Commentary for Genesis 36:24

ואיה וענה literally, AND AJAH AND ANAH — The ו in ואיה is redundant, so that the words are equivalent to איה וענה Ajah and Anah. There are many examples of this in Biblical Hebrew: (Daniel 8:13) “to give (וקדש וצבא) both the Sanctuary and the host to be trampled underfoot”; (Psalms 86:7) “they are cast into a deep sleep (ורכב וסוס) the riders also and the horses”.

AND THESE ARE THE CHILDREN OF ZIBEON: AND AJAH, AND ANAH. The letter vav in the word v’ayah — (and Ajah) is redundant. Similarly: Thy father’s servant ‘va’ani’ (and I) have been in time past, so ‘va’ani’ (and I) will now be thy servant.²⁹⁰II Samuel 15:34. In both cases the vav is redundant, and the meaning of the word is ani (I). And there were the heads of their fathers’ houses: ‘va’epher’ (and Epher), and Ishi²⁹¹I Chronicles 5:24. — here too the vav is redundant. And there are many others like them.
Now this Zibeon was the third son of Se’ir the Horite,²⁹²Verse 20 here. and he begot these two children, Ajah and Anah, and Scripture relates that this Anah, Zibeon’s son, was that same Anah who found the mules in the desert as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father, to differentiate between him and his uncle Anah,²⁹²Verse 20 here. the brother of his father, Zibeon. This Anah, Zibeon’s son, was Esau’s father-in-law.²⁹³Verse 2: Oholibamah the daughter of Anah.

ואיה וענה, I believe that the real names of these people were “Veayah” and “Veanah,” not “Ayah” and “Anah.” The same is true of Numbers 13,14 where the letter ו is part of the name itself, i.e. ופסי, just as it is in Esther where the letter ו is part of the name of Queen Vashti, i.e. ושתי. Even though these sons of Tzivon are also referred to by the names Ayah and Adah in Chronicles I 1,40, we need not attribute too much meaning to this, as there are numerous instances when such names are not accurately reported. (Examples of such inaccuracies are Genesis 10,23 where the letters ו in the words וחול וגתר (names) clearly are not part of the names themselves. The same is true of Chronicles I 1,17 where all four of these names are introduced with the letter ו. Clearly, the two versions cannot both be correct. Anyone who interprets the letter ו in the words (names) ואיה וענה to be connective letters ו, must surely answer the question of what prompted the Torah to write such connective letters ו here when it did not seem to be called for. Why would just these sons have been selected by the Torah to be linked to one another by the connective letter ו and not numerous other sons who appear in this chapter? [the author challenges his grandfather Rashi’s interpretation. Ed.] The proofs cited by such commentators for their interpretation are not convincing at all. The very letters ו whom these commentators quote as support for their thesis are themselves not connective letters For instance, in Samuel II 13,20 the line ותשב תמר ושוממה בית אבשלום אחיה, the word ושוממה means the same as שבי, as in שבי אלמנה בית אביך, (Genesis 38,11) where Yehudah tells his daughter-in-law (also) called Tamar to await Shelah’s growing up by remaining like a grieving widow in her father’s house. The word ותשב in Samuel II 13.20 has two meanings. It tells us that Tamar henceforth was isolated, lonely, an outcast. The word בודדה for “lonely,” is implied but not spelled out, and the whole line must be understood as if the prophet had written ותשב תמר בודדה ושוממה, “Tamar lived lonely and abandoned in the house of her brother Avshalom.” Psalms 76,7 מגערתך אלוקי יעקב נרדם ורכב וסוס, must be understood as מגערת אלוקי יעקב נרדם חיל שונאינו, at Your blast, O G’d of Yaakov, horse and chariot (with our enemies) lay stunned.” The reference is to the army mentioned in the preceding verses. The word אנשי חיל, “the soldiers,” which appears in verse 6 of that chapter is presumed as also applying to verse 7. If this were not so, the verse would make little sense. We find that a similar verse to that in Psalms 77,7 is found in Exodus 15,1, where the Torah includes the riders of the cavalry as having been tossed into the sea, as their survival would hardly have constituted an overwhelming victory by G’d.

ואלה בני צבעון ואיה וענה, the letter ו in the word ואיה, is not part of the name of the person described. It is the kind of ו used in Scripture sometimes to introduce a new sequence, such as in 22,4 ויהי ביום השלישי וישא אברהם את עיניו, “on the third day Avraham raised his eyes.” For the previous 2 days he had been proceeding in the direction of the land of Moriah; now, on the third day, he thought it was time to look for a definitive place in that region. A similar use of the letter ו occurs in Psalms 67,7 נרדם ורכב וסוס, where the letter ו at the beginning of ורכב, introduces a new subject (of sorts). Other examples of a similar nature are Samuel II 13,20, etc. My grandfather of blessed memory wrote that none of these letters ו are additional, i.e. meant for considerations involving syntax, but they are an alert to the reader that a word prior to the word starting with the letter ו is missing in the sentence and has to be found in the text preceding it. Accordingly, the meaning of the words ואיה וענה is that Tzivon had other sons beside those listed here, senior to the ones listed here, but that the Torah had not considered it necessary to mention their names. Perhaps the reason is that those sons had not produced progeny. The ענה mentioned here is not the same as has been mentioned in verse 20. The one mentioned in verse 20 was a descendent of the בני שעיר and was not a son of Tzivon who was a brother of Tzivon. Our sages in Pessachim 54 believe that the two men called ענה are one and the same. To the possible question whether we are dealing with two men of the same name, the Torah answers: “this is the Anah who was well known previously for having located the Yeymim, etc.” Our sages concluded further that Tzivon had slept with his mother having begotten Anah from that intercourse. Not only had Anah himself been a bastard, but he had produced more bastards himself. According to the plain meaning of the text, the words הוא ענה, simply mean: “he is the well known Anah.”

ואלה בני צבעון ואיה וענה, “and these are the sons of Tzivon, Veayah and Veanah, The prefixes ו in the names “Ayah,” and “Anah,” are nothing unusual. Tzivon was the third son of Seir the Chori, and he sired numerous children. The Torah narrates that Anah had discovered the mules while pasturing his father’s flocks in the desert, because it wanted to distinguish between him and another Anah, his uncle, the brother of his father Tzivon. This Anah was the father-in- law of Esau.

ואלה בני צבעון ואיה וענה, “and these were the sons of Tzivon, Aiah and Anah.” The letters ו in front of these names are merely prefixes and have nothing to do with the names of these two people. We find something parallel in Samuel Ii 15,34 עבד אביך ואני מאז which means “I have been a servant of your father from way before.” In this verse we are told that Anah was a son of Tzivon, whereas from verse 20 it is clear that both Anah and Tzivon were brothers, sons of Seir HaChori. In order to ensure that we would not think that the Anah mentioned was the uncle of the other Anah, the Torah added that the Anah mentioned here was the one who discovered the mules in the desert.
Our sages in Pessachim 54 explained that we are dealing with the same Anah who had been mentioned previously and that he had been sired through his father having slept with his mother. The reason the Torah lists him here as one of the sons of Seir HaChori is because all the people of his generation thought that he was the son of Seir HaChori. The Torah, however, was concerned with relating his true ancestry. The Torah mentions him as either himself crossbreeding a donkey with a mare or discovering the products of such crossbreeding, to illustrate how illegitimate sexual relations between human beings result eventually in bastardy or association with animals which were the product of such crossbreeding. At the time it was considered very astute of Anah to have discovered or crossbred two such species of animals.
According to the opinion of Onkelos who translated the verse as Anah having found גבריה, “men in the desert,” the word ימים must be understood as a variant of אימים, antediluvian giants. According to Onkelos the plain meaning of our verse is that Anah was met or attacked by members of that people who wanted to rob him of the donkeys belonging to Tzivon which he was minding. The Torah reports that although alone, Anah managed to save the donkeys from the hands of these אימים. Nachmanides interprets the verse in this fashion.

Indicating that Tzivon came upon his mother and bore Anoh. You might ask: How does Rashi know that Tzivon came upon his mother, Seir’s wife? Perhaps Seir, Tzivon’s father, came upon Tzivon’s wife and begat Anoh from her. And people thought Anoh was Tzivon’s son, but Anoh was in fact Seir’s son and Tzivon’s brother. The answer is: It is logical to attribute an act of corruption to one who is corrupt. And before we find that Tzivon was corrupt (Rashi, v. 2), as he came upon his daughterin-law, Anoh’s wife. But there is no reason to say that both [Anoh and Seir] were corrupt. You might object: And before, how did Rashi know that Tzivon was corrupt and came upon his daughter-in-law? Perhaps Anoh was the corrupt one and came upon his mother, Tzivon’s wife. The answer is: If so, there still would be two corrupt people—Anoh and Seir. And since we could rather attribute it all to Tzivon, we do so. (Re’m) Maharshal objects: Why should we consider two women corrupt—Anoh’s wife who was Tzivon’s daughter-in-law, and Seir’s wife who was Tzivon’s mother? [It is possible that Tzivon’s wife was the corrupt one in both incidents.] The answer is: Women are not called corrupt, because they are passive. The man, who does the act, is called corrupt. An alternative answer: Women can say they were forced to have relations. But a man cannot thereby exempt himself, since he is capable of having relations only if he is willing.

אשר מצא את הימים, “who discovered the yemim. According to Rashi, these were animals that resulted from crossbreeding, and the Torah names him in order to chastise him for having successfully violated the principle of not crossbreeding. If you were to question that Anah could not have been the first person having done this as Rashi himself commenting on Genesis 26,13 on the words: ויגדל מאד, writes that people at that time already used to say that “the dung of the mules of Yitzchok are worth more than the god of their king,” which proves that mules, which are the result of crossbreeding horses and donkeys already existed and people were familiar with them, we have to understand this verse as follows: Anah was the first person who deliberately mated donkeys with horses. Prior to this, mules existed but they resulted from the mother animal having mated with a horse of its own account. The word: מצא means that he developed a system of breeding such animals successfully. He noted that in order to tell which animal was the result of a male donkey mating with a female horse, and which was the product of a sheass having mated with a male horse, if the animal has thin ears it is the product of a female horse and a male donkey; when the ears are thick, it is proof that the mother animal was a sheass and it had mated with a male horse. Seeing that G-d is very displeased with such procedures being undertaken by man, he is blamed for such practices having been introduced. Another interpretation: the Torah wishes the reader to know that the animals resulting from crossbreeding are not included in the blessing given by the Creator to all the creatures He had created. Proof of this is the fact that such creatures cannot sire or give birth to another generation of their breed.

הוא ענה THIS WAS THAT ANAH mentioned above (Genesis 36:20) as the brother of Zibeon. Here is called his son, thus telling us that Zibeon and his own mother were the parents of Anah (Pesachim 54a).

WHO FOUND THE ‘YEIMIM’ IN THE DESERT. In the opinion of some of our Rabbis in the Talmud,²⁹⁴Pesachim 54a. the yeimim are mules, and this man discovered that an ass and a mare, even though they were unlike species, could breed together as opposed to other unlike species. Scripture says that he found them in the wilderness as he fed the asses, for he had there in the desert many asses seeking she-asses and he mated them with mares, and they begot offspring. It would appear that in his generation it was accounted to him as an act of wisdom in that he knew the various species which are nearly alike in nature and thus can produce offspring by cross-breeding. He was thus known by this deed, and therefore Scripture described him by it. And Onkelos translated yeimim as valiant men. It would appear from his opinion that this Anah was attacked by people from a nation called Emim, as it is said, The Emim… a people great, and many and tall as the Anakim,²⁸³Deuteronomy 2:10. and they wished to rob him of the asses of Zibeon his father. He was in the desert with no one to help him, but he overtook them and saved the asses from their hand. The word matza in matza eth hayeimim is thus to be associated with these expressions: Thine hand ‘timtza’ (shall overtake) all thine enemies;²⁹⁵Psalms 21:9. And I have not delivered thee into the hand of Saul.²⁹⁶II Samuel 3:8. “Saul.” In the verse: “David.” It may be that the word matza means that he found them and they were thus saved, and he came to be known for this prowess. This is correct.

הוא ענה, who has been mentioned in the time of Moses as a great hero. [I do not know where. Ed.]

אשר מצא את הימים, our sages explain the word as meaning “mules,” i.e. just as he had been a bastard he now bread bastards, i.e. animals which resulted from crossbreeding horses and donkeys. This is the meaning of the words that follow ברעותו את החמורים “while he was engaged in tending the donkeys.” It occurred to him that it might be a good idea to see what would happen if he allowed or persuaded a horse to mount an ass. He found to his astonishment that the ass gave birth to a mule as well as a female mule. Our sages have said in Bereshit Rabbah 82,14 that any mule, i.e. an animal resembling it traces its ancestry by means of the size of its ears. If the ears are short it has been sired by a donkey and born by a horse, whereas if it has long ears it has been sired by a horse having been born by an ass. Tzivon had violated G’d’s law according to which the species are not to be crossbred, whether humans or animals or plants. As a reminder of this legislation the Torah subsequently forbade products of crossbreeding, a prohibition which extends to our having any beneficial use of the result of such crossbreeding. According to Bereshit Rabbah in the section just quoted, neither fire nor kilayim, i.e. the product of crossbreeding different species of animals, were created during the 6 days of creation. Mules, i.e. the result of crossbreeding was not created until the days of Anah (whose father had made the experiment). There is a discussion as to when fire was created. According to Levi the original light created on the first day served man for 36 hours, i.e. during the 12 hours before the onset of the first Sabbath, i.e. the first 12 hours after his creation, and the 24 hours of the Sabbath. When the world sank into darkness as a result of G’d withdrawing the original light, as part of Adam’s punishment for having violated His commandment not to eat from the tree of knowledge, Adam was disconsolate and exclaimed (Psalms 139,11) “is darkness to conceal me permanently?” G’d responded to his cry of anguish by replacing the original light with fire, sparks, by teaching him how to produce fire by striking two flints against each other. Having been successful in this, Adam blessed the fire. This corresponds to the view of Shemuel who taught us that the reason we pronounce a benediction over fire on the evening following the Sabbath is that this was the time that fire was created. Rabbi Avuhu added in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that we also bless fire on the evening after Yom Kippur because the fire had to observe “Sabbath” during that whole day, i.e. handling it was out of bounds to us. [Of course, fire is also prohibited for use (handling) on the Sabbath, but Yom Kippur is also called Sabbath even when it does not occur on the day we would normally observe the Sabbath. Ed.]

אשר מצא את הימים, “who had discovered the mules.” These animals are what we know as mules. Anah discovered this by using his intelligence, succeeding in producing offspring through pairing two different species, i.e. the horse and the donkey. This is the only known example of mating two different species resulting in offspring. His achievement was considered a feat of wisdom, as he matched two species which appeared to him to have much in common genetically, and the product was supposed to combine the advantages of a horse and a donkey. Onkelos translates our verse as Anah “finding courage.” He surmises that a nation known as “yemim” attacked him, wanting to steal his donkeys, while he was alone in the desert. He succeeded in saving the donkeys from the attack of these people. The word מצא would have to be understood as in תמצא ידך לכל אויביך, (Psalms 21,9) “your hand is equal to all your enemies.” Alternately, what happened was that he found, i.e. encountered these “Yemim,” and was saved (miraculously) from their attack. His fame as a warrior was established henceforth.

“No person has ever consulted me about a wound caused by a white mule and lived.” I.e., R. Chanina was a doctor, and said: “No one ever consulted me about a wound caused by a white mule and I gave him a cure.”

את הימים means THE MULES — He crossed an ass and a mare, the offspring being a mule. Being himself the offspring of an unnatural union he reared such in the animal world (Pesachim 54a). Why are they called ימים (which may signify “dreaded beings”)? Because the fear of them lies upon people; for R. Hanina said, “No-one has ever consulted me about an injury caused by a white mule and has recovered (וחיה literally, lived)”. “But do we not see that such a person has recovered (lived)? But you should not read וחיה “and he lived”, but וחיתה “and it (the wound) healed up” — for such a wound never heals up (Chullin 7b). From “But do we not see" is to be found in an old text of Rashi. It would have been unnecessary to write the genealogy of the Horites had it not been that it wishes to mention Timna, thereby showing in what importance Abraham was held, as I have explained above (Genesis 5:12).

אשר מצא את היימים, either powerful human beings, or ferocious animals, in either case “who found,” means he located and vanquished them. According to the plain meaning of the text there is no need to search for additional meanings.

Concerning the words in our verse here ברעותו את החמורים, he was also tending horses, but most of the animals he was looking after were donkeys. This is why the Torah mentioned only the donkeys. We do not know what Onkelos meant when he translated the word הימים as גבריא. The reason why the Torah mentioned all these Alufim of Seir is because of G’d’s love for Yitzchok. Had G’d not loved Yitzchok He would not have gone out of his way for Esau and his sons and have allowed his sons to become such “bigshots” in the land of Seir.