Commentary for Genesis 26:26

ואחזת מרעהו —as the Targum renders it: וסיעת מרחמוחי which means a company formed from his friends, the מ meaning from סיעת ממאוהביו. There are some who explain that in מרעהו the מ is part of the noun מרע — just like (Judges 14:11) “Thirty companions (מרעים)” in the narrative of Samson — in order that the word ואחזת should be taken to be the construct state to מרעהו (the company of his friends). But it would not be a polite thing to speak thus of a king — the company of his friends — for if this were the meaning it would imply that he (Abimelech) took with him the whole company of his friends and that he had no more than one group of friends. For this reason it should be interpreted in the first way (that אחזת is not construct). And you need not be surprised at the ת of אחזת although the word is not in the construct state, for we have similar cases in Scripture: (Psalms 60:13) “help (עזרת) against the adversary”, and (Isaiah 51:21) “Drunken, (שכרת) but not with wine”.

מרעהו ואחזת, with an entourage of his friends, as per Onkelos. The expression מרעהו occurs in this sense in Judges 15,6. The prefix מ in the word מרעהו is similar to the same prefix in the מריע ותוקע (Rosh Hashanah 33) [an unusual shift from the simple active mode kal, to the causative mode hiphil for basically the same activity, namely blowing the shofar. Ed.] as well as the מ in Jeremiah 21,4 אנכי מסב את כלי המלחמה, “The author quotes several more examples, as for instance, Proverbs 12,26 יתר מרעהו צדיק, ודרך רשעים תתעם, “the righteous enjoys advantages over his fellow man; the way of the wicked leads him astray.” [If I understand correctly, the letter מ is used transitively, although in this instance in the construction of a noun. Avimelech’s entourage רעהו was meant to give moral support to Avimelech in this ordinarily humiliating undertaking for him. Rash’bam goes as far as understanding the word ויתורו in Numbers 13,2 not as commonly understood as a verbal form of תור, “to tour, to traverse,” but as related to the word יתר from יתרון quoted in his citation from Proverbs 12,26. As to the fact that, if so, he word in Numbers should have been ויתירו instead of ויתורו, he quotes the interchangeable usage or ישוב and ישיב as well as יקום and יקים as examples where the hiphil is also used with the letter ו instead of the letter י for the middle root letter, עיו הפועל. Ed.]

[Dear reader, you will note that the author distances himself from the commentary of the Bereshit Rabbah on the following verse, calling it merely homiletical, and proceeds to substitute his own. I leave it to you to decide which approach seems more far-fetched. I have followed my practice of printing this commentary in smaller print than usual in such cases Ed.]
ואבימלך הלך אליו מגרר, and Avimelech went to him from Gerar, etc. Why did the Torah have to tell us where Avimelech came from? We know he lived in Gerar! Aware of this difficulty, Bereshit Rabbah 64,9 mentions that the word מגרר is to be understood here as מגורר, that the king experienced strange growths on his body which he attributed to his treatment of Isaac. Of course, this is an homiletical explanation only.. Besides, why did he have to take his general Phichol and Achuza along? If these people were merely part of the Royal entourage, the Torah did not have to bother mentioning it.

ואבימלך...ואחוזת מרעהו, Avimelech had a powerful minister whose name was Achuzat (Bereshit Rabbah 64,9) The Massoretes claim that the word is not the name of a human being. Accordingly, the word מרעהו would have to be understood as similar to Kings I 4,5 רעה המלך, “a companion of the king, a close friend.” The leading minister, comparable to a prime minister in a constitutional monarchy, always had the title רע המלך, “the King’s closest associate.” The letter מ in the word מרעהו belongs to the groups of letters known as אותיות א-מ-ת-י-ן which often are used as additional letters. For instance, we find this extraneous letter מ in connection with רע also in Judges 14,20 ותהי אשת שמשון למרעהו אשר רעה לו, “Shimshon’s wife then married one of those who had been his wedding companion.” Onkelos translates the words אחוזת מרעהו as “a group of his supporters.” Accordingly, the verse means that Avimelech took with him a number of his close advisers, friends. According to Onkelos the meaning of the letter מ in the word מרעהו is a mem hashimush, a formative letter varying pronoun endings, etc., so that the word רעהו would be the same as רעיו, His companions, and the unusual plural ending, the same as in Nachum 2,4 מגן גבוריהו, “his warriors’ shields.” The word גבוריהו is an alternate for גבוריו.

ואבימלך הלך אליו מגרר, “and Avimelech walked to him from Gerar.” The reason the Torah wrote מגרר, something quite superfluous, is so that we can read the word as מגורר, full of eczema; his skin had developed painful boils, etc. (compare Bereshit Rabbah 64,9).

Dieser Besuch des Abimelech ist sehr charakteristisch. Obgleich er selbst dem Abrahamssohne die dem Vater zugesicherte Bundestreue gebrochen, lag ihm doch daran, von dem Sohne einen Bundeseid zu erhalten. War es ja auch in späterer und spätester Zeit des jüdischen Nationallebens eben die jüdische Nation, die jedem Völkerrechtlich geschworenen Bundeseide unter allen Umständen die Treue hielt, und um dieser Treue willen notorisch geachtet war. Ebenso charakteristisch ist das ונשלחך בשלום, "dass sie ihn ungeplündert fortgewiesen", rechnen sie als hohe Wohltat an! —

ואחוזת מרעהו, “and a group of his friends,” (as per Targum) Some commentators believe that the word אחוזת refers to an individual named thus. (B’reshit Rabbah 64,9). This is supported by the messorah, (the notes made by the sages responsible for ensuring that the text of the Torah is accurate.) מרעהו, “his friend.” As far as the prefix מ in that word is concerned, it is not a prefix but part of that person’s name. We find something similar in Judges 15,6: ויתנה למרעהו, “he gave her (Samson’s wife) to מרעהו. “

ואחוזת; some commentators (quoted by Baal Haturim) understand this word as being a personal name as opposed to a title or rank.

אחזת signifies a collection and band, and a band is so called because the people who constitute it are held נאחזין together.

ופיכל שר צבאו, this was the same general who had held this position in Avraham’s time with the former Avimelech.

The intent of the Torah is to explain why Avimelech suddenly needed Isaac as an ally and flattered him though he should have been secure in the knowledge of the covenant Abraham had made with him (21,23). The validity of that covenant extended for three generations into the future. Nachmanides attempts to answer this problem claiming that Avimelech was simply afraid that Isaac would not honour a covenant made by his father seeing that Avimelech on his part had violated the agreement by expelling Isaac. I have not seen anywhere that part of the agreement between Abraham and Avimelech included the right of Abraham or his descendants to reside in the land of the Philistines. There was therefore no breach of the agreement when Avimelech asked Isaac to leave Gerar, and the problem we have raised remains unanswered.

מרעהו, während רע, von רעה ein inniges Freundschaftsverhältnis bezeichnet, in welchem jeder in dem andern seine "Weide", seine Befriedigung findet, bezeichnet מֵרֵעַ mehr den Vergnügungsgenossen, wie bei Simson. Es scheint auch das מ mehr ein sachliches als ein persönliches zu bezeichnen, mehr "Bekanntschaft" als Bekannter, ebenso mehr Genossenschaft als Genosse. — אחוזה scheint den ganzen Vorrat an Genossen zu bedeuten, was er nur an Genossen besaß. אחז kommt ja häufig auch von Personen vor, ותאחזני ימינך usw. — פיכול, da der Feldherr in Abrahams Zeit auch פיכול hieß, so kann es, wenn es nicht derselbe war, ein amtlicher Name sein, wie אבימלך für alle philistäischen Könige, so: פי כל, "der Mund aller", d. h. der Befehlshaber, für alle dortigen Feldherren.

מרעהו, a friend of Avimelech; the letter מ in this word would then be part of his name; an example of something similar is found in Judges 14,20: ויתנה לרעהו, “he (the father of Shimshon’s wife gave her to someone by the name of מרעהו.” (Pessikta zutrata) The word: אחוזת would then not be a personal name.

We have learned in Nedarim 65 that if someone has denied himself (by a vow) the benefit of anything owned by a second party such a vow can be annulled only in the presence of the other affected party. The Talmud understood the words of the Torah in which Moses agreed to stay with Yitro as a vow not to return to Pharaoh in Egypt. When G'd told Moses to return to Egypt the Torah says: "G'd said to Moses in Midian 'go return to Egypt" (Exodus 4,19). There too the words "in Midian" appear superfluous at first glance, except for the fact that G'd told Moses that seeing he had made his vow in Midian that was the place he had to annul it. Concerning the rule that the annulment has to take place where the vow was made originally, we find the following glossary in Haga-ot Maimoniyot chapter six of Hilchot Shevuot: Ri states that this ruling applies in that form only as a desirable (לחתחילה) form of annulment. If, however, the vow was revoked by the person who made it in the absence of the person affected by it, such an annulment is valid. Even the rule that it is desirable that the person who was the subject of the vow be present at the annulment applies only when the person who denied himself any benefits of that party had originally been the recipient of a favour by that party, such as Moses to whom Yitro had given his daughter, or King Zedekiah who had been set free by King Nebuchdnezzar. When no such benefit had been received by the person who has made the vow there is no need for the subject of the annulment to be present at all, as we know from Sotah 36. Thus far the quote from Haga-ot Maimoniyot. From the above it is clear that the person who uttered the oath denying himself benefits from a second party can proceed to have this oath annulled without bothering about the presence of the second party involved. The question of whether Abraham had obtained benefits from Avimelech prior to having sworn an oath to him is therefore irrelevant. As a matter of record, Abraham received absolutely no benefit from Avimelech. The gifts that Avimelech gave him were only in expiation for the humiliation he had caused Sarah. The report in the Torah shows clearly that Abraham departed from Gerar immediately after that episode and settled in Beer Sheva. Abraham did not accept Avimelech's gifts in order to remain in Gerar but moved to Beer Sheva where Isaac also lived after his expulsion from Gerar. I have found a statement recorded in Bereshit Rabbah 54,2 on Genesis 21,23 where Avimelech refers to the kindness he showed Abraham and requests a kindness in return. The "kindness" was Avimelech's offer to Abraham to reside in the land of the Philistines, an offer which Abraham declined. The request to conclude a treaty was meant to be Abraham's quid pro quo for that offer. When the Torah quotes Avimelech as having performed acts of kindness towards Abraham, the Torah reports Avimelech's own version, not an historical fact. Isaac, on the other hand, did remain in the land of the Philistines, prospering greatly during his sojourn there. When the Torah reports Avimelech as going to Isaac from Gerar this means "on account of the legal situation deriving from Isaac's stay in Gerar." Abraham had not accepted Avimelech's offer at the time, and could therefore annul his oath without the presence (agreement) of Avimelech. The fact that Isaac did accept Avimelech's offer, made it impossible for him to annul Abraham's covenant without the presence (agreement) of Avimelech.

We may assume that Abraham did not agree with the approach of the Ri when Avimelech made Abraham swear the covenant but agreed with the approach of Maimonides. The latter writes in Hilchot Shevuot chapter 6 that whoever makes his fellow man render an oath cannot annul such an undertaking unless the other party is present even though he had not received any benefit from the party requesting the oath. Maimonides does agree, however, that if this provision was ignored the annulment is still valid precisely because the party who swore never received any benefit from his opposite number. Later halachic authorities such as the Raa'vad, Rashba and others feel that such an annulment is not valid even ipso facto, i.e. בדיעבד. Avimelech wanted to cover all his bases and therefore went to Isaac and took with him Phichol and Achuzat to lend added strength to the agreement to be forged, as we shall explain.

ואחוזת מרעהו ופיבול, וגו׳. And Achuzat and Phichol, etc. We need to know why Avimelech had to take these two people with him, something he had not done when he made a covenant with Abraham.

We may understand this with the help of a comment by Ran in Nedarim 65. He expresses doubt as to the ruling about the affected party having to be present when the vow is revoked unless the vow was designed originally to be of benefit to the party becoming its subject. [King Zedekiah (Chronicles II 36,13 as interpreted by the Talmud Nedarim 65), had vowed not to reveal the fact that he had observed king Nebuchadnezzar eat a raw hare. Had this fact become common knowledge, Nebuchadnezzar's image would have suffered amongst his subjects. Zedekiah therefore should not have had his vow annulled without the presence (consent) of Nebuchadnezzar, seeing such annulment was to his detriment. Ed.] Ran quotes unnamed sources who hold that the whole rule of requiring the consent (presence) of the second party is valid only if the second party would suffer embarassment if the party who made the vow originally now wants to annul it. Other authorities hold, however, that the reason for the rule is to ensure that the second party does not inadvertently commit a sin by not being aware that the vow had been annulled. According to the latter view, when the vow had not conferred a benefit upon the second party, it suffices to inform the second party, his presence or consent is not required. According to the former view the affected party's presence (consent) would be required as a condition for such annulment to become valid.

Avimelech may have been astute enough to try and prevent Isaac from annulling his (or his father's) vow by converting the covenant made with Abraham (in private) into a covenant made in public. We have learned in Gittin 46 that according to the view of Rabbi Yehudah a vow made in public can never be annulled. On folio 36 the Talmud quotes the opinion of Amemar that even according to the view that vows made in public are subject to annulment this is so only when the vow was not made with the consent of the people present at the time such vow was made. Tossaphot explain that Amemar does not necessarily disagree with the view of Rabbi Yehudah that publicly made vows are not subject to annulment. It emerges from the opinion expressed by Rav Yoseph in Pessachim 107 that the discussion is resolved in favour of the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah, whereas at the end of the discussion the other rabbis rule in favour of the opinion expressed by the Rabbanan. Later authorities, i.e. the Geonim, again rule in favour of Rabbi Yehudah. At any rate, Avimelech took along an entourage, i.e. Achuzat and others in order to make the vow they wanted Isaac to undertake qualify as an oath made in public and therefore not subject to annulment at any future time. Our rabbis in Gittin disagree on how many people must be present in order for such a vow to be considered "public." Rabbi Nachman holds that the presence of three people suffices, whereas Rabbi Yitzchok holds that there has to be a quorum of ten people. After perusing what our sages have written on this subject in Bereshit Rabbah 64,2 concerning the meaning of ואחוזת מרעהו, I found that Rabbi Yehudah defines the meaning as simply the name of the person, whereas Rabbi Nechemyah understands it as a procession of wellwishers. Perhaps the disagreement mentioned in that Midrash is parallel to the disagreement whether three or ten people are required in order to qualify a vow as having been made in public. At any rate we may view Avimelech as having made sure that sufficient people were present to make Isaac's vow irrevocable.

Perhaps Avimelech was so astute that he wanted to ensure that the presence of his army commander Phichol, who represented all the military, would make the vow one that had been made על דעת רבים, "with the consent of many," not merely "in the presence of many."

The same two rabbis who disagreed in Bereshit Rabbah 64,9 on the meaning of ואחוזת מרעהו also disagree on the meaning of the word פיכל. Rabbi Yehudah considers the word as merely his name, whereas Rabbi Nechemyah sees in it a description of his function, i.e. that פי כל, he was the authority to whom all the soldiers owed obeisance. The argument between the two rabbis may have the same root, i.e. whether in order to make a vow into a public vow one requires the presence of three or ten people respectively. The plain meaning of the Torah seems to be that three people suffice; this is why if we accept the meaning of Rabbi Yehudah, Avimelech took two people along for the ceremony. According to the view that a quorum of ten is required to make the vow a public oath we would have to interpret the verse according to the opinion of Rabbi Nechemyah in which case Avimelech took along quite a number of people, i.e. a minimum of ten. At the same time Avimelech may have wanted the oath to qualify as approved by a quorum of at least ten people, as we described earlier.