Comentario sobre Génesis 26:28

ראו ראינו WE SAW PLAINLY (literally, seeing we have seen) — We saw it in the case of your father and we see it in the case of yourself (Genesis Rabbah 64:10).

תהי נא אלה, which is בינותינו, between your father and me should remain in force also between בינינו, ובינך, between you and me. This had been part of the condition of that pact that neither Avraham’s children nor grandchildren were allowed to renege on a promise he had made on their behalf. (21,23)

כי היה ה' עמך, we do not want to make a deal with you because we are afraid of you, but because G’d is on your side.

ויאמרו ראו ראינו וג׳. "We have seen very clearly, etc." Why did Avimelech and company repeat: "we have seen, seen?" There are also other nuances in their remarks which we need to analyse.

ראו, the letter ו at the end instead of the customary letter ה as the last letter of the root is not unique, we encounter it also in Isaiah 6,9 or as בכו לא תבכה, in Isaiah 30,19. There are other parallel verses in Scripture.

תהי נא אלה בינותינו, בינינו ובינך, “let there be a treaty confirmed by a mutual oath between us, between us and between you.” From the phrasing it is clear that Avimelech was not prepared to swear an oath in the name of Yitzchok’s G’d. Hence he used the expression בינותינו to indicate that he meant to swear by the deity he was in the habit of swearing by.

That oath that exists between us since your father’s times. Rashi is answering the question: Is not the phrase בינותינו בינינו וביניך redundant? He answers that the phrases in this verse are not written in sequence. It should say תהי אלה בינותינו, נא ביני וביניך. This means: let that oath, which already exists between us, continue now. Rashi adds a ה to אלה, and inserts אשר, because it is recounting what happened to Avraham. And he inserts גם because Avimelech is seeking to make the same covenant with Yitzchok that he made with Avraham. Thus he says גם עתה. It is evident that Rashi, when he says עתה (now), is explaining נא. [Accordingly, נא means “now,” rather than “please.”]

ראה ראינו, “we have seen repeatedly;” the fact that you have succeeded twice where we have failed has convinced us that your G-d is on your side;” clearly your success is due to you personally, and not to the quality of the earth that you have either planted seeds in or dug wells in. We have noted that since you departed this earth has failed to be blessed. It is clearly your G-d Who is the cause and Who is with you.

‘תהי נא אלה בינותינו וגו means LET THE OATH that has existed BETWEEN US since the days of your father CONTINUE NOW BETWEEN US AND YOU.

תהי נא אלה בינותינו, a reference to all the people of his country having sworn to keep this agreement with Yitzchok, to be confirmed by an oath between the two representatives of the parties concerned, i.e. Avimelech and Yitzchok.

Basically, Avimelech and company responded to Isaac's questions by saying that they really intended to respond to all Isaac had said. As to the covenant concluded between Abraham and Avimelech they said: "we have seen,seen." They claimed that there were two reasons why they could not rely on Abraham's vow. One was, as we stated, that Abraham's vow was made in private, the other that Abraham had not been a beneficiary of Avimelech and thus was at liberty to annul his vow even without Avimelech's presence or consent. Furthermore, they said that they did realise that only when they renewed said covenant with Isaac would he consider his father's vow as binding and ironclad. Avimelech added that when he concluded his covenant with Abraham he had not been careful to do it in such a way that it would remain irrevocable.

בינותינו בינינו וביניך, “between us; the oath that we swear by our deities shall now be binding both between us and you;” he meant that although Yitzchok swears in the name of his G-d, such an oath shall also be binding for them who swear in the name of their own deity. [The linguistic problem here is that the word בינינו, is otherwise completely superfluous. Ed].]

Should Isaac be angered that Avimelech had not bothered to secure similar guarantees from his brother Ishmael who was, after all, Abraham's elder son, they explained this by saying they had observed that it ws Isaac who was both personally powerful and obviously enjoyed G'd's blessing and support. Although Isaac had pointed out that the fact they had expelled him was a sign of their hatred for him, they had convinced themselves that if he was worthy of G'd's blessing there was no cause to hate him.

ונכרתה ברית עמך, “and we are willing to conclude a binding treaty with you;” an offer to renew the covenant Avraham had made with Avimelech’s predecessor for three generations.” They felt the need for this, since their having breached it when they claimed the wells and when the expelled Yitzchok[, they were afraid that Yitzchok might feel free to disregard it].

Concerning Isaac's complaint that they had not been honest with him and that it was an effrontery therefore to ask him for favours, ראו ראינו, they felt intellectually that the permanent validity of the covenant with Abraham would be guaranteed only if they renewed it at this time. I shall forthwith explain how we can read all this out of their carefully chosen words.

ונאמר תהי נא אלה בינינו, we said: "let there be an oath between us, etc." The word ונאמר is past tense. They now began to explain the reason they had expelled Isaac from Gerar; as long as Isaac remained with them in Gerar it was legally impossible for the oath they had in mind to become irrevocable. We learn in Nedarim 27 that it is permissible to revoke certain vows without the need to appear before a tribunal. Examples are vows which were made under pressure from people who are reputed to commit murder in order to enrich themselves, or when facing robbers intent merely on confiscating one's property, or when facing tax collectors who exceed their authority. The school of Hillel taught that even when such vows were phrased as an oath, no legal mechanism is required to revoke them (when the danger is over). Concerning the above Mishnah, Maha'rik writes in Yore De-ah 232, that "anyone who swears an oath or makes a vow under duresss, such oath or vow is not legally binding." It suffices to annul such vows or oaths in one's heart; Joseph, however, did not annul his vow concerning his promise to Pharaoh not to reveal that the latter did not understand the Hebrew language, nor did Zedekiah annul his promise to Nebuchadnezzar in his heart. This ruling is valid even if the person who made the vow had been compensated in some form for the vow he was about to make. Avimelech and his company were afraid that Isaac might invoke this ruling to free himself of any vow if such an undertaking were to be made while he was in Avimelech's territory, i.e. under his rule, and therefore under some kind of duress. Therefore they came to a place over which Avimelech had no authority so that any undertaking by Isaac would be completely voluntary and therefore binding upon him. This is also clear from the writings of Nachmanides on the subject. The words תהי נא were meant to emphasise that the covenant to be undertaken now was to be different from the one previous in that it would remain valid, i.e. תהי. When they claimed at the time they expelled Isaac that he had become too powerful, this had only been a pretext to make him leave; their true reason had been to create a situation in which Isaac's oath would be binding upon him. They may also have used that pretext so that Isaac could not try to dissuade them by telling them that their fears that he would not honour his commitment were unfounded. There were some other considerations which I will come back to later.

בינותינו בינינו ובינך, "between us, i.e. between us and you." The reason they added the apparently unnecessary word בינותינו was to reinforce the existing agreement concluded with Abraham, and to add a new covenant with Isaac. They wanted to examine whether Isaac considered the agreement with Abraham as valid for him. Perhaps Avimelech was afraid that G'd would renew His promise to give the land of Palestine to Isaac and the latter would give part of his inheritance to Esau. Avimelech did not consider Esau as the seed of Abraham seeing that G'd had specificaly said to Abraham that כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע, that only part of Isaac's seed would be considered Abraham's seed (21,12). Should Isaac then decide to give the land of the Philistines to Esau, he, Avimelech, would not have a legal leg to stand on in a dispute with Isaac, seeing that the covenant with Abraham which covered Abraham's descendants down to his great-grandchildren would not have been breached thereby. Esau would argue that his inheritance was due to a promise made by G'd to his father Isaac, not through a promise made by G'd to Abraham who had delayed it from becoming effective for four generations. These were the considerations which prompted Avimelech to make Isaac swear a separate oath. According to Rashi the word בינותינו alluded to the validity of the agreement for several generations.

This word may also allude to the fact that Avimelech wanted the undertaking to be a public one. The repetition of the word בינינו was meant to emphasise the mutual agreement that prevailed at the time of the new covenant and which would make any future attempt to revoke it subject to mutual agreement.