd, G'd moves with Israel. This concept was introduced by Abraham and Israel draws on Abraham's merit to this day in this respect.

ויעתק משם ההרה, he folded his tent to set out to go to the more mountainous regions east of Bet El, to examine that part of the land, and pitching his tent anew in the area between Bet El and Ai. When arriving there he again built an altar proclaiming the supremacy and uniqueness of the Lord G’d. The ending ה in the word אהלה means the same as the ending ו, i.e. as if the Torah had written אהלו. Avram in “proclaiming” the name of the Lord, issued invitations to the local population to visit this altar, pointing out that this altar was exclusively for serving the Lord and sacrificing to Him. Perhaps the repetition of the words בשם ה' indicates that the people whom Avram invited to his altar were already very close to becoming monotheists. According to Bereshit Rabbah 39,16, quoted by Rashi, he prophesied that at that site or near it, some of his descendants would fall in battle, due to the sin of Achan and members of his family. (Joshua 7,5).

ויקרא בשם ה', “He proclaimed his belief in the Lord of heaven.” Onkelos translates this as Avraham simply offering a prayer there to his G’d. According to the plain meaning of the words Avraham did much more than that. He proclaimed his faith loudly for all the people to hear. We find that his son Yitzchok did something similar (Genesis 21,33). It is noteworthy that we do not find a reference in the Torah to Yaakov doing something similar. The reason is that Yaakov had many sons and that his family itself was a constant reminder to the people around them of their belief in the only G’d, the G’d in heaven, the Creator of mankind.

This refers to his tent. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say ויעתק, a term that is used in conjunction with a living being? The proper term is יציאה, as in v. 5: ויקח אברם ... ויצאו ללכת ארצה כנען. Or the term נסיעה, as in v. 9: ויסע אברם.... Thus Rashi explains that ויעתק is referring to his tent, i.e., he moved his tent, [not himself].

עתק. Vergleichen wir die verschiedenen Bedeutungen dieser Wurzel, so ergibt sich als Grundbedeutung: die gewaltsame, (unerwartete, widernatürliche, ordnungswidrige etc. etc.) Versetzung eines Gegenstandes in eine ihm ursprünglich nicht gehörige räumliche, zeitliche, sittliche, soziale Stellung. Daher צור יעתק, das Verrücken von Felsen; עתיק, das in eine andere Zeit Hinüberragende, sehr alte. Daher auch der eigentliche Ausdruck für Tradition: העתקה, das Hinübertragen von Wahrheiten aus einer Zeit in die andere: עתק ,אשר העתיקו אנשי חזקיה: die Ungebühr und עתוק (Hiob 21, 7) die die Grenzen des Gebührenden überschreitende Stellung der Reichen. ויעת wie hier kommt nur bei Jizchak (Kap.26, 22) vor, der eigentlich gedacht hatte. dort zu bleiben, dann aber, wegen der vielen Streitigkeiten, nach dreimaligem Brunnengraben sich nur schwer zum Weiterziehen entschloß. Wir sind also berechtigt, auch hier nicht ein gewöhnliches Weiterziehen, sondern ein solches zu verstehen, bei welchem ein Widerstand, ein Widerwille, überhaupt etwas zuvor zu überwinden gewesen. Wir haben daher nicht an das Fortrücken des Zeltes zu denken, denn ein Zelt abzubrechen und fortzubringen bietet keine ungewöhnlichen Schwierigkeiten. Vielmehr ist das nicht ausgedrückte weil selbstverständliche Objekt: seine Leute. "Abraham hatte einige Energie nötig, seine Leute zum Aufbruch nach dem Gebirge zu bewegen". Abraham suchte noch immer die Isolierung. לזרעך, nicht לך war dies Land verheißen. Es mögen die Seinen sich in der fruchtreichen freundlichen Ebene behaglicher gefühlt haben, er folgte seiner Pflicht, die ihn ins einsame und vereinsamende Gebirge wies, und vermochte die Seinen, ihm dorthin zu folgen. Bedeutsam zeichnen die Weisen das Verhältnis der drei "Väter" zu einander: אברהם קראו הר ,יצחק שדה ,יעקב בית Abraham nannte die Offenbarungsstätte Gottes, den Kreis, in welchem der Mensch Gott zu finden habe: הר, Berg. Er, der Vereinzelte, Einzige in Mitte der Menschen, in dem gesellschaftlichen Kreis der Menschen fand er Gott nicht mehr; sollte er den Spuren des göttlichen Waltens folgen und sich zu Gott erheben, so musste er die freie Bergnatur aufsuchen, wohin die Spuren des menschlichen Waltens noch nicht gereicht. Jemehr die Geschichte der Väter fortschritt, fanden sie in ihrem eigenen Geschicke den Offenbarungsfinger Gottes. Jizchak nannte ihn שדה, Feld, also nicht mehr die freie, sondern die bereits dem Menschen für seine Nahrungszwecke zugewandte Natur. Jizchak schaute schon in diesen — wenngleich immerhin noch äußerlichen — aber doch schon das Menschendasein nahe berührenden Verhältnissen die Gänge der besonderen Gotteswaltung (ויזרע וגו׳ וימצא וגו׳ מאה שערים). Jakob brauchte nicht mehr das Haus zu verlassen, um Gott zu finden, er fand ihn da, wo Gott auf immer von uns gefunden werden will, er war Familienvater; nicht auf Bergen, nicht in Hain und Flur, in seinem Hause schaute er Gott, sein Familienleben war die Offenbarungsstätte Gottes: קראו בית, der Stein, auf welchen der Mensch sein müdes Haupt niederlegt, ward ihm "Gotteshaus!" — הר, Wurzel הרר, verwandt ,חרר ערר ,ארר, alles Wurzeln von Isolierungsbegriffen. Vielleicht heißt Berg הר, weil er die Kontinuität der Erdoberfläche unterbricht und als isoliertes und isolierendes Erdstück in die Höhe steigt.

ויט אהלה, “he pitched his tent;” Rashi already comments on the peculiarity of the word אהלה, being spelled with the letter ה at the end, when the pronoun ending for “his” should have been the letter ו. He gives as the reason that the Torah wished us to know that Avraham pitched his wife’s tent before he pitched his own. (based on B’reshit Rabbah). This raises the question why the same word is similarly misspelled in Genesis 9,21 when the subject was Noach’s tent? What are we to deduce from that? We may answer that the reason why the Israelites of the Kingdom of Jerobam, i.e. the ten tribes who had seceded from the Kingdom of David, were exiled, shortly after Solomon had died? According to tradition as spelled out in the Book of prophets, the decree to exile them was sealed because they indulged in debauchery caused by indulging in too much wine too many times. Noach having become too drunk occurred in his wife’s tent, or near its entrance. (Compare Amos 6,6, on the subject of these tribes’ drunkenness) Compare also Ezekiel 23,4: where the word אהליבמה for the capital of that kingdom which had really been Shomron, was changed to indicate that G–d had no place in that kingdom and in its rulers’ considerations. Both the word אהלה and אהליבמה are used by the prophet to describe the disloyal Jews in each kingdom. [The reader is referred to the commentary by Rabbi M. Eiseman in the Art Scroll edition of the Book of Ezekiel, even Jerusalem‘s name being changed in that chapter, as except during the reign of King Chizkiyahu things were not much better in the Kingdom of Yehudah. Ed.]

ויעתק משם, “he moved on from there;” we find the same expression having a similar meaning in Job 9,5, i.e. המעתיק הרים, “He Who moves mountains.”

מקדם לבית אל means ON THE EAST OF BETHEL. Consequently Bethel lay to his west, and that is what it states בית אל מים BETHEL ON THE WEST.

Means east of Beis-Eil. Rashi is saying that מקדם is connected to ההרה, and is explaining where the mountain was. It does not refer back to, “From there he moved,” stating from where he traveled. Rashi proof is because it is written: “Beis-Eil was to the west and Ai was to the east.” If מקדם refers to where he traveled from, why was Beis-Eil described as being to the west? On the contrary: before he traveled, Beis-Eil was to his west. But now that he traveled from the east [of Beis-Eil] in a different direction [of Beis-Eil], it would no longer be to his west. Thus, we must say that מקדם is connected to ההרה. And this is why Rashi then says, “Whereby Beis-Eil is located to his west.” I.e., it is now understandable for Beis-Eil to be described as being to the west. We need not ask: If it means “east of Beis-Eil” why is it not written בקדם. For מקדם, too, conveys that the mountain was east of Beis-Eil. The מ of מקדם is like the מ in, “Adonoy Elohim planted a garden in Eden, to the east (בעדן מקדם)” (2:8). And there it means, “East of Eden.”

The message in this verse may also be that whenever Abraham put up his tent henceforth, he first dismantled the altar he had built and rebuilt it at the site he would erect his tent.

Dem ויעתק steht höchst bedeutsam das אהלה, mit feminalem ה geschrieben, gegenüber. Während er dort, wo es die ganze Stellung seines Hauses betraf, vielleicht selbst Sara gegenüber seine Autorität geltend machen mußte, war hier, im Hause, sein Haus eigentlich Saras Haus. Nach außen der Mann, im innern das Weib; das Haus ganz dem götllichen Willen als Leitstern unterzuordnen, des Mannes Autorität; in allem übrigen häuslichen Walten das Weib voran: das der Grundzug des innigen jüdischen Familienlebens, dessen Ursprung im Zelte Abrahams wurzelt. — Auch dort, im Gebirge, konnte er in Städte ziehen; allein er mied die Städte und blieb zwischen Bethel und Ai. Bethel war die Stätte, die zuerst eigentlich von Jakob in Besitz genommen wurde. Ai das erste Stück Land, das später Abrahams Enkel wirklich in Besitz nahmen, (es aber auch — wie schon zu Abrahams Zeit die ganze Umgegend trümmerreich gewesen zu sein scheint, worauf der Artikel העי hinweist — Trümmer bleiben ließen; er überschritt die Trümmer, ging aber nicht nach ביתאל). Schon רמב"ץ weist darauf hin, dass diesem ersten und den ferneren Zügen Abrahams sich die spätere Geschichte seines Volkes analog gestaltete.

מקדם לבית אל, “from the eastern side of Bet El, westward.”

אהלה HIS TENT — This word is written with a ה suffixed instead of the usual ו so that it may read אָהֳלָהּ “her tent” to intimate that first he pitched a tent for his wife and afterwards one for himself (Genesis Rabbah 39:15).

He first pitched his wife’s tent. You might ask: How does Rashi know? Perhaps it was the reverse! The answer is: Since it says in Yevamos 63b, “A man is obligated to honor his wife more than himself,” Avraham surely pitched hers first.

ויקרא בשם ד׳ gegenüber einer Welt, deren ganze Lebensrichtung in das נעשה לנו .aufging שם

ויבן שם מזבח AND HE BUILDED THERE AN ALTAR — He perceived by the gift of prophecy that his descendants would once stumble (fall into sin) there through Achan’s transgression (see, Joshua 7): therefore he prayed there for them (Genesis Rabbah 39:15).

He prophetically saw that his descendents were destined. Rashi is answering the question: Why did Avraham build another altar? He already built one for the tidings of children and Eretz Yisrael. It seems that Hashem showed him specially this trouble, because it was like putting a qualification on the gift of Eretz Yisrael to his descendants (v. 7). If his descendants will sin as Achan did, they will fall into the hands of the Canaanites. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

הלוך ונסוע GOING ON MORE AND MORE TOWARDS THE NEGEB — by stages: he stayed here a month or more, then travelled on and pitched his tent in another place. Yet all his journeys were towards the Negeb to proceed to the South of the land of Israel which is the direction where Jerusalem is — which is in the territory of Judah who had their portion in the South of the land of Israel — to Mount Moriah which is his (Judah’s) possession (cf. Genesis Rabbah 39:16).

TOWARDS THE SOUTH. Rabbeinu Shlomo [Rashi] wrote, “To go to the southern part of the land of Israel, which is in the territory of the sons of Judah who took their portion in the south of the land of Israel.” This was also to happen to Abraham’s offspring in the future, as it is said, Judah shall go up⁶⁸Judges 1:2. first.

And Avram journeyed - journeyed from here, and went. Continually traveling - from place to place.

הלוך ונסוע הנגבה, when he journeyed, as is the custom of shepherds, he did not move to the east and to the west alternately, but kept moving in a southerly direction. He did this in order not to deviate from moving between one of the two towns he had been between when he first stopped between Bet El and Ai. Members of those cities had begun to trail him planning to join him.

הנגבה, “in a southerly direction.” According to Rashi, he was traveling in the southern part of the country, the area which later on formed the territory of the tribe of Yehudah. Later on, when it came to taking possession of the land, the tribe of Yehudah was also the first to take possession of these areas.

ויסע אברם הלוך ונסוע הנגבה, “Avram kept journeying steadily in a southerly direction.” The point of all his travels was to make camp in a great number of locations. He confined himself to the area which would later on form part of the territory of Yehudah which is located in the southern part of Eretz Yisrael. This area includes Mount Moriah. This is the plain meaning of our verse.
We may include a further meaning in the wording of the text, namely that each move by Avram represented a spiritual ascent to ever higher levels, keeping his spirit on the move while providing quiet and calm for the body. The Torah reported that “he pitched his tent,” to indicate his physical state; only then did it refer to constant motion, i.e. Avram’s ongoing spiritual ascent to higher levels. We read about Avram making camp in a variety of expressions such as ויאהל, ויבא, וישב, “he put up a tent, he arrived, he settled.” All of these journeys had as their purpose that he should qualify for the gift of prophecy on the level of communication with the attribute of G-d known as שדי. This is an attribute of theא-ד-נ-י level of G-d. It is alluded to in the word הנגבה (southward), whose numerical value 65 equals that of the name א-ד-נ-י. This is also the reason this name of G-d appears again and again when Avram addresses G-d such as in 15,2 when he asked: א-דני אלוקים מה תתן לי, “Lord O G-d what can you give me?”, Or a few lines later (15,8) א-דני אלוקים במה אדע כי אירשנה? “Lord, O G-d how will I know that I will inherit it (the land of Canaan)?”

But, all his travels were southward, aimed at going... Rashi is answering the question: הלוך ונסוע implies that he traveled continuously. If so, is it written before, “From there he moved ... his tent” — implying that he encamped in the meantime? [Rashi answers: “He would stay here a month or so, and then travel.”] And Rashi is answering another question: Why is it written, “Traveling steadily southward,” implying that he was traveling toward the world’s south, which is outside of Eretz Yisrael? This cannot be, for he was traveling from Charan to Eretz Yisrael. Therefore Rashi explains, “All his travels were southward, going to the south of Eretz Yisrael.” His travels were to Eretz Yisrael’s south.

Abraham zog immer weiter nach Süden. Wir haben bereits gesehen, wie Abraham nicht den Kreis der Städte aufsuchte. Er suchte sich und die Seinigen in der Isolierung erst recht fest zu begründen. Der Süden Palästinas war durchaus nicht der blühendere Teil, vielmehr wird in Secharja die ganze Gegend von Jerusalem südwärts ערבה, Öde genannt. Entsprechend der ganzen Pflanzung des jüdischen Volkes, wie die תורה in der Wüste, der Altar auf dem Ebal, wie Israel das עם קשה ערף, so ward die geistige Metropole des Volkes nicht in den nördlichen, den blühendsten, sondern in den südlichen, unfruchtbaren Teil gelegt. Das Gedeihen der תורה und durch dieselbe setzt gar nichts Irdisches voraus; "aus dem Felsen", spricht Gott, "sättige ich mit Honig dichl" Abrahams לך לך zog ihn immer weiter in den unwirtbaren Süden.

הנגבה, until he came to the southern region of the land of Canaan. According to Bereshit Rabbah, all of Avram’s journeys were in a southerly direction, towards the region where the Kingdom of Yehudah would be centred.

נגב (verwandt mit נקף ,נגף ,נקב): etwas perpendikulär auf den Kopf treffen, daher der Süden, wo die Strahlen der Sonne senkrecht treffen. Sodann gesteigert bis zum Durchbohren: נקב, und Stoßen, plötzlich stoßen, d. i plötzlicher Tod durch Gott: מגפה ,נגף. Nun wäre noch zu erklären, wie נקב zugleich auch bestimmen heißt: נקבה שכרך, es heißt vielleicht: etwas mit Worten so "auf den Kopf treffen" etwas mit Worten so umgrenzen, dass der Gegenstand dadurch entschieden fixiert wird.

רעב בארץ A FAMINE IN THE LAND — in that land only to test him whether he would take exception to God’s commands in that He had bidden him to go to the land of Canaan and now forced him to leave it (Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer 26).

AND THERE WAS A FAMINE IN THE LAND. Now Abraham went down to Egypt on account of the famine to dwell there in order to keep himself alive in the days of the drought, but the Egyptians oppressed him for no reason [and attempted] to take his wife. The Holy One, blessed be He, avenged their cause with great plagues, and brought him forth from there with cattle, with silver, and with gold,⁶⁹Genesis 13:2. and Pharaoh even commanded his men to escort them from the land.⁷⁰Verse 20 here. He thereby alluded to Abraham that his children would go down to Egypt on account of the famine to dwell there in the land, and the Egyptians would do them evil and take the women⁷¹Shemoth Rabbah 1:22. See also following note. from them, just as Pharaoh said, And every daughter ye shall save alive,⁷²Exodus 1:22. They were to be saved alive for unchaste purposes. but the Holy One, blessed be He, would avenge their cause with great plagues until He would bring them forth with silver and gold, sheep and oxen, very rich in cattle, with the Egyptians pressuring to send them out of the land.⁷³Ibid., 12:33. Nothing was lacking in all the events that happened to the patriarch that would not occur to the children.
The Rabbis have explained this subject in Bereshith Rabbah:⁷⁴40:8. “Rabbi Pinchas said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Abraham, ‘Go forth and tread out a path for your children!’ Thus you find that whatever is written concerning Abraham is also written concerning his children. In connection with Abraham it is written, And there was a famine in the land; in connection with Israel, it is written For these two years hath the famine been in the land.”⁷⁵Genesis 45:6.
Know that Abraham our father unintentionally committed a great sin by bringing his righteous wife to a stumbling-block of sin on account of his fear for his life. He should have trusted that G-d would save him and his wife and all his belongings for G-d surely has the power to help and to save. His leaving the Land, concerning which he had been commanded from the beginning, on account of the famine, was also a sin he committed, for in famine G-d would redeem him from death.⁷⁶See Job 5:20. It was because of this deed that the exile in the land of Egypt at the hand of Pharaoh was decreed for his children.⁷⁷See my Hebrew commentary, pp. 79-80, for sources and differing opinions on the view of Ramban expressed in this paragraph. In the place of justice, there is wickedness⁷⁸See Ecclesiastes 3:16. and sin.

לגור שם, not to settle there permanently.

ויהי רעב בארץ, this was one of the ten trials Avram was subjected to by G’d. He successfully mastered all of them. He never second-guessed G’d, thinking that if G’d had done things differently it would have been better, especially, better for him. He could have said that G’d had said to him that all the nations of the earth would be blessed through his presence, and if so how did his presence help them if the now had to face a famine? He did not question

ויהי רעב בארץ וירד אברם מצרימה, ”when there was a famine in the land, Avram descended to Egypt.” This too was an example of the principle of מעשה אבות סימן לבנים, that the activities of the patriarchs foreshadowed the activities of their offspring, their descendants. The family of Yaakov also moved to Egypt, and their move too had been triggered by a long famine involving also the land of Canaan. In both instances the motivation was simply survival. When the Egyptians eventually mistreated the Jews, they had not had any excuse to do so, just as Avraham had not given the Egyptians any excuse to abduct his wife. G’d, eventually, avenged the Egyptians’ abuse of the Jewish people just as He had punished Pharaoh for abducting Sarai and forcing her to be his slave [wives did not have civil rights in those days. Ed.] Just as Avraham was showered with silver and gold while in Egypt, his descendants, when leaving Egypt, took with them most of Egypt’s silver and gold. The Jewish experience in Egypt paralleled that of Avraham in even more details when the Egyptians who decreed the death of male Jewish babies also encouraged the survival of the female babies, clearly in order to make slaves of them in one way or another, just as they tried to do with Sarai. Just as Pharaoh expedited the departure from Egypt of Avraham after he had been chastised by G’d, so Pharaoh expelled the Jewish nation at the time of the Exodus. Nachmanides writes that Avraham sinned greatly when he moved to Egypt, seeing that he unintentionally subjected his wife to great danger. He should have had trust in G’d that He would save him from the famine. As a result of this lack of faith demonstrated by their forefather, his descendants were enslaved in Egypt at the hands of Pharaoh according to the principle that the penalty is administered at the site where the sin has been committed. (compare Kohelet 3,16) Avraham is not considered as having sinned when he described his wife as his sister; on the contrary, this was a meritorious act on his part, as it proves that he was loath to rely on miracles as long as he had not done what was humanly possible to save G’d from having to intervene by upsetting the laws of nature. The reputation of the Egyptians had been such that he had every reason to fear for his life if he had described Sarai as his wife.

ויהי רעב בארץ וירד אברם, “there was a famine in the land and Avram descended, etc.” Our sages (Tanchuma Lech Lecha 9) told us that what happened to the patriarchs and is reported in the Torah serves as a preview of what would happen to their descendants in the future. Everything which happened in this passage foreshadowed what happened to the Israelites in Egypt during their exile hundreds of years later. The Egyptians took Avram’s wife from him and G-d punished them with great plagues and He allowed Avram to leave the land of Egypt with both livestock and silver and gold in great quantities. Pharaoh even ordered a guard of honour to accompany Avram out of his country. History repeated itself during the exile and subsequent Exodus of the Jewish people. This is what we read in Bereshit Rabbah 40,8 “whatever happened to Avraham happened to the Israelites. In connection with Avram, the Torah says: ‘there was a famine in the land, whereas we find in Genesis 45,6 that Joseph speaks to his brothers about two years of famine which had already passed at that time. We read in connection with Avram: “the woman was taken to the house of Pharaoh,” whereas in connection with the Israelites in Egypt the decree to kill the male babies meant that the women were taken as slaves by the Egyptians (practical meaning of Exodus 1,22 ‘let every daughter live.’) In connection with Avram we read (12,17) “G-d brought great plagues on the house of Pharaoh and his servants on account of Sarai, Avram’s wife.” In connection with the Israelites in Egypt the Torah writes: “I will bring one more plague on Pharaoh (Exodus 11,1). We read in connection with Avram that he was called in to Pharaoh (12,18-19) and told “take your wife and leave!” In connection with the Israelites, (Exodus 12,31) Moses and Aaron were called in to Pharaoh and told to leave the country with all their belongings. There are several more quotations in that Midrash showing the similarity of what Avram and the Israelites experienced in Egypt.

(10-13) ויהי רעב בארץ usw. Mit diesen Worten treten wir in den Kreis einer Geschichte, die auf den ersten Blick nicht wenig Auffallendes hat. Dass Abraham das Land verließ, das ihm angewiesen war, und nicht auf Gott vertraute, der auch in Hunger und Öde zu speisen weiß! Dass er — wie es ja oberflächlich scheint — nun gar um sich zu retten, das sittliche Heil seiner Frau einer solchen Gefahr aussetzte! Wären wir nun auch nicht im Stande, das Auffallende dieser Begebenheit ganz zu beseitigen, ja, müßten wir sebst mit רמבן das schwere Wort aussprechen: הטא אברהם אבינו חטא גדול בשגגה .Abraham hat hier in seinem Verhalten mit seinem Weibe, usw" sich in eine große Sünde verirrt, und auch schon das Verlassen des angewiesenen Landes in der Hungersnot war עון אשר חטא, war ein sündhaftes Vergehen": so dürfte uns das nicht beirren. Das Gotteswort stellt uns nirgends unsere großen Männer als reine Ideale hin, es vergöttert keinen Menschen, spricht von keinem: "Hier hast du das Ideal, in diesem Menschen ist das Göttliche Mensch geworden!" Es führt uns überhaupt das Leben keines Menschen als Muster auf, dass wir aus seinem Beispiel lernen mögen, was recht und gut, was wir zu tun und zu lassen haben. Wo uns Gottes Wort ein Muster zur Nachahmung hinstellen will, da setzt es keinen staubgebornen Menschen, da setzt Gott sich selbst als Muster und spricht: "Auf mich blicket! Mir ahmt nach! In meinen Wegen wandelt!" Nirgends haben wir zu sagen: Dies muß recht sein; denn der und der hat doch so getan!

מצרימה, generally speaking, there was always plenty of food in Egypt even if famine was prevalent in neighbouring countries because Egypt did not depend on rain from above, but relied on the waters of the river Nile which were most dependable both in quality and in quantity. Even the Torah mentions this as an advantage of Egypt in Deut. 11,10 when comparing the land of Israel to that of Egypt. Avram could not cope with the famine in the land of Canaan, due to all his herds and flocks requiring water and grazing land. Besides, by then he had a household comprising many people for whose welfare he was responsible.

Die תורה ist keine "Beispielsammlung des Guten". Sie erzählt das, was geschehen ist, nicht weil es mustergültig ist, sondern weil es geschehen. Die תורה verschweigt uns die Fehler, Verirrungen und Schwächen unserer großen Männer nicht, drückt eben damit ihren Erzählungen den Stempel der Wahrhaftigkeit auf; in Wahrheit aber werden unsere großen Männer durch die uns kund werdenden Fehler und Schwächen nicht kleiner, sondern wahrhaft größer und lehrreicher. Stünden sie uns alle in reinstem, ungetrübtem Glanze da, wir würden sie einer anderen, uns versagten Natur teilhaftig glauben; ohne Leidenschaft, ohne inneren Kampf, schienen uns ihre Tugenden nur als Erzeugnis eines höheren Naturells, kaum ihr Verdienst, noch weniger ein von uns zu erreichendes Vorbild. Da ist z. B. Mosches ענוה. Wüssten wir nicht, dass er auch habe zürnen können, seine Demut wäre uns angeborenes Naturell und als Beispiel für uns verloren. Gerade sein שמעו נא המורים verleiht erst seiner ענוה die wahre Größe, zeigt sie uns als Produkt einer großen Arbeit der Selbstbeherrschung und der Selbstveredelung, der wir alle nachahmen sollen, weil wir ihr nachahmen können. Die תורה führt uns auch keine Verirrung vor, ohne uns zugleich ihre mehr oder minder trüben Folgen erkennen zu lassen. Von unseren großen תורה-Lehrern, und unter die größten zählt wahrlich רמב"ץ, wollen wir daher lernen, wie es nimmer unsere Aufgabe sein darf, als Apologeten der geistigen und sittlichen Heroen unserer Vergangenheit aufzutreten. Sie bedürfen unserer Apologie nicht und ertragen sie nicht. אמת, Wahrheit ist das Siegel unseres Gotteswortes, und Wahrhaftigkeit ist der Grundzug aller seiner wahren und großen Kommentatoren und Lehrer. Dies alles, wenn wir in Wahrheit mit dem רמכ"ץ sprechen müßten: הטא אברהם חטא גדול בשגגה. —

לגור שם, he did not intend to settle in Egypt, only to wait out the famine there.

Allein sehen wir uns doch vor diesem Urteil das mitgeteilte Faktische dieses Vorgangs näher an.

Abraham verlässt Kanaan nach eingetretener schwerer Hungersnot, wartet dort nicht ab, ob Gott ihn nicht in wunderbarer Weise mitten in allgemeiner Hungersnot doch speisen werde, sondern sucht diese Nahrung in Ägypten. Dort bringt ihn ebenso eine drohende Gefahr zur Verleugnung des wahren Verhältnisses Saras zu ihm, wodurch sehr nahe Sara sittlich gefährdet worden wäre. Sagen wir uns zuerst hinsichtlich dieses zweiten Punktes, dass denn doch diese Gefahr eine so drohende, so unvermeidliche und durch nichts zu umgehende gewesen sein müsse, dass sich ganz dasselbe später im Lande der Philister wiederholt. Würde dies irgendwie zu umgehen gewesen sein, Abraham hätte es doch nach den in Ägypten bereits gemachten Erfahrungen zum zweitenmale vermieden. Ja, wir sehen seinen Sohn Jizchak in ähnlicher Lage zu dem gleichen Mittel seine Zuflucht nehmen. Nun ist es allerdings für רמ"בן, für uns, die wir eine so reiche Erfahrung hinter uns haben, ein Leichtes zu sagen: Abraham hätte in Kanaan bleiben, in Ägypten alles der göttlichen Fügung überlassen sollen; derselbe, der dir gesagt: dies ist das Land, kann dich auch wundervoll dort erhalten, הפלא ד׳ הסיד לו, auch in Wüsteneien speist Gott mit Manna, und ׳מלאכיו יצוה לך וגו usw. Allein, dass Gott diejenigen, die seinen Willen zu erfüllen gehen, mit seiner besonderen Gnade schützend umgibt, שלוחי מצוה אינן ניזקין, ist eine Erfahrung, die Abraham und seine Nachkommen erst zu machen hatten; dem Abraham ging kein Abraham zuvor, und selbst diese Erfahrung schließt die Pflicht nicht aus, in jeder Lage bis zur Grenze des Erlaubten stets das Seinige zu tun, und nur darüber hinaus auf Gott zu vertrauen. Abraham durfte sich sagen: אין סומכין על הנס.

Und nun, sein Benehmen in Mizrajim — sollte Abraham wirklich nur für sich gefürchtet haben und deshalb, sich zu retten, seines Weibes Ehre aufs Spiel gesetzt haben? Hören wir Abraham: הנה נא ידעתי וגו׳ "siehe ich weiß es ja doch, dass du ein schönes Weib bist usw." Dieses doch setzt ja ein schon vorangegangenes Gespräch voraus. Nach allen den Vorgängen in Ägypten und dem Philisterlande dürfen wir schließen, dass — wozu auch vielleicht ein europäisches Reich moderner Zeit nicht ohne Analogie sein dürfte — die dortige Sittenlosigkeit unverheiratete Frauenzimmer geschützter als verheiratete sein ließ. Und nun zumal ein fremdes! In beiden Fällen, verheiratet oder unverheiratet, war Saras Ehre gefährdet. Allein als verheiratetes Frauenzimmer war die Gefahr geradezu drohend. Man tötet den Mann und raubt die Frau. Zu dem von einem Bruder begleiteten unverheirateten Frauenzimmer hofft man den Weg durch die Gunst des Bruders sich zu bahnen. Dieser Weg ist jedenfalls ein längerer, Aufschub bietender; inzwischen kann Gott helfen. Diese Alternative stellte sich Abraham dar, als er vor Mizrajim war. Und um Saras Willen entschließt er sich zu letzterem. Als verheiratetes Frauenzimmer war sie gewiss verloren, für die Unverheiratete die Rettung noch möglich. Saras Bescheidenheit glaubte aber überhaupt nicht an die Gefahr; sie weiß sich nicht als schönes Weib. Daher das: "Siehe, ich weiß es ja doch, dass du ein schönes Weib bist, es brauchen dich die Mizrer nur zu sehen, so werden sie mich, deinen Mann, beseitigen und dich — er drückt das, was ihr geschehen wird, mit euphe mistischer Feinheit aus — werden sie leben lassen!" Würden sie auch dich töten, es wäre das Schlimmste nicht; allein sie werden dich für Schlimmeres leben lassen! "Sage darum lieber, du seiest meine Schwester: so wird man sich mir wohlwollend erzeigen, um über mich zu dir zu gelangen" (בעבור drückt in der Regel den Zweck aus, בגלל die veranlassende Ursache) — und um den letzten Anstand zu besiegen, den Saras Bescheidenheit an diesem Verfahren nehmen konnte — fügt er scheinbar egoistisch hinzu: "und so werde ich mein Leben dir zu verdanken haben" — willst du es nicht deinetwegen tun, tue es meinetwegen! — (נָא, wie bereits bemerkt, tritt immer der Gedanken- oder Willensrichtung des andern unterbrechend oder hindernd entgegen. Daher auch הניא versagen, verweigern, nicht geschehen lassen, und נא konkret, das Halbgare, dessen Kochprozeß unterbrochen worden.) Sehen wir, ob der weitere Verlauf diese Auffassung rechtfertigt.

הנה נא ידעתי BEHOLD NOW I KNOW — The Midrashic explanation is: Until now he had not perceived her beauty owing to the extreme modesty of both of them; now, however, through this event, he became cognisant of it (Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 5). Another explanation: Usually, because of the exertion of travelling a person becomes uncomely, but she had retained her beauty (Genesis Rabbah 40:4). Still, the real sense of the text is this: Behold, now the time has come when I am anxious because of thy beauty. I have long known that thou art fair of appearance: but now we are travelling among black and repulsive people, brethren of the Ethiopians (Kushim), who have never been accustomed to see a beautiful woman. A similar example is, (Genesis 19:2) “Behold, now, my lords, turn aside I pray you.”).

BEHOLD NOW, I KNOW, ETC. 13. SAY, I PRAY, THOU ART MY SISTER. I do not know why Abraham was more fearful for her now than before. And if we say, as Rashi explains, that it was because the Egyptians were black and repulsive, now, to Abimelech, king of the Philistines, he also said so,⁷⁹Genesis 20:2. he as well as Isaac,⁸⁰Ibid., 26:7. who lived in that land by command of G-d.⁸¹Ibid., Verse 3. Perhaps the Canaanites in that generation were steeped in idolatry but restrained from unchastity more than the Egyptians and the Philistines. But this is not correct. It is possible that Abraham and Sarah had no fear until they came into a royal city for it was their custom to bring the king a very beautiful woman and to slay her husband through some charge they would contrive against him.
It appears to me correct that such was their procedure from the time they left Haran. At every place he would say, “She is my sister,” for so Abraham said, And it came to pass, when G-d caused me to wander from my father’s house, etc.⁸²Ibid., 20:13. Scripture, however, mentions it only concerning those places where something happened to them on account of it. Thus Abraham now alerted Sarah as he had charged her from the beginning. Isaac, on the other hand, was not afraid in his country and in his city. Only when he came to the land of the Philistines did he adopt his father’s way.
He [Abraham] said, That it may be well with me for thy sake, and that my soul live because of thee, meaning “as long as we are strangers in this land, until the famine will pass,” for Abraham came to live in the land of Egypt on account of the famine. When the famine passes, he would return to the land concerning which he had been commanded and which G-d had given to him and his children. He thus thought that they [he and his wife] would live through the famine and that relief and succor will come to them from G-d enabling them to return, or that it may be possible for them to flee to the land of Canaan when they⁸³“They” are the Egyptians. They will no longer guard them for they will consider them permanent settlers in the land. Then they (Abraham and Sarah) will be able to flee the country and return to the land of Canaan. will give them up.
Now Rashi wrote, “ ‘Hinei na’ (Behold now), I know. A Midrash Agada:⁸⁴A Midrash by that name. See Buber’s edition of this Midrash, p. 27. Until now he had not perceived her beauty on account of her⁸⁵In our text of Rashi: “on account of the modesty of both of them.” The Midrash Agada ascribes the modesty to Abraham. modesty. Now, however, [he became cognizant of it] through an event.⁸⁶Wading through a stream, he saw the reflection of her beauty in the water. (Midrash Agada.) Another interpretation is that because of the exertion of travelling a person usually becomes uncomely, but she [Sarah] has retained her beauty. Still the plain sense of the text is this: ‘Behold, now the time has come to be anxious because of your beauty. I have long known that you are a woman of beautiful appearance, but now we are travelling among black people, brethren of the Ethiopians, who have never been accustomed to see a beautiful woman.’ A similar example [where the Hebrew word na does not denote a request, as it usually does, but means “now”] is found in the verse, Behold ‘na’ (now), my lords, turn aside, I pray you.”⁸⁷Genesis 19:2. The Hebrew reads, hinei na adonai suru na. Now since the request is covered by the second na (suru na — turn aside, I pray you), the first na (at the beginning of the expression) can no longer mean a request; rather it means “now.” All this is the language of the Rabbi [Rashi].
This Midrash concerning the modesty between Abraham and Sarah is traditional and it has been adjoined to the verse, but there is no need for all these matters. The word na [hinei na — behold now] does not indicate only a newly arisen matter; it may be used with reference to anything which is presently in existence for it is a statement alluding to the present state of things. Behold now I know — from then until now — that thou art a woman of beautiful appearance. Of similar meaning is the verse, Behold ‘na’ (now), the Eternal hath restrained me from having children,⁸⁸Genesis 16:2. meaning from my youth until this day. Likewise is the verse, Behold ‘na’ (now), I have two daughters,⁸⁹Ibid., 19:8. for they were not born to him now. All [verses containing this expression] are to be interpreted in like manner.
It would seem from the simple meaning of the verses that Sarah did not obligate herself to say so, [i.e., that she is Abraham’s sister], but when the Egyptians, who were wicked and sinners exceedingly,⁹⁰Ibid., 13:13. saw her and they praised her to Pharaoh,⁹¹Verse 15 here. she was taken to his house. They did not ask them at all whether she is his wife or his sister, and she remained silent and did not tell them that she is his wife. It was Abraham himself who told them that she is his sister, and therefore they did well by him for her sake.⁹²Verse 16. This is the intent of the verse quoting Pharaoh, which says, What is this that thou hadst done unto me? Why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife?⁹³Verse 18. He [Pharaoh] accused him for when he saw the princes of Pharaoh taking her, he should have told Pharaoh that she is his wife. Again, he accused him for saying afterwards to the princes and the household of Pharaoh that she is his sister.⁹⁴Verse 19. But he did not at all accuse the woman for it is not proper that she contradict her husband, the suitable thing being for her to remain silent.

כאשר הקריב, close to the time when it became necessary to take such precautions, so that he would not forget.

ויהי כאשר הקריב לבא מצרימה, It happened as he came closer to Egypt, etc. Our sages (Baba Batra 16) use this verse to demonstrate how chaste Abraham was, that he had not even seen Sarah's beauty up until now. We need to understand why Abraham spoke to Sarah about her beauty.

ויהי כאשר הקריב, not just he himself, but when he had brought his camp close to the Egyptian border. He was traveling slowly, in keeping with the pace of those animals that could not move quickly. Seeing that the word הקריב is in a transitive mode, the verse must refer to Avram’s entire entourage. We encounter the same construction when the Torah reports the pursuit of the Israelites by Pharaoh in Exodus 14,10, i.e. ויהי כאשר הקריב פרעה, when the reference is to Pharaoh and his army.

He became aware of her due to an event. They crossed a river and she had to lift her clothes, so he saw she was beautiful. The Midrash says he recognized her great beauty when he saw her reflection in the water as they crossed.

הנה נא ידעתי כי אשה יפת מראה את, “I am well aware that you are a physically attractive woman;” according to the interpretation of Rabbi Joseph Kara, the Torah abbreviated what Avraham said to Sarah, the full sentence including what is reported here as a separate sentence: “I know that because you are a beautiful –white skinned – woman as soon as they see you they will kill me and take you to the king’s palace to be part of his harem. In order to save my life, say that you are my sister, instead of my wife.” Although the Egyptians were idolaters, they observed the law of not sleeping with someone else’s wife. As a result, they resorted to murder instead. This sounds strange, as the same lawgiver that prohibited adultery also prohibited murder. Their reasoning was-presumably, that it is better to murder and commit that sin once, than to commit the sin of adultery day after day. Besides, they were afraid that any husband, whose wife had been kidnapped, would complain to their respective kings about this. Once the original husband was dead, no restitution could be made.

כאשר הקריב, “as he brought his camp closer.” We find a sample of a similar construction, [instead of כאשר קרב “as he approached,” as we would have expected. Ed.] in Exodus 14,10: ופרעה הקריב, “and Pharaoh brought his army closer to the camp of the Israelites.”

לבא מצרימה, a country which was equivalent to a giant brothel. This is mentioned even more forcefully in Ezekiel 23,20 where the prophet describes the carnal attitudes of the Egyptians as אשר בשר חמורים בשרם, וזרמת סוסים זרמתם, “those whose flesh is the flesh of donkeys, and whose sperm is the sperm of horses.”

הנה נא ידעתי, even though the word נא generally describes a knowledge which one has just acquired, Avram did not want Sarai to think that he had only now discovered her good looks. He therefore used a formulation which indicated that he had been aware of her beauty ever since he had first met her. Similar constructions without the addition of ידעתי in the past tense are found in 19,2 הנה נא אדני, “now my lords,” or in 19,19 הנה נא מצא עבדך , חן, “now that your servant has found favour.” The comparison with these examples shows that the addition of the word ידעתי in our example had as its purpose to reassure Sarai that he had not only suddenly discovered that she was physically attractive.

Another explanation: It is usual ... [Despite Rashi’s first explanation,] the verse is still selfcontradictory: הנה נא is present tense, while ידעתי is past tense. Therefore he offers another explanation. (Maharshal) The simple explanation ... I now realize the time has come to be concerned. In this explanation, the verse must be divided. [The first part is:] “Behold I now realize the time has come ... .” And the [second] part starts with ידעתי: “I have known this for a long time.” Rashi then proves that a verse may be so divided (19:2): “See now my lords, please turn ... ’” [“See now” means:] “Behold, the time has come that you must be careful in regard to these cruel people.” [And “Please turn” means: “Turn off the main road to my home.” See Rashi there.] Some ask: It says in Kiddushin 41a that it is forbidden to marry a woman without seeing her first. [Why then did Avraham not know she was beautiful?] It seems the answer is: Avraham surely saw her before they married and he knew she was beautiful. But then she was very young, when it is natural to be beautiful. But now she was 65, and beauty usually changes. Thus, Avraham did not know until now [that she still was beautiful]. (Nachalas Yaakov)

If it was merely because he planned to have her describe him as her brother instead of as her husband, this would not diminish the danger they found themselves in. Sarah would be in danger of being killed if she resisted rape, or else would have to submit voluntarily to someone who fancied her. Abraham wanted to forestall Sarah's argument that he should never have brought her to Egypt in the first place and have endangered them both. While it is true that righteous people have to place their trust in G'd, this rule applies when one does not deliberately place oneself in a dangerous situation. No one has the right to make his survival depend on a miracle. We know this from the prophet Samuel who took along an animal to sacrifice when he set out to anoint David as king. He did this even though G'd Himself told him to go on that mission. When he remonstrated with G'd that the mission could be fatal for him if Saul would hear about it, G'd Himself told Samuel to camouflage it (Samuel I 16,1-5). Abraham therefore told Sarah that had he but known earlier how beautiful she was he would indeed not have undertaken such a dangerous journey. He would have taken her elsewhere. Now that they had already come close to Egypt he had found out more about the Egyptians' lack of sexual mores and the fact that they had ugly faces (or were black-skinned). He therefore had reason to fear for his life if he were to be known as Sarah's husband. He examined Sarah's beauty critically in order to understand the degree of danger that this could pose for him. Abraham did not describe Sarah as merely יפת מראה; he described her as אשה יפת מראה. There is a subtle difference here. He realised that her beauty was unique. Her beauty was bound to arouse the carnal instincts of the Egyptians.

הנה נא ידעתי, see Rashi’s commentary on this formulation, and similar examples of it in Genesis 19,2, where Lot greets the angels. [Our author refers to the part ofRashi’s commentary in which Avraham states that Sarai’s physical beauty has for the first time become something critically important. [Similarly, he compares it to Lot, who at this juncture realised for the first time how critically important an offer of hospitality to these angels may become. Ed.] He also understands the word נא in this context not as a plea, but as a reference to time being of the essence in making a decision.

Among black people. [You might ask:] The people of Avimelech were not black. Why did Avraham say there (20:2), “She is my sister”? Avraham himself already answered this by saying (20:11), “There is no fear of Elohim in this place, and they will kill me to take my wife.” Rashi explains (ad loc) that Avraham knew this since he was asked about his wife as soon as he arrived, rather than being asked about food and lodging. This is preferable to the Re’m’s answer that word had already spread that she was his sister, [thus they needed to continue saying so].

We must not question how Abraham could take a chance and take Sarah to the land of the Philistines after his experience in Egypt. Whereas the Egyptians had ugly faces, this did not apply to the Philistines. Sarah's beauty therefore did not represent such a contrast to what the Philistines were used to. This is why Abraham never ordered Sarah herself to say that he was her brother. He contented himself with describing Sarah as his sister (20,2).

כי אשה יפת מראה את, “for you are an extraordinarily beautiful woman.” This comment is an introduction to the verse following in which Avram suggests how to neutralise the danger to him that Sarai’s beauty now poses.

והרגו אותי, because they do not expect me to agree to give you to them.

והיה כי יראו אותך המצרים, It will be that as soon as the Egyptians will set eyes on you, etc. Abraham explained the reason he was going to engage in deception before he asked Sarah to lie. He wanted Sarah to speak about her brother Abraham not merely in response to questions about their status. He wanted her to make it plain even before they entered the land of Egypt that they were travelling together as brother and sister. In the event that Sarah would object to telling lies when none had as yet been called for, he told her that if they merely awaited developments it would be too late. The Egyptians would automatically assume that Abraham was Sarah's husband and they would get rid of him. They would not even bother to ask about her status.

והיה כי יראו אותך המצרים, the Egyptians themselves are physically not as attractive as the Canaanites, their relative ugliness being due to their living in a southerly extremely hot climate. Moreover, they are steeped in sexual licentiousness that makes them disregard moral mores and causes them to ignore obstacles to satisfying their lust. Avram therefore was concerned that when such ugly people see as beautiful a creature as Sarai, and they find out that she is married, they will simply dispose of the husband to remove him as an obstacle to satisfy their lust. Had Avram been aware of this situation, he would never have set out on his journey towards Egypt, but would have been content to endure the famine just as did most of the other inhabitants of the land of Canaan. He most certainly would not have put his wife at risk. Even now, Avram was not concerned that Sarai might be exposed to many rapes, something which would have been considered as ongoing violence and not have been tolerated even in Egypt. He was afraid that the Egyptians would commit only a single act of violence, namely to murder him, which would make Sarai a widow, and anyone sleeping with her would not violate the local laws of the sanctity of marriage. As to why he did not trust G’d, Who had promised to make him into a great nation, a promise that had not yet begun to be fulfilled, and preferred to resort to subterfuge, this is not surprising. We find that Yaakov also took extreme precautions in spite of having been given many assurances by G’d. The promises by G’d are based on man having taken every reasonable precaution not to require a miracle to save him from danger. When one is aware that one finds oneself in a situation where danger to one’s life is likely, one must first take every precaution at one’s disposal to counter such danger. Our sages (Pessachim 64) have told us that it is inadmissible to sit with one’s hands in one’s hands, waiting for G’d to perform a miracle to save one’s life. They base this advice on the verse in Deut. 6,16 לא תנסו את ה' אלוקיכם, “do not put the Lord your G’d in a position of having to perform a miracle for you.” When the prophet Samuel went to anoint a son of Yishai (David as it turned out) as replacement for King Sha-ul (Samuel I 16,2) he told G’d that he was afraid to do this as King Sha-ul would kill him if he heard about this, G’d did not criticise him for being afraid, but instructed him to use subterfuge so as to avoid suspicion of traitorous conduct. We learn from these examples how a righteous person must behave when he faces danger in carrying out what he knows to be G’d’s will. One must not leave matters to miracles.

והרגו אותי ואותך יחיו, “they will kill me while allowing you to live.” They will let you live thanks to your physical beauty. As a result they will feel that they have to kill me. As to why they would rather kill Avraham instead of simply sleeping with Sarai while her husband was alive, even though all of mankind had been warned not to commit murder, no less a sin than to commit adultery with someone else’s wife, the reason is psychological. Murder is committed only once on the same person, while illegal sexual intercourse and the desire to perform it is an ongoing temptation, one that will recur again and again. It was therefore easier for them to live with the knowledge of having killed than to live with the knowledge that every time they slept with someone’s wife they committed a mortal sin. Furthermore, if they were to rape Sarai while her husband was alive, they might have to face the King after Avraham had complained about his wife being violated. Once Avraham was dead, who would complain? Nachmanides writes that he does not understand what Avraham was afraid at this point more than at any time in his life previously. If it was that the Egyptians were black-skinned and more immoral than other tribes, we know that even at Avimelech’s court there was no respect for someone else’s wife if the King desired her sexually. In spite of such fears being reasonable, G’d had commanded Yitzchok not to leave the land of Israel and to proceed to the land (province) of the Philistines to wait out the end of the famine! Perhaps Avraham and Yitzchok were afraid only when they took up residence in a city, as the inhabitants of those cities were in the habit of offering any especially attractive woman to their King. They would kill that woman’s husband so that their King would not be guilty of an adulterous relationship with such a woman. This approach would be supported by what Avraham explained to Avimelech in Genesis 20,13 “when G’d caused me to wander from my father’s house, I said to her, (Sarai) ‘do me this favour: at every place we come to, say about me: ’he is my brother.’” The Torah had not mentioned this stratagem previously, except when for some reason they had to fall back on an agreement which had been practiced already repeatedly. As long as that agreement forestalled any problems, there had been no need to mention it. Yitzchok had not been afraid in his own country and had resorted to a similar stratagem only when forced to move to the land of the Philistines. When Avraham explained the planned deception as designed to benefit him personally, i.e. as potentially saving his life, (verse 13) he had in mind the entire period of the famine when he and Sarai would be forced to be strangers in a land unknown to them. He thought that this would be the way by which G’d would enable them to survive the famine which raged at that time, until a time when they could return to the land of Canaan or to flee that region altogether. It appears that the plain meaning of the text is that Sarai did not agree to the deception Avraham demanded of her. However, the Egyptians were so depraved that before even giving Sarai a chance to explain her relationship to Avraham they already abducted her, having praised her beauty to their King. They never bothered to enquire how Avraham was related to her. This is what enabled the King to exclaim afterwards: “how come you have not even told me that this woman is your wife? Why did you say “she is my sister?” The King accused Avraham of having misled both his men and himself by not revealing that Sarai was his wife. He accused Avraham of treacherous conduct after Sarai had already been abducted to his palace. According to Pharaoh, Avraham should have protested Sarai’s abduction from the very first moment instead of describing her as his sister. It was most unseemly for her to deny that he was her husband.

והיה כי יראו אותך המצרים והרגו אותי ואותך יחיו, “assoon as they will see me (your husband), they will kill me and let you live;” The Egyptian laws respected the inviolability of a man’s wife. If they wanted to get hold of his wife, their only legal way was to kill the husband on some charge. [One of the perverted concepts of Egyptian morality was that sleeping with another man’s wife is a sin which they are guilty of each time they do so, whereas killing her former husband is a sin that they would commit only a single time. Source: one of the Tossaphists. Ed.] An alternate explanation: Avram feared that he would be killed before he had a chance to appeal to the Egyptian king for justice.

ואותך יחיו, they will only let you live in order to use you as a sex object for their gratification. We encounter a similar situation when certain girls who were saved in the punitive campaign by the Israelites against Midian, were permitted to remain alive (Numbers 31,15) [all of the girls who had been too young to lose their virginity. Ed.] (compare also what the angel said to Bileam in Numbers 22,33)

למען ייטב לי בעבורך THAT IT MAY BE WELL WITH ME FOR THY SAKE — they may give me presents.

למען ייטב לי, so that when you will say that you are my sister, each one will entertain the hope that I will agree to your marrying them. Therefore, none of them will have any reason to kill me. Rather, he will seek my approval by offering me a dowry for you. It was the custom in those days that the father of the bride would be bribed with money or its equivalent to agree to let his daughter marry someone. This also explains why the Torah speaks of מהר ימהרנה in Exodus 22,15-16, i.e. “he (the seducer) shall pay a heavy dowry,” and why the option to refuse such a marriage is not so much the girl’s but her father’s, as we see from the verse following.

למען ייטב לי בעבורך. In order that I will receive benefit on your account. Abraham explained why he asked Sarah to describe him as her brother and not as some more distant relative or a total stranger. If Abraham's status were anything less than Sarah's brother the Egyptians would not have any interest in securing his goodwill. Abraham may have had yet another motivation for insisting that Sarah describe their relationship to each other instead of he himself. His own words would not convince the Egyptians as they might construe them as a stratagem to be wooed with gifts. The plain reason is no doubt that he was afraid that if he were to say he was her brother and she would say nothing, sooner or later Sarah might make a comment which would reveal that there was a husband-wife relationship between her and Abraham. When Abraham added that וחיתה נפשי, that his soul would remain alive due to the stratagem of Sarah describing him as her brother, he did not have in mind his mere physical survival. If that had been his intention he would have said ואחיה, "so that I will survive." The word וחיתה נפשי is an allusion to Sarah's remaining spiritually uncontaminated. We have a tradition (Proverbs 13,25) that צדיק אוכל לשובע נפשו, that the reason a righteous person consumes physical food is not to indulge his senses but to satisfy the needs of his soul to carry on his task in life. Abraham was motivated by similar considerations.

אמרי נא, tell those who ask you.

אמרי נא אחותי את, “Please say that you are my sister.” The word נא is an expression of an entreaty. Avraham justified the use of the white lie as he saw himself in immediate danger of being murdered. He realized that by lying he would become the beneficiary of that lie also financially.

אמרי נא אחותי את, “please say that you are my sister, etc.” This was an inadvertent sin committed by Avram; it caused the eventual exile in Egypt of his descendants. It was certainly a grave sin to cause his wife to sin on account of his own fear of being killed. He should have demonstrated faith in G-d that He would save him as well as his wife. He committed another sin when he left the land of Canaan on account of the famine. He should have demonstrated faith in G-d that He would make sure he would not die from hunger. On account of this sin his descendants were enslaved by Pharaoh. This, at least, is the view of Nachmanides.
Our sages (Nedarim 32) claim that the exile in Egypt was due to Avram asking G-d in 15,8 “how will I be sure that I (my descendants) will inherit the land?” This is also what we find in Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer 48 where G-d is quoted as having told Avram of this exile in reply to his question. [I suppose the version in Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer is older than the version in Nedarim. Ed.] At any rate, it is clear that Avram’s query in that chapter was considered sinful. The common denominator of the views expressed by our sages is that the sin consisted of thoughts which Avram articulated The result was 430 years of exile of varying degrees of severity. Seeing that the exile was due to a sin it was divided into three stages. The sin consisted of three parts. 1) sinful thought; 2) sinful speech; 3) sinful action. This is why the intelligent reader ought to reflect that the present exile is likely to last three times as if the exile in Egypt lasted 430 years and it was due merely to Avram’s inadvertently sinful utterance, it stands to reason that the present exile will last three times as long. After all, the sin which led to the 430 years of exile in Egypt was confined to an utterance by Avram which G-d considered sinful. The sin which led to the destruction of the first Temple, idolatry, (Yuma 9) was certainly much worse and not committed inadvertently and only by an ancestor to whom the Torah had not yet been given. At the time when the First Temple was destroyed most of the people had been guilty of sinning in thought, in speech, as well as in deed. G-d had therefore decreed three times 430 years of exile on the Jewish people. This must have been the basis of Daniel’s calculation. When you examine the final verses in Daniel 12,11 in which he mentions 1290 years, and 12,12 אשרי המחכה ויגיע לימים אלף שלש מאות שלשים וחמשה in which he speaks about the redemption at the end of 1335 years (years), this number is made up of three times the number 430.
[Our author misquotes the two verses in Daniel by referring only to the number 1290, ignoring the next number in the verse following. Many attempts have been made to reconcile these numbers. Seeing the commentators who labored over these verses lived before the time alluded to had elapsed, their efforts at the time were very relevant. Now that many hundreds of years have elapsed since the expiry of these 1290 or 1335 years respectively, this editor sees little point in referring to such efforts. Ed.] This may also have been what the prophet Micah 7,20 alluded to when he said: תתן אמת ליעקב חסד לאברהם,”You will keep faith with Yaakov, and maintain your love for Avraham.” (The word אמת is understood as an acrostic of אלף מתים תשעים) This was a prayer for G-d to hasten the redemption. He appealed to G-d who had sworn that He would invoke the attribute of חסד when it comes to the redemption of Israel as we know from Deut. 32,40 where G-d swore an oath to avenge Israel from its enemies. The words there כי אשא אל שמים ידי, “I raise My hand to heaven (in an oath)” are paraphrased by Daniel 12,7 וישבע בחי העולם, “He swore an oath in the name of the Eternal.”

Please say that you are my sister. That is, resolve in your heart that we are no longer married. Before the Torah was given this was sufficient to effect a divorce, hence he was not asking her to lie. Although Avraham observed the entire Torah, in this case he conducted himself according to Noachide law to save his life.

So that they give me gifts. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say ייטב? Avoidance of death is called הצלה, not הטבה. Thus Rashi explains, “So that they give me gifts.” You might ask: This implies that Avraham wanted gifts. Why did he later reject gifts from the king of Sedom? There he said (14:23), “Neither a thread nor a shoelace! I will not take anything of yours,” although the wealth was rightfully due to him, since he took it from the four kings. If so, he surely would not want outright gifts, for it is written (Mishlei 15:27): “He who hates gifts will live.” An answer is: Avraham wanted only a small gift, for it says in Berachos 10b, “One who wishes to benefit from others may do so, as did the Prophet Elisha.” This means one may take food, drink and lodging. And the proof [that Avraham objected only to substantial gifts] is that it is written (14:21): “The king of Sedom said, ‘Take take the possessions for yourself,’” to which Avraham answered, “I have lifted my hand to Adonoy ... Neither a thread nor a shoelace! ...so you will not be able to say, ‘I have made Avram wealthy.’” A further answer is: Women desire money. So in order to appease her, he told her: “Please say ... my sister, so that it will go well with me.” But Avraham never intended to take gifts from Pharaoh. A further answer is: Avraham had not yet acquired wealth, so he took gifts. [We see he was poor when he went down to Egypt] because the verse later says (13:3), “He continued on his travels,” on which Rashi says: “On his return trip he paid the debts he incurred.” But when speaking to the king of Sedom he had acquired wealth, thus he refused even what was rightfully due to him, because of “He who hates gifts will live.” Some ask: Why would Avraham want to cause the Egyptians to sin and take a married woman, by telling them Sarah was his sister? The answer is: He told them she was his sister, who was married and whose husband was overseas. This also explains why he said, “And my life will be spared because of you.” Avraham said to Sarah, “I will tell them that you are my sister, and that you are married, but your husband left you. I am searching for him — perhaps I will find him and he will give you a get, or perhaps he has died, and then you can remarry. Thus they will spare my life, [since I am helping] to avoid the sin of taking you as a married woman.” This also explains why Sarah agreed: since he told them that she might be married, they surely will not take her. (see Chizkuni)

אמרי נא אחותי את, “please say that you are my sister.” Avraham reasoned that if the Egyptians were to ask him if Sarai was a married woman, he would respond by claiming that her husband had abandoned her. The Egyptians would therefore have no reason to kill him on account of her absent husband, and they would leave her alone.

למען ייטב לי, so that on account of your describing yourself as my sister they will treat me well. The “good treatment” Avram referred to was not financial reward but simply that they would let him live. It is quite inconceivable that Avram wanted to use his wife as a pimp uses a prostitute. Even though we read in verse 15 that Avram, in the event, experienced many financial favours as the man whose consent was sought to have his sister as someone’s wife, this is something he had not counted on at all. In fact, we know how unwilling Avram was to accept people’s favours when he turned down the spoils of war which were not a gift to him but his due as he had fought that war. (Genesis 14,23.) Had he not been in Pharaoh’s country and been afraid to reject these gifts, he would most certainly not have accepted them. Avram was not interested in acquiring more wealth than G’d had seen fit to grant him.

למען ייטב לי בעבורך, “in order that I will benefit on your account (and survive).” Seeing that you have to say that you are not my wife, do it in a way that will confer benefits upon me as a direct result of your situation. By saying that you are my sister they will heap gifts upon me to secure my acquiescence.

The reason Abraham appears to repeat himself when he said 1) בעבורך, and 2) בגללך, is that he hoped he would exprience physical wellbeing as well as spiritual wellbeing due to Sarah's describing herself as his sister. Our sages (Berachot 31) explain Samuel I 1,11 אם ראה תראה בעני אמתך, to mean that if ראה, G'd would see Channah (pay attention to her prayer) and would grant her a child, all well and good; if not תראה, she would place herself in a compromising situation which would force her husband to treat her as a סוטה, a woman suspected of marital infidelity. Once she would drink the waters prescribed for such a woman (Numbers 5,24) her innocence would be established and G'd would have to grant her a child as per verse 28 in that chapter. Abraham hoped that as a result of Sarah's chastity under circumstances resembling the compromising situation a סוטה finds herself in, he and she would have a child thus assuring Abraham of his future, וחיתה נפשי, "my soul will live on." There are numerous instances where our sages have explained the word בגלל as having metaphysical significance, such as in Deuteronomy 15,10 where G'd promises that blessings will devolve upon people already if they merely promise to do charity, דבר (Tossephta Peah 4). The letter ו in וחיתה also has a special significance. Abraham did not mean that the fact that his soul would remain alive would be part of the benefit he would experience through Sarah's lie. Whereas the survival of his body would be an extension of ייטב לי, the direct benefit he would derive from Sarah's lie, the spiritual dimension, i.e. the survival of his soul would be an independent benefit, something that he would achieve later on when Sarah would be alone in the palace of Avimelech, the king of the Philistines. On that occasion he did not face expulsion from the land of the Philistines on account of having been found out as a liar (20,15). It is even possible that the fact that Sarah twice found herself in the position of a סוטה, a woman unjustly suspected of marital infidelity, once in the palace of Pharaoh, and then again in the palace of Avimelech, resulted in her ability to conceive and bear a child. Rabbi Yitzchok, (a teacher of Rashi?) suggests that when the Torah appears to repeat itself in Numbers 5,28, i.e. "if the woman has not become defiled and has remained pure," this refers to her neither having been unfaithful with the man with whom she is suspected to have been unfaithful now, nor with any other man. In such a case she will be unharmed by the waters she has drunk and able to retain seed. Accordingly, Sarah became pregnant and bore Isaac to prove that she had been faithful to her husband each time she found herself in the situation of a סוטה. The expression חיתה נפשי would refer to Abraham having children due to the chaste conduct of Sarah.

ויהי כבא אברם מצרימה AND IT CAME TO PASS WHEN ABRAM WAS COME INTO EGYPT —It should have said, “when they were come into Egypt”; but the use of the singular teaches us that he hid her in a chest, and when they demanded the custom dues they opened it and discovered her (Genesis Rabbah 40:5).

ויראו המצרים, all of them, when looking at Sarai, entertained the very thoughts Avraham had anticipated.

It should have said, “When they came...” Question: Why did Rashi not make this comment before, on (v. 10) “Avram went down to Egypt,” or on (v. 11) “As he came near and was about to enter”? There as well it should have been written, “They went down,” and, “They came near.” [Rashi’s lack of comment there] indicates that Sarah and the others were clearly included when Avraham was mentioned, as he was the central figure of the home. If so, the same should be true here. The answer is: The earlier verses raised no question because Avraham indeed was the central figure, and everything was dependent upon him. But here, Sarah was the central figure: Avraham had requested her to say she was his sister. Thus it should say, “When they came,” at least equating Sarah to Avraham. The Mahara’i answers: Only here can we object that “it should have said, ‘When they came.’” For here the subject of the verse is Sarah, not Avraham — as it is written, “The Egyptians beheld the woman.” But the earlier verse spoke of Avraham. Furthermore, Avraham was more important.

(14-19) Die Ägypter sahen die Frau, "dass sie sehr schön sei", sie erregte Aufsehen, aber weiter auch nichts. Es scheint, dass Sara ganz unangefochten geblieben wäre, — aber an den Fürsten hatte Abraham nicht gedacht. Hätte jemand aus dem Volke Neigung zu Sara gefasst, er hätte den Weg durch den Bruder genommen. Der König aber macht den umgekehrten Weg: ותֻקח, sie wird vorläufig ins Schloss genommen; allein gleichwohl wagte er nicht, sie zu berühren, hoffte auf dem Wege der Güte sein Ziel zu erreichen, denn er erzeigte Abraham Gutes, um durch ihn zu ihr zu gelangen, und es waren ihm schon צאן ובקר usw. geworden. Wäre Sara nicht dadurch, dass sie als Abrahams Schwester galt, geschützt gewesen, hätte Pharao sie sofort angetastet, so wäre ja dann gar nicht mit Geschenken an Abraham eine Zeit verstrichen, Gott hätte sie sofort durch sein Einschreiten zu schützen gehabt. Möglich auch, dass das על דבר שרי, ähnlich dem על דבר הצפרדעים וגוי (zw B. M. 8, 8), hier nicht "wegen", sondern um Saras "Wort" heißt, weil Sara ihm endlich gestanden hatte, Abrahams Frau zu sein. Jetzt, durch diese Äußerung kam sie in Gefahr, nun war jede Aussicht auf den gütlichen Weg für Pharao abgeschnitten, jetzt musste Gottes Schickung rettend eintreten. Ferner: wie wäre es zu vereinigen? Wenige Blätter weiter weist Abraham mit dem denkwürdigen הרימתי ידי usw. selbst das Ehrenvollste uneigennützig zurück, und derselbe Mann soll hier der gemeine — sein, seines Weibes Ehre zu verschachern, um sich צאן ובקר וחמרים עבדים ושפחות אתונות וגמלים zu verschaffen! Schon die Reihenfolge der Aufzählung ist bedeutsam. Sollte der Reichtum geschildert werden, den Abraham hier erworben, so würde er anders geordnet sein. Wenn Elieser Abrahams Reichtum schildert, rechnet er Schafe und Rinder, (Silber und Gold), Knechte und Mägde, Kamele und Esel auf. Ebenso wird Jakobs Reichtum geschildert, eine Menge Schafe, Mägde und Knechte, Kamele und Esel (1. B. M. 30, 43). Das ist eine begriffsmäßige Gruppierung. Schafe und Rinder sind das eigentliche Produktive, der eigentliche Besitz, (dessen Überfülle bei Abraham in Silber und Gold verwandelt war). Dieser Besitz erfordert Pflege, dazu Knechte und Mägde. Kamele und Esel sind nicht produktive, sie sind Lasttiere, Träger des Reichtums, darum sie zuletzt. So ordnet sich ein geregelter Haushalt. Hier jedoch steht es durcheinander gewürfelt, es stehen nicht nur Esel vor Knechten und Mägden, sondern es sind sogar Esel und Eselinnen weit von einander getrennt. Dieses ungeregelte Durcheinander ist gewiß sehr absichtlich, um zu sagen: Pharao versuchte es auf jede Weise, sich Abrahams Gunst zu erwerben, und schickte bald einen hübschen Ochsen, bald einen Esel, bald einen Sklaven usw. und Abraham durfte nichts anzunehmen verweigern, sonst hätte er ja Pharaos Hoffnung ja gänzlich vernichtet und Gewalt zu fürchten gehabt — alles dies wird noch durch das bestätigt, was Pharao darauf zu Abraham sagte. Er wirft ihm nicht vor, warum er überhaupt Sara nur für seine Schwester ausgegeben, sondern: "warum hast du mir nicht gesagt, dass sie deine Frau sei?" Dass er sie beim Volke für seine Schwester ausgegeben, fand Pharao ganz natürlich, aber "von mir hättest du ja nichts zu fürchten gehabt! — und hast es mir selbst nicht gesagt, als ich sie mir zur Frau nehmen wollte!" — Darauf durfte ihm Abraham natürlich keine Antwort geben. Er konnte ihm nicht sagen, dass er ihn für nicht besser als sein Volk gehalten.

ויהי כבוא אברם מצרימה, As soon as Avram came to Egypt, etc.;” according to the plain meaning of the text, it sounds as if all the people in the entourage are considered as merely as an appendage to Avram, his fate dominating what would happen to all the people who had traveled to Egypt with him. Further confirmation of this approach to the text is what we read in verse 10 where Avram is described as descending to Egypt in the singular, i.e. וירד אברם מצרימה, which sounds as if he alone had traveled to Egypt, although we know that Lot was with him.

גור: sich irgendwo als Fremder aufhalten und: fürchten. Ferner גור: junges Tier, insbesondere junger Löwe. מגורה: Scheuer, Scheune. Scheint ursprünglich "bodenlos sein" zu bedeuten, nicht im Boden wurzeln, sich nicht vom Boden getragen fühlen. Daher: Fremdling sein. Ferner: Boden, Halt verlieren, d. i, fürchten. Ebenso derjenige Raum, in welchem das vom Boden losgetrennte Getreide seinen (zeitweiligen?) Aufenthalt bekommt. Endlich auch das junge Tier, das der Mutterbrust — seinem bisherigen Boden — entnommen ist und noch nicht in eigener Kraft, noch nicht selbständig dasteht: das unselbständige Tier. — יפה, verwandt mit יפה: hauchen, und יפע: glänzen. יפח, hauchen, kommt schon übertragen, als eine geistige, unsichtbare Einwirkung vor, ויפה לקץ ,יפח חמס: deutet leise hin auf das Ende. So scheint die Bezeichnung des Schönen durch יפה von dem Reize hergenommen zu sein, den das Schöne auf seinen Beschauer übt. Alles Schöne haucht uns an, glänzt uns an. —

צאן vermutlich verwandt mit שאן, der Wurzel von שאנן, ruhig, ungestört. Der ,bezeichnete: das künstlich Geborgene צאן Laut gäbe den Begriff des Künstlichen 111צ-4ו vor Störung Gehütete, somit den Teil der Herde, der in Hürden gehalten wird. Dagegen:

בקר verwandt mit פקר בכר ,בגר, das Freie, Selbständige unter den Haustieren. חמור und אתון: spezifischer Ausdruck für Lasttiere, dem auch die Wurzeln ent sprechen. חמר verwandt mit חמר ,עמר Haufe, somit Last, und אתן verwandt mit אדן, Säulenfuß, also: Träger.

גמל: vielleicht deshalb das Kamel, weil es גמול ist, weil es lange Zeit ohne Trinken zubringt.

ויהללו אותה אל פרעה AND THEY PRAISED HER TO PHARAOH — They praised her among themselves saying, “This woman is worthy of the king (i. e. they praised her as being suitable אל פרעה for Pharaoh).

AND THE PRINCES OF PHARAOH SAW HER. The purport⁹⁵Ramban is aiming to answer the following question: In the preceding verse it says, And the Egyptians saw the woman. Why does it say here again, And the princes of Pharaoh saw her? thereof is that when the Egyptians saw her they said, “This one is worthy of the great princes,” and so they brought her before them. But they were also afraid of touching her for due to her great beauty, they knew that the king would desire her exceedingly. “And they praised her among themselves saying, ‘This one is worthy of the king.’” Thus the language of Rashi.
This is in accordance with the opinion of Onkelos who says, “And they praised her for Pharaoh.”⁹⁶Meaning that they praised her among themselves by saying that she is suitable for Pharaoh. Or it may be that they praised her to the king himself, and he sent for her and took her.

ויראו אותה שרי פרעה, they quickly quashed any hopes the commoners had entertained relating to marrying this woman.

ויראו...ותקח, our sages, in comparing the abduction of Esther, and that of Sarai, point out that whereas with Esther the word used is ותלקח, here the word used by the Torah is ותקח, a pual (strong passive) mode, as opposed to a nifal-passive mode. (compare Torah Shleymah item 157 on this) In Sarai’s case, the formulation reflects the fact that she was a married woman, so that her abduction was a violation of her and her husband’s rights, whereas in Esther’s case it was “merely” a violation of her rights. According to our author Esther had been agreeable to participating in the contest. [The passive form would only reflect that none of the girls were active, but were selected by the king’s servants who had to decide if they had a chance to appeal to the king. Ed.]

ויראו אותה שרי פרעה, “When the ministers of Pharaoh saw her, etc.” When the local Egyptians saw this beautiful woman they said that she is suitable for highly placed ministers, etc. But even when they brought her to such ministers they were afraid to touch her themselves, preferring to bring her to the King, having decided that she was suitable only for the King himself.

They praised her among themselves saying ... Otherwise it should have written לפני פרעה or לפרעה, [rather than אל פרעה].

ולאברם הטיב בעבורה AND TO ABRAM HE DEALT WELL — he means Pharaoh — בעבורה FOR HER SAKE.

ולאברם היטיב בעבורה, as soon as the king had taken Sarai he showered Avram with favours, seeing that she had described him as her brother. The favours consisted of the king sending him livestock, as well as other gifts which he could enjoy personally, so that he would give his consent to the marriage. Afterwards, when he had been punished by G’d, he did not ask Avram for forgiveness but deported him, as opposed to Avimelech (Genesis 20,14) The meaning of the words

ותקח האשה ולאברם היטיב, the members of Pharaoh’s household did not even waste time to seduce Sarai but abducted her forcefully. They thought that seeing that it was a compliment for Sarai to be desired by the king himself, she would automatically consent to such an elevation of her status. Seeing that she had described herself only as Avram’s sister and not his wife, they had no reason to believe that there was a legal obstacle to such a union. Pharaoh himself said “I took her as a wife for myself,” not a concubine, not a mistress. In verse 19 he explains that he had taken Sarai as a wife, feeling certain that she was not legally linked to any other man.

ולאברם היטיב בעבורה, “He conferred benefits on Avram on her account.” Even though Avraham did not want to accept gifts from the King of Sodom (later on), here he was forced to accept the gifts or they would have realized that he was Sarai’s husband.

ויהי לו צאן ובקר, “he retained sheep and cattle.” The word ויהי in this instance does not mean that he now acquired them, but that he retained the flocks and herds he had owned previously. He did not purchase them in Egypt and made profit there. After all, Avram had only asked that his life be spared.

ולאבדם היטיב בעבורה, “and he had done Avram favours on her account.” Rashi quotes the verse without offering any commentary on it.

ויהי לו, is that these gifts which used to belong to Pharaoh remained in Avram’s possession.

'וינגע ה' וגו AND THE LORD PLAGUED PHARAOH etc. — He was smitten with the disease of Raathon for which marital relations are harmful.

BECAUSE OF SARAI ABRAM’s WIFE. This means that because of the wrong done to Sarah, as well as to Abraham, and the merit of both of them, these great plagues came upon Pharaoh and his house.

וינגע ה' את פרעה נגעים גדולים, only Pharaoh was struck with “great” afflictions,

וינגע ה׳ את פרעה. G'd brought plagues on Pharaoh. The word וינגע is related to נגע, touched. When Pharaoh was about to touch Sarah, G'd revealed to him that she was married to Abraham.

'וינגע ה, immediately, in the night following Sarai’s abduction. G’d’s objective was to prevent Pharaoh from defiling Sarai through sexual contact with her.

וינגע ה' את פרעה, “The Lord smote Pharaoh with plagues, etc.” It is difficult to understand why G’d punished Pharaoh for a crime committed inadvertently. He had not been warned not to take Sarai as a wife, as had been the case with Avimelech. Some commentators are of the opinion that Pharaoh did indeed sin intentionally as G’d had informed him that Sarai was Avram’s wife. The fact that Pharaoh reacted by saying to Avraham: “here is your wife, take her and leave,” is proof that someone had informed him. Clearly, this had been G’d, although He may not have spelled it out in these words. According to Nachmanides when these plagues struck Pharaoh and his household suddenly, he wondered what G’d had done to him and why; he asked Sarai if she could account for this and she told him the reason. Thereupon Pharaoh called in Avraham and accused him without being specific, as he was not sure that the plagues were indeed related to this matter. Alternatively, as our sages explained this, the plague consisted of Pharaoh suddenly becoming impotent so that it dawned on him that this could be related to the fact that the woman in question was someone’s wife. He accused Avraham only tentatively, questioning him, afraid to accuse him explicitly. Had Avraham said: “she is my sister,” he would not have said to him: take your wife and go.” Avraham remained silent throughout, as he was far too afraid. Pharaoh interpreted his silence as an admission, this is why he added: “take tour wife and depart!”

וינגע ה' את פרעה, “G’d smote Pharaoh with plagues, etc.” Most commentators believe that this statement is to be interpreted literally, i.e. that Pharaoh was personally smitten with afflictions. They interpret Genesis 20,18 as meaning that the vaginal openings of the women and the penises of the men in Avimelech’s household were blocked by divine action (Baba Kama 92). This is also based on Chronicles I 16,21 לא הניח לאיש לעשקם ויוכח עליהם מלכים, “He allowed no one to oppress them; He reproved kings on their account.”
On the other hand, Rabbi Saadyah Gaon understands our verse as a threat by G’d to afflict Pharaoh. His reasoning is that if G’d had afflicted Pharaoh prematurely this would not have been fair justice as Sarai had been brought to Pharaoh’s palace by others (without his having ordered this) and he personally had not yet laid a hand on Sarai. Seeing that he had not yet committed a sin why would G’d punish him as a preventive measure? Rabbi Saadyah Gaon applies the same reasoning to what happened later at the court of Avimelech (chapter 20). As to Genesis 20,17 where the Torah expressly reports that G’d healed Avimelech and his household in response to Avraham’s prayer, Rabbi Saadyah understands this verse not so much as a healing after an affliction but as a preventive medicine G’d provided against Avimelech and his household suffering such afflictions in the future. This would be a demonstration of the verse in Exodus 15,26 כי אני ה' רופאך, “for I the Lord am your Healer.” In that passage the Torah had also spoken about afflictions which were not going to be visited upon the Jewish people, and G’d describes this as a result of His acting as Israel’s Healer. As to the verse we quoted from Chronicles, Rabbi Saadyah understands this as referring to verbal warnings not to actual occurrences.
Our sages clearly did not understand matters in this way and believed that seeing that these two kings both had evil intentions G’d countered their evil intentions by forestalling the harm they were about to do and effectively smiting them by disabling the respective organs with which they were going to commit their sin. The sages of the Talmud understand our verses literally.

With a kind of skin disease ... There are twenty-four types of rashes, none of which is more harmful for marital relations than this kind (ראתן). And [it must be that] Pharaoh was afflicted with it, for otherwise how did Pharaoh know she was his wife, so that he immediately called for Avraham [and said, “She is your wife”]?

וינגע ה' את פרעה, “Hashem afflicted Pharaoh with a painful plague;” the reason why the Torah offers no further details about the nature of this plague, as opposed to when Avimelech was struck with impotence and the women in his country were afflicted in their birth canals, is because shortly after the episode with Avimelech the Torah reported that Sarah conceived and became pregnant (Genesis 21,1). Had the Torah not spelled out that Avimelech had become totally impotent, people might have attributed Sarah’s pregnancy to her having stayed in Avimelech’s Palace. The episode with Pharaoh had occurred perhaps a s long as 20 years earlier, so that no one could have fabricated such a story. To the question why Pharaoh was punished, seeing that Avram had deceived him by saying that she was his sister, as we know from the Torah quoting him, Sarai had described herself as Avram’s wife even if he had not said so. This is the meaning of the words: על דבר שרי אשת ברם “on account of what Sarai, Avram’s wife had said.” Pharaoh had ignored her. Gentiles do not have to be warned not to violate the commandments they have accepted to observe, as we pointed out in connection with Genesis 20,5. (The second Avimelech and Rivkah)

Sarai, Avram’s wife. She cried out that she was Avram’s wife but Pharaoh refused to listen.

ואת ביתו AND HIS HOUSE — Take it as the Targum has it: “and the people of his house”. A Midrashic explanation is: the word את is used here to imply that included in the curse were also its walls, pillars and its utensils (Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 5). The whole of this explanation of ואת ביתו is given in an old text of Rashi.

whereas his household suffered lesser afflictions. This was arranged by G’d so that the Egyptians, when they saw that only Sarai had remained completely immune to these afflictions, would conclude that the afflictions were on account of her and her fate.

ואת ביתו, the men of his household, the very men who had praised Sarai’s beauty to their king and had abducted her. Alternatively, the meaning of these words could be that all members of the palace household, whether male or female, were afflicted with this plague in order for them to recognise the finger of G’d’s retribution for violating Sarai’s rights as an individual.

According to her words. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it not written אודות שרי [instead of דבר שרי]?

וינגע ה׳ את פרעה, “Hashem afflicted Pharaoh.” According to Rashi, He afflicted him with a kind of gonorrhea, thus making the punishment fit the crime. The same occurred with Sarai and Avimelech. G-d interfered with all the women in the land of the Philistines being unable to give birth to fetuses that were ready to be born. (B’reshit Rabbah end of chapter 52.) According to a dissenting view, Pharaoh had become afflicted with tzoraat, a skin eczema resulting in the afflicted persons being ostracized.

על דבר שרי BECAUSE OF SARAI (literally, by the word of Sarai) — at her orders: she said to the angel “Smite” and he smote (Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 5).

על דבר שרי, so that they could not claim that the plague was a coincidence, not related to Sarai’s abduction. An allegorical approach (related to a Midrash quoted by Rashi) the words על דבר שרי אשת אברם were spoken by the angel who inflicted this plague on Pharaoh and his household. The plain meaning is that after suffering this affliction, Pharaoh searched in his mind why this should have happened to him, and it eventually occurred to him that Sarai might have been a married woman. He then asked Sarai to tell her the truth. She replied that she was indeed Avram’s wife, and that seeing they had been afraid for Avram’s life, she had agreed to this semi-deception. As a result of this revelation, Pharaoh called Avram and confronted him personally.

AND PHARAOH CALLED ABRAM. It is possible that when the plagues suddenly came upon him and his house at the very time Sarah was taken to his house, he thought to himself, What is this that G-d hath done unto us?⁹⁷Genesis 42:28. And so he asked her, and she told him that she is Abraham’s wife. For this reason he called Abraham and accused him. Or it may be, as our Rabbis say,⁹⁸Bereshith Rabbah 41:2. It is also mentioned in Rashi. that Pharaoh was smitten with a certain skin disease which is aggravated by intimacy with a woman. Therefore he suspected that perhaps she is Abraham’s wife, and so he said to him with uncertainty, What is this that thou hast done unto me?, in order to draw the truth from him. Were she his sister, he would say, “Indeed, she is my sister.” And Pharaoh further said to him, Now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.⁹⁴Verse 19. He said this in order to see what he would say, and now he would answer his reproof. But Abraham remained silent and did not answer him a word out of his great fear. Then Pharaoh understood that she is his wife as he had suspected, and then Pharaoh commanded his men to send him away.

למה לא הגדת לי, even if you had reason to suspect the ordinary citizens would harm you on account of her, surely you could have told me, the king, the truth, seeing that it is my task to rule with justice.

ויקרא פרעה לאברם. Pharaoh called in Abram. Why does the Torah quote Pharaoh as saying למה, why, twice in succession? Perhaps he wanted to give expressions to two levels of his astonishment at Abraham's conduct. First he accused Abraham of entrapping him by withholding the information that Sarah was married, a fact which could cause Pharaoh to commit a sin. Secondly, Pharaoh could not understand that Abraham had not only withheld relevant information but had deliberately misinformed him when he described Sarah as his sister.

One reason why Pharaoh and Avimelech reacted differently to Abraham's deception may have to do with the ugliness of the Egyptians. Pharaoh expelled Abraham (12,20), whereas Avimelech put the whole country at his disposal (20,15). Pharaoh could not be sure that some other member of his people would not rape Sarah even after he had released her since Sarah's beauty was in such contrast to that of his own people and his people were steeped in sexual permissiveness. Avimelech had no such concerns. This is why he asked Abraham: "what did you see, etc?" He meant "why did you have reason to be worried?" Pharaoh understood very well that Abraham would never feel safe once the people knew Sarah was his wife. He had to be given safe conduct out of the country. The Torah tells us of the hypocrisy of Pharaoh by adding his second question. Pharaoh was entitled to the first question. He could claim that Abraham should have told him at least privately that Sarah was his wife. He claimed to have been insulted by Abraham's lie since he would have provided Abraham with security once he knew that he was Sarah's husband. Abraham had made it plain by his lie that he even suspected Pharaoh himself of being unable to restrain his lust. He wanted Abraham to believe that either a) he would have provided him with a security escort, or b) he would have sent him out of the country immediately. We might well ask why every husband who comes to a foreign country has to identify his entourage and point out to the king who is his wife.

Pharaoh asked why Abraham told a lie though normally there had not been a need for him to say anything regarding this woman. Nonetheless Sarah's extraordinary beauty should have prompted him to come forward and tell the truth in order to ensure his and her safety. The moment Abraham misrepresented the facts, he only had himself to blame if Pharaoh decided to take Sarah for himself. Abraham could not answer Pharaoh without insulting him further by telling him that he placed no trust in his assurances, that he thought Pharaoh perfectly capable of doing what he did even had he known that Sarah was married to him. Pharaoh may well have got the hint; this may be why he hastened to expel Abraham and entourage from Egypt.

קח ולך TAKE HER AND GO AWAY — Not as Abimelech who said to him (Genesis 20:15) “Behold, my land is before thee; dwell wherever it seemeth proper to thee”: but he (Pharaoh) said to him, “Go and do not stay here,” for the Egyptians are greatly addicted to lewd-living, as it is said. (Ezekiel 23:20). “And whose issue is like the issue of horses” (Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 5). (The passage deals with the immoral practices of the Egyptians).

SO THAT I TOOK HER TO BE MY WIFE. The meaning thereof is that it was Pharaoh’s intention that she be his regal wife, not just his concubine. Pharaoh mentioned this to Abraham so that he should confess to him if she is his sister, as I have explained.

?למה אמרת אחותי היא, even after she had already been brought to my palace?

למה...לאשה, I did not take her merely to sleep with her but I took her to be my wife.

ואקח אותה לי לאשה, “so that I took her to be my wife.” He meant that Sarai was intended to be his queen, as opposed to her being merely a concubine. He used this phraseology in order to induce Avraham to reveal whether she was indeed his wife or not.

הנה אשתך קח ולך, “here is your wife, take her and go!” Avram did not bother to make a response to Pharaoh although he did make a response to Avimelech in chapter twenty. In the latter case he excused his conduct by saying he had feared for his life if he would have declared that Sarai was his wife. The obvious question is that seeing that both kings had asked him about his relationship to Sarai, why did Avram see fit to explain his conduct to Avimelech whereas he did not do so vis-a-vis Pharaoh?
We must conclude that the manner in which Pharaoh restored his wife to him by saying only the minimum words required “take and go,” indicated to Avram that he was not interested in listening to explanations.

למה אמרת אחותי היא, “why did you say: “she is my sister,” whereas she never said that you are her brother. This is distinctly different from when Sarah had been kidnapped by Avimelech, and the latter had subsequently accused her in his dream of having said that Avraham was her brother. (Genesis 20,5) [It was part of his plea that he was totally innocent. Ed. Our author ascribes Sarah’s conduct vis a vis Pharaoh as due to her relative youth and naivety, whereas by the time she was kidnapped by Avimelech she had become more familiar with the real world.

ואקח אותה לי לאשה, so that I took her to be my wife, not my concubine. I though that seeing that she is your sister you would surely approve of this union!

הנה אשתך, here she is, as much your wife as before, since I did not touch her.

הנה אשתך קח ולך, “here is your wife, take her and leave” They did not part on cordial terms as in the case of Avimelech, who allowed Avraham to settle anywhere he chose in his country. (Genesis 20,15) The Egyptians knew no sexual restraints and Pharaoh was afraid if Avraham stayed there he might be exposed to further dangers on account of his wife.

קח ולך, go and leave immediately before any person in my kingdom tries to rape her. She is too beautiful for most of my subjects to resist the temptation she represents for them. The reason why Avram did not bother to answer Pharaoh as he did Avimelech later (20,11-13) was because Avimelech had not expelled him, so that he deserved an answer.

ויצו עליו AND PHARAOH GAVE COMMAND CONCERNING HIM— עליו means for his sake — to escort him and to protect him.

ויצו עליו פרעה אנשים, to protect both him and his wife, so that the Egyptians would not molest them.

וישלחו אותו ואת אשתו ואת כל אשר לו, “they escorted him and his wife and all his belongings.” Even though Avraham had treated them badly they did not take back the gifts they had given to him.”

Concerning him. Rashi is answering the question: If [ויצו עליו means] Pharaoh commanded Avraham some-thing, why does the verse not say what it was? Thus Rashi says it means, “Concerning him, to escort and protect him.” But a question remains: How did Rashi know that this is what Pharaoh had commanded? Perhaps he commanded that they let Avraham depart in peace, unhindered, not that he be protected. To answer this, Rashi explains that וישלחו means as the Targum says: “They escorted him.” And this implies, “To protect him.” [Note: The text of Rashi’s commentary on 13:1-2 was apparently in a different order than it appears today.] But a question still remains: How did the Targum know this? To answer this, Rashi explains that כבד מאוד (v. 2) means, “He was laden with baggage.” Since the Torah relates Avraham’s honor at length, his departure from Egypt must also have been in an honorable fashion. And that is why Rashi explained כבד מאוד before ויעל אברם, contrary to the order of the verses.

ויצו עליו. Nach Aben Esras Meinung wäre dies ein freundliches Benehmen gegen Abraham gewesen, es wäre das Verbot ergangen, dass keiner ihm und den Seinigen zu nahe trete. Allerdings ist צוה על in der Regel ein Verbot, eine Beschränkung; allein dann bezieht sich das על immer auf die Person oder den Gegenstand, der beschränkt werden soll, so ועל הנביאים צויתם Amos 2, 12. ועל העבים אצות Jesaias 5, 6. Also auch hier: Pharao legte Abraham eine Beschränkung auf, er bestellte Leute über ihn, die dafür zu sorgen hatten, dass er das Land verlasse — ganz so wie später gegen Israel, wie denn überhaupt die ganze Begebenheit eine merkwürdige Analogie für die spätere Geschichte bietet. —

וישלחו AND THEY ACCOMPANIED HIM — as the Targum has it: they gave him an escort.)

וישלחו אותו, as far as the border of the country.