Comentario sobre Génesis 36:46

ואלה תולדות, a reference to developments in the clan started by Esau, both in people, possessions and political influence. The word תולדות in this context is analogous to “מה ילד היום,” “what the day brings.” (Proverbs 27,1)

הוא אדום, who is identical with Edom, etc. This statement is repeated three times in this paragraph. Seeing that G'd has sworn to destroy Edom the Torah had to tell us that Esau is identical with Edom. The Torah also mentioned the town where Esau lived in verse 8; according to Talmudic practice when a statement is not needed in the context in which it is written it may be applied to another context; in this instance the Torah means the town Esau lived in. In verse 19 the Torah also mentions the sons of Esau once more, identifying them with Edom to tell us that all of Esau's descendants will go up in flames at the time when the prophet's assurance (Ovadiah 18) that "Israel will become a flame and Esau the straw to be consumed" will materialise. The reason they are all included is that the Torah has described them all as Edom. All of this is hinted at in Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3,5 which describes that in the future Esau will wrap himself in a Talit and occupy a seat amongst the righteous. G'd, however, will remove him from there. Please read what I have written in this connection on verse 31.

ואלה...הוא אדום. Similar to על כן קרא שמו אדום, “this is why he called his name Edom in 25,30. This reference to Esau as Edom also occurs again in verse 8 of this chapter, i.e. עשו הוא אדום, “Esau is identical with Edom,” because the nation called after its founding father Esau is known as מלכות אדום, Kingdom of Edom. What the Torah means here is to alert us that the nation known today (whenever this portion is read) as Edom, was in reality descended from Esau. The Torah lists separately Esau’s descendants that were born to him while he still made his home in the land of Canaan, and those that were born after he had migrated to the land of Seir. The latter is the land G’d assigned to Esau as his inheritance.

Wenn in diesem Geschlechtsregister Namensverschiedenheiten in Vergleich mit anderswo Genannten vorkommen und solche Namensdifferenzen auch noch in andern historischen Teilen der Schrift sich finden, so wollen wir nur daran erinnern, wie wir ja schon bei den wenigen Gliedern des abrahamitischen Hauses eine verhältnismäßig sehr große Zahl von Doppelnamen finden: Abram, Abraham, Sarai, Sara; Esau, Edom; Jakob, Jisrael; Benjamin, Benoni; es kann daher auch nicht so sehr auffallen, wenn etwa Ada und Boßmath identische Namen der Tochter Elons, Ahalibama und Jehudith etc. identisch wären.

ואלה תולדות עשו, “and these are the descendants of Esau;” the prefix ו in the word: ואלה is to remind the reader that since the Torah had already listed the 12 sons of Yaakov, the time had come to list the descendants of Esau.

עשו הוא אדום, someone always addicted to realise all his material desires, satiate his lust. [the author interprets this as the justification for the Torah repeating this information which we had been given in already 25,30. Ed.] The overpowering desire of Esau for what attracted his eye was demonstrated when he could not remember the name “lentils” when he was tired, demanding to be given from “this red, red stuff.”

עדה בת אילון ADAH THE DAUGHTER OF ELON — She is identical with Basemath daughter of Elon (cf. 26:34) and she was called Basemath because she offered spices (בשמים) as incense to idols.

ADAH THE DAUGHTER OF ELON. She is identical with Basmath the daughter of Elon,²⁴¹Above, 26:34. and she was called Basmath because she burned incense (besamim) to the idols. And Oholibamah, (mentioned here), is identical with Judith.²⁴¹Above, 26:34. In order to deceive his father, the wicked Esau changed her name to Judith (Jewess) to suggest that she had abandoned idol-worship.

עשו לקח את נשיו מבנות כנען, people who read the text carefully cannot help noting that when Esau’s wives’ names are mentioned for the first time in 26,34 they were referred to as יהודית בת בארי החתי and בשמת בת אלון החתי, as well as מחלת בת ישמעאל. In our paragraph no one by the name of בת בארי is mentioned at all, neither the woman’s name nor her father’s name. However אלון as well as ישמעאל the fathers of two of Esau’s wives have been mentioned here also. The names of the daughters have been inverted as happens in many instances. בשמת daughter of אלון is here referred to as עדה בת אלון whereas. It is therefore reasonable to assume that יהודית בת בארי died childless, whereas the other two wives of Esau bore children for him as is enumerated here. Esau took אהליבמה בת ענה בת צבעון החוי as a wife after his move to Seir, when he wanted to strengthen his political ties with the local inhabitants through intermarriage with them. This is why the Torah gave such a detailed account of Oholivamah’s genealogy. Timnah, concubine of Eliphaz, Esau’s firstborn, was also from the original inhabitants of the region of Mount Seir, The reasom why she is mentioned ast, is that the marriage of Esau to Oholivamah occurred last. Chronologically, she belonged to an earlier generation.

ואת אהליבמה בת ענה. She was a member of the tribe of the Chori. She became Esau’s entry card to the whole region of Mount Seir. This is why the Torah reports already in verse 8 that Esau now settled in Mount Seir. His own children and grandchildren subsequently wiped out all the other members of that tribe that had not intermarried with his descendants. This is the reason why the Torah repeats in verse 9 ואלה תולדות עשו אבי אדום בהר שעיר, to inform us obliquely that in the interval Esau had conquered all these people and that Timna became his son’s concubine. Esau’s descendants now became אלופים, “great chiefs.”

עשו, these wives are not now described as having the names which had introduced them to the reader in 26,34 where they were called Yehudit and Bosmat. Each of these women was known by two names. This is a common occurrence throughout Scripture. Similarly, Tzivon had been introduced earlier as Beeri (26,34) and Bosmat in verse 3 of our chapter had previously been introduces as Machalat. (28,9)

In order to mislead his father. Question: Why did Eisov not call Bosmas, [too,] by a good name in order to trick his father? In Parshas Toldos (26:34), it should have mentioned that name, if she had it. The answer is: Eisov indeed called her by another, non-idolatry name. But [in Parshas Toldos], Scripture itself calls her Bosmas, denoting idolatry. This is because Scripture goes on to say (27:1), “Yitzchok’s eyesight faded and he could not see.” Rashi there explains that this was due to the smoke of these wives [who burned incense to idols]. And if Scripture would have called her by a different name there, we would ask: Where do we find [any hint] that they burned incense [to idols]? Thus Scripture calls her by the name of Bosmas (incense), to indicate this. See there. (Maharshal) [You might ask]: Yehudis was the daughter of Be’eri the Chittite (26:34), while Oholivomoh was the daughter of Anoh the Chivite, [as it says here. How then could Rashi say that Yehudis and Oholivomoh are the same? The answer is:] Anoh and Be’eri is the same person with two names. Although Scripture connects him here to the Chivites and there to the Chittites, it is possible that his father was a Chittite, and his mother, a Chivite. You might ask: How does Rashi know that Yehudis is Oholivomoh? Perhaps Yehudis died, and Oholivomoh is another wife? Re’m answers: Because it is written, “Eisov took his wives,” rather than, “Eisov took wives.” This implies they were the same wives who were mentioned before.

'עשו לקח את נשיו מבנות כנען וגו, “Esau had taken his wives from the daughters of the Canaanites, etc.;” here the Torah fails to mention the daughter of Beeri, although in Genesis 26,34 we have been told that Esau took Yehudit who was a daughter of Beeri, a Hittite as a wife. We must therefore assume that the reason she is not mentioned here is that she died without having provided Esau with any sons. All the sons mentioned in this chapter therefore must have been born by עדה בת אלון, who is identical with the wife called בשמת בת אלון, in Genesis 6,34 She had changed her name, just as had the daughter of Yishmael, which has now been called בשמת, whereas when she had first been introduced she had been called מחלת. (Compare 28,9.)

אהליבמה OHOLIBAMAH is identical with Judith. He (Esau) changed her name to Judith (Jewess), suggesting that she had abandoned idol-worship, so that he might deceive his father.

אהליבמה בת ענה, who according to Rashi is identical with יהודית. If you were to ask: is this not the יהודית בת בארי as we have been told in 26,34? How could she now have been the daughter of ענה? Moreover, if we deal here with a woman who was a bastard, why did Rashi not say that she was the combined product from these two fathers as he explained concerning ענה בת צבעון? We are forced to answer that בארי and ענה were one and the same person.

בת ענה בת צבעון THE DAUGHTER OF ANAH THE DAUGHTER OF ZIBEON — If she was the daughter of Anah she could not have been the daughter of Zibeon, for Anah was the son of Zibeon as it is said (v. 24) “And these are the sons of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah”! Scripture thus tells us that Zibeon took his daughter-in-law, Anah’s wife, and of them twain Oholibamah was born (so that being a daughter of Anah’s wife she is called also his daughter). This text informs you that these were all of illegitimate birth (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 1).

בת ענה בת צבעון. In this paragraph you find that ענה was a brother of צבעון, as is written: ושובל וצבעון וענה (and Shoval and Tzivon and Anah.” (verse 20.) You also find written in verse 24 that “these were the sons of Tzivon and Ayah and Anah;” this is what Rashi referred to that Tzivon must have slept with his own mother and from this carnal union Anah was born. In other words, he was both his son and his (half) brother. This is why the Torah wrote the unusual phrase: הוא ענה, “this is the Anah,” i.e. the one we have read about earlier. (Mentioned in verse 20) It is also possible to say that the meaning of the words בת ענה בת צבעון, really is that he was the grandson, that Tzivon was the grandfather. It is not unusual in the Torah for grandchildren being described as the children of their grandfather. Examples cited are: בת מטרד בת מי זהב, in verse 39 of our chapter. There is an opinion voiced in the Talmud Baba Batra folio 115, that ענה is not the name of a male but of a female because the Torah wrote successively: בת ענת בת צבעון, “daughter of Anat, daughter of Tzivon.” If you were to counter that earlier we have read about הוא ענה אשר מצא את הימים, “he was the Anah who discovered the species yemim,” so how could that have been a female? We would have to answer that she inherited in lieu of Ayah who was a male, and whose brother was a brother of Anah. The fact that “he” is not listed among the sons who founded or became leaders of thousands, i.e. alufim, would lend support to the opinion that we are dealing with a female who could not qualify for such a rank

בשמת בת ישמעאל BASE-MATH ISHMAEL’S DAUGHTER — But elsewhere (28:9) she is called Mahalath! We find in the Agadic Midrash on the Book of Samuel (Ch. 17) that there are three classes whose sins are pardoned: a proselyte, one who is exalted to a high position and a man on his marriage. It derives the proof for the latter case from here; viz., the reason why she was also calleth Mahalath (pardon) was because his (Esau’s) sins were pardoned on his marriage to her (Megillah 17a; cf. also Genesis Rabbah 63).

ואת בשמת בת ישמעאל אחות נביות, “and Bosmat daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nevayot.” The Torah makes clear on this occasion that the basic name of Ishmael’s daughter was Bosmat, even though she was referred to as Machalat in Genesis 28,9. This lends support to the words of our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 67,13 that Esau intended to convert Machalat, and that G’d forgave him all his sins. (this מחילה, pardon, was alluded to in the name מחלת). Three kinds of people qualify for total forgiveness for their past sins: A convert to Judaism; a person who is promoted to high public office; a person who marries a woman. The source for this statement is the verse describing Esau as marrying Machalat.

BASMATH ISHMAEL’s DAUGHTER. But elsewhere Scripture calls her Mahalath!²⁴²Ibid., 28:9. I have found in the Agadic Midrash on the Book of Samuel:²⁴³Chapter 17. There are three persons all of whose sins are pardoned: a proselyte on conversion, one who is exalted to a high position, and a man on his marriage. It derives the proof for the latter case from here. The reason she was called Mahalath, [from the word mechilah (pardon)], is that Esau’s sins were pardoned when he married her. All this, [including the comment on Verse 2 above], is the language of Rashi.
But Rashi has not explained the reason why the father of Oholibamah, who, according to Rashi, is identical with Judith, is there²⁴¹Above, 26:34. called Be’eri and here called Anah. And Basmath Ishmael’s daughter is here a proper name while there,²⁴¹Above, 26:34. according to Rashi, is an adjectival noun on account of her burning the incense! And in Bereshith Rabbah, the Sages have said:²⁴⁴67:10. “Esau set his mind to repent. Mahalath means that the Holy One, blessed be He, did pardon him for his sins. Basmath means that he was content [with his well-born wives and his decision to repent].” Thus according to the Midrash, both names (Mahalath and Basmath) are descriptive, and their proper names are unknown. For this reason Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has said that she had two names, Adah and Basmath. Also in the case of Abijah, [king of Judah, we find that his mother had two names, Micaiah — II Chronicles 13:2 - and Maacah - ibid., 11:20].
It is possible to say that those two women [mentioned above, 26:34, i.e., Judith and Basmath], died childless perhaps as a punishment because they were a bitterness of spirit unto Isaac and to Rebekah.²⁴⁵Above, 26:35. Esau then married his wife’s sister Adah, the daughter of Elon, and another woman by the name of Oholibamah, the daughter of Anah. But as regards Ishmael’s daughter, sister of Nebaioth, [who was originally called Mahalath] ,²⁴²Ibid., 28:9. because of the repugnance of her name, [which suggests choli, (sickness)] in the Sacred Language, Esau called her by the honorable name of his first wife Basmath, derived from the word besamim (spices). This was because she was beloved by him since she was of his family and was not evil in the eyes of Isaac his father.²⁴⁶Ibid., 28:8.

אחות נביות SISTER OF NEBAIOTH — because he gave her in marriage after Ishmael’s death she is called after his name (Nebaioth’s sister).

ואהליבמה ילדה וגו׳ AND OHOLIBAMAH BARE etc. — This Korah was an illegitimate child for he was the son of Eliphaz (cf. vv. 15, 16, 18) who had taken his father’s wife — Oholibamah, the wife of Esau — for he is enumerated also amongst the chiefs of Eliphaz at the end of this section (Genesis Rabbah 82:12).

את עדה בת אילון החתי, “Ada, daughter of the Hittite Eylon;” Rashi claims that Ada was identical with Bosmas, seeing the latter had acquired that nickname as she was in the habit of burning up a lot of fragrant incense to please the idol she worshipped. Nachmanides notes that Rashi failed to explain why Be-eri, the father of Oholiav who is called here Anah, is called Be-eri elsewhere. Furthermore, seeing that Bosmas was a daughter of Ishmael, this clearly was a proper name and not a nickname as we know from verse 3. On the other hand, the Bosmas who is described as the daughter of Eylon was nicknamed because of her burning incense frequently. Ibn Ezra claims that she simply was known by two names, as was her father. It is possible that the two first named women died without having had children, perhaps because they were reported of being so disrespectful to Yitzchok and Rivkah, as reported in Genesis Esau subsequently married a sister of his deceased wife whose name was Oholivamah, daughter of Anah. But the daughter of Ishmael, a sister of Nevayot, was renamed Bosmas the name of her predecessor, as her original name has a negative connotation in Hebrew [מחלת= the sickly one, or ‘the sickness.” Ed.] Esau was very fond of her as she stemmed from his own family, (1st cousin) and was not displeasing in the eyes of his father Yitzchok.

This Korach was of illegitimate birth and was fathered by Eliphaz... Re’m asks: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps there were two Korachs. He answers: Korach is not mentioned among Eliphaz’s sons but among Oholivomoh’s sons, [implying he was not publicly known as Eliphaz’s son]. Yet later, he is mentioned among the chiefs of Eliphaz. This implies he was of illegitimate birth.

ואהליבמה ילדה את יעיש, and Oholibama bore Yayish. This name is spelled יעיש but is read as if it had been spelled יעוש.

i.e. no particular country, but into any country), to stay where-ever he could find room.

AND ESAU TOOK HIS WIVES, AND HIS SONS, AND HIS DAUGHTERS. This journey took place after his brother had returned from Haran and established himself in the land of Canaan, as it says here, and he went into a land away from his brother Jacob. It is possible that this was also after the death of their father. Now when his brother Jacob was still in Haran, Esau was already in Se’ir, as is written above!²⁴⁷32:4. But the explanation of the matter is that Esau went to Se’ir in the days of the chieftains of the Horites, the inhabitants of the land,²⁴⁸Verse 20 here. and he became a lord with a following of four hundred men²⁴⁹Above, 32:7. while his children and family remained in the land of Canaan. It is possible that Esau had some land there in another location, in the plain, not on mount Se’ir. Therefore Scripture speaks of him as living in the land of Se’ir, the field of Edom.²⁴⁷32:4. And after his brother returned to the land of Canaan he vacated before his coming for he knew that the land of Canaan was the inheritance of his brother which his father had given him in his blessing. So he took his sons… and all the souls of his house — a multitude of people — and went to Se’ir to settle there. He then fought with the sons of Se’ir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land,²⁴⁸Verse 20 here. for perhaps they feared him, and they did not permit him to enter their territory into mount Se’ir, where the fortifications were. However, he settled in the field of Edom, in his original location, and the Eternal destroyed them from before them, and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead, as it said in Mishneh Torah.²⁵⁰Deuteronomy 2:21. It therefore says there, Because I have given mount Se’ir unto Esau for a possession.²⁵¹Ibid., 2:5.

מפני יעקב אחיו, seeing that Yaakov had bought the birthright, and by rights he was entitled to inherit the estate of his father Yitzchok, i.e. the land of Canaan. Therefore, Esau decided to vacate that land in favour of his brother.

ואת כל בהמתו, a generic term including all of his livestock.

ויקח עשו את נשיו ואת בניו, “Esau took his wives and his children, etc.” Rashi alerts us to the fact that Esau’s wives took precedence over his children as opposed to his brother Yaakov, even though the Torah also mentions his wives first when his family was introduced to Esau as we know from The only reason Yaakov presented his wives before presenting his children, was on account of his fear at that time, also because they were of tender age and unable to be without their mothers. Such considerations did not apply in our context here. Nachmanides writes that Esau’s migration took place after Yaakov had returned from Charan, and after their father Yitzchok had died. While it is true that Esau had been in Seir also during the period that Yaakov was at Lavan, as has been explained previously, (32,4), the correct sequence of events is as follows: Esau had first gone to Seir during the days of the Alufey Chori who had then resided and ruled in that region. At that time Esau, accompanied by 400 men, had invaded that region leaving his wives and family behind in the land of Canaan. It is quite likely that he conquered part of the low lying areas in that region already at that time, and that this accounts for the reference to the “land of Seir”, as opposed to the “mountain of Seir,” which also appears as שדה אדום, ”the field of Edom.” (32,4) After Yaakov had returned to the land of Canaan, Esau decided to vacate that land which his father had allocated to Yaakov as his inheritance. At that time he conducted a war against the inhabitants of the mountain of Seir Hachori, the predomi- nating tribe of the region.

וילך אל ארץ מפני יעקב אחיו, “he went to a (different) country on account of his brother Yaakov.” The plain meaning of the verse is that Esau went to the land of Seir which was his real home at that time, just as the Torah had mentioned already in Genesis 33,16: “Esau returned on that day on his way to Seir.” We have independent support for the fact that Esau resided in Seir in 36,8: “Esau resided in the mountain of Seir.” Ibn Ezra comments on this that this mountain is adjacent to the land of Israel as the Torah reports in Deut. 2,8: “we by-passed our brothers the sons of Esau who reside in Seir.” We also have Deut. 1,2 where Moses speaks of “eleven days march from Mount Chorev by way of Mount Seir.” This mountain is not identical with the country in which the Edomites live in nowadays, i.e. the land of Greece.

To reside wherever he might find. Otherwise, why does it not mention to which land he went?

(6-7) מפני מקניהם — מפני יעקב אחיו. Es werden hier zwei Motive für die Auswanderung Esaus angegeben. מפני יעקב אחיו bezeichnet jedenfalls die Entfernung von Jakob als das eine MotiRaw Hirsch on Genesis 36: Indem gleichwohl אחיו beigefügt ist, so ist der Grund dieses Wunsches der Entfernung nicht in einem unbrüderlichen Verhältnis zu suchen. Die Vergangenheit war völlig gesühnt. Allein der geistige und sittliche Gegensatz war ein zu großer, als dass sich Esau nicht fern von Jakob viel freier gefühlt hätte. Er hätte es gleichwohl nicht getan, wenn die äußeren Umstände ihr wirkliches Zusammenwohnen gestattet hätten. Allein מפני מקניהם war dies nicht möglich. Im Lande Kanaan hätten sie doch nicht zusammen bleiben können. Ihr beiderseitiges Wirtschaftswesen nahm zusammen einen viel zu großen Raum in Anspruch, als dass sie einen solchen dort, wo sie nur als גרים geduldet waren, hätten okkupieren können. Da sie also jedenfalls מפני מקניהם sich hätten trennen müssen, zog Esau es vor, lieber "אל ארץ" ganz in ein anderes Land zu ziehen, מפני יעקב אחיו, um so völlig außerhalb des genierenden geistigen und sittlichen Einflusses seines Bruders zu kommen. Es steht daher auch wohl absichtlich nicht אל ארץ אדום, sondern אל ארץ, "nach irgend einem Lande", um eben das Motiv deutlicher hervortreten zu lassen, dass die Entfernung von Jakob der Beweggrund war. —

לך אל ארץ, “he went (emigrated) to a land.” Esau conquered the land of Seir from the people known as Chorim. Rashi explains what motivated Esau to leave the land of Canaan voluntarily. If you were to counter that at the beginning of this portion it is written: ארצה שעיר שדה אדום, “that Yaakov had dispatched his messengers to ”the land of Seir otherwise known as the field of Edom, (which gives the reader the impression that Esau had already taken possession of that land at that time) and it entitles us to think that Esau already lived there, we have to assume that up until the period mentioned in our verse here he had lived alternately both in the land of Canaan and in the land of Seir. It was only after Yaakov had returned to the land of Canaan and the brothers had been reconciled, that Esau vacated the land of Canaan, thus acknowledging that this would become the land possessed as ancestral home by the descendants of Yaakov.

AND HE WENT INTO A LAND. According to Onkelos, the meaning of this expression is “into another land.” But Rashi explained, “He went to stay wherever he could find room” for he went to no particular country but sought a country where he would find room to settle, until he came to mount Se’ir and settled there. In my opinion, the correct interpretation is that Scripture is saying: “And he went to the land of Se’ir,” the name of the place being omitted from the verse as it is self-understood since it has already been mentioned that he dwelled in the land of Se’ir, and it is understood that he led his family there, and right nearby, it is mentioned, And Esau dwelled in mount Se’ir.²⁵²Verse 8 here. A similar case is found in this verse: He went into the castle of the king’s house, and burnt the king’s house over him with fire,²⁵³I Kings 16:18. which means that house of the king in which he was. Similarly, And he burned the high place and stamped it small to powder, and burned the Asherah,²⁵⁴II Kings 23:15. which means the high place which belonged to Jeroboam, who was mentioned in the beginning of the verse. So also: And Joab said to the Cushite: Go tell the king… And Cushite bowed down to Joab,²⁵⁵II Samuel 18:21. [which means “the Cushite” mentioned] ; And an ass and the lion,²⁵⁶I Kings 13:28. [which means “the ass” mentioned above in Verse 24]. So also: For ships were broken at Etzion-geber,²⁵⁷Ibid., 22:49. which means “the ships” [mentioned in the beginning of that verse] ; and there are many similar verses. Here also the expression, And he went into a land, is as if it said, “into the land,” i.e., the land of Se’ir which was mentioned.

וילך אל ארץ, to a land where previously he had been living on an ad hoc basis before Yaakov had returned from Lavan. Now, after Yaakov’s return, he decided to move there permanently. כי היה רכושם רב, the reason that Esau moved now was 1) because the combined herds of Yaakov and Esau were extensive, and Esau feared he would ultimately be forced to leave the land of Canaan as G’d had promised it to Yaakov’s children as their inheritance. After all, his father Yitzchok had said to him in 27,39 that whereas his inheritance would be משמני הארץ, “of the fat places of the earth,” nothing had been said to him indicating that he would own part of the land of Canaan. Perhaps his father had even told him that Mount Seir would be his. The Torah refers to this land as being Esau’s by right in Deuteronomy 2,5 as well as in Joshua 24,4. His claim to this region was therefore not only that of a conqueror, but one which had Divine approval.

וילך אל ארץ, “he went to ארץ.” According to Onkelos, the word ארץ is short for ארץ אחרת, “another country.” Rashi explains that Esau simply went in search of any country other than the land of Canaan, finally settling on the land of Seir as his new residence. Nachmanides writes that the Torah simply abbreviated, instead of writing וילך עשו אל ארץ שעיר, the Torah omitting details that it considered as obvious to the reader. This is especially so, since Esau’s having gone to Seir had already been mentioned in chapter 32. There are numerous such abbreviations to be found in the Torah.

מפני יעקב אחיו, “on account of Yaakov, his brother.” Seeing that he had sold the birthright to Yaakov, thus making Yaakov the legal heir of Yitzchok, he left for a foreign country to show that he did no longer dispute Yaakov’s claim to that land.

ולא יכלה ארץ מגוריהם AND THE LAND OF THEIR SOJOURNINGS COULD NOT — supply sufficient pasture for the cattle which they had. A Midrashic comment (Genesis Rabbah 82:13) on מפני יעקב אחיו [HE WENT TO A COUNTRY] ON ACCOUNT OF HIS BROTHER JACOB is: on account of the bond of indebtedness involved in the decree, (Genesis 14:13) “thy seed shall be a stranger etc… and they shall afflict them etc.” that was imposed upon Isaac’s descendants. He said, “I shall go hence — I desire no part either in the gift of this land which has been made to him (to my father) nor in the payment of this bond" . Another reason why he went away was on account of the shame he felt at having sold his birthright (cf. Genesis Rabbah 82:13).

AND THE LAND OF THEIR SOJOURNINGS. The meaning thereof is “the city of their sojournings,” which is Hebron, where Abraham and Isaac sojourned,²⁵⁸Above, 35:27. for the land of Canaan could support a thousand times more than Jacob and Esau. But when Esau saw that he could not stay in his city and in his place, he left the entire country to his brother and went his way.

ולא יכלה ארץ מגוריהם לשאת אותם, “and the land of their sojourning could not support them (their combined wealth of livestock).” The word ארץ, “land,” is used here very loosely, the reference being to the city of Chevron and its immediate surroundings. The Torah most certainly does not wish to imply that the whole land of Canaan was inadequate for these two families and their livestock. The point was that when Esau saw that he could not remain in his home town as it did not offer a good enough economic base for him, he decided to migrate.

Due to the shame that he sold his birthright. Rashi is saying: This is an additional reason [for his leaving].

ויש, wohl: ließ sich vollends nieder. Schon vor Jakobs Rückkehr finden wir Esau in Seir (Kap.32, 4). Allein er scheint dort noch nicht seinen bleibenden Aufenthalt gehabt zu haben. Seine Familie und sein Besitz waren noch in Kanaan. Erst nach Jakobs Rückkehr zog er völlig nach Seir. Vielleicht findet darin auch das לדרכו seine Erklärung. Er wohnte damals noch nicht in Seir, sondern (Kap.33, 16) war auf einem Zuge dorthin begriffen, und Jakob stellte ihm (Raw Hirsch on Genesis 36: 14) in Aussicht, sehr bald, noch vor seiner, nämlich Esaus, Rückkehr in Kanaan ihn dort zu besuchen.

ואלה AND THESE — are the generations that his sons begat after he went to Seir.

AND THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF ESAU THE FATHER OF EDOM. Scripture comes to mention the generations which his children begot after they went with him to Se’ir for Esau did not beget there. Thus Scripture begins from him by saying that he had already begotten Eliphaz and Re’uel,²⁵⁹Verse 10 here. and they begot these children in the land of Se’ir. It also mentions together with them the children of Oholibamah,²⁶⁰Verse 14 here. who were born in the land of Canaan,²⁶¹Verse 5 here. even though it does not mention any children that were born to them in the land of Se’ir,²⁶²According to Ramban above, the justification for mentioning the birth of Eliphaz and Re’uel was in order to mention their offspring. Why then was the birth of Oholibamah’s children mentioned? The answer is: “in order that they, etc.” so that they be counted together with their brothers, the sons of Esau, mentioned in the beginning of the section. It is also mentioned because they became chieftains in Se’ir since Scripture mentions all their chieftains.

ואלה תולדות עשו, a reference to his grandchildren, similar to Genesis 10,1 where after the same introduction, the grandsons of Noach are listed by the Torah. [not quite, as the chapter starts with the words ואלה תולדות בני נח. Ed.]

ואלה תולדות, now the Torah lists the descendants that were born to him while he lived in Mount Seir.

ואלה תולדות עשו, and the following are Esau’s developments.” The Torah proceeds to list biological descendants of Esau born after his migration to Seir, for he himself is not reported to have sired any more children at that time. Still, the Torah relates the descendants by starting with Esau having sired Eliphaz, etc. The children of Oholivamah who had been born in the land of Canaan are also mentioned here once more. By doing so, the Torah made sure they were included in the count with their brothers.

אלה שמות, first the Torah lists the names of his sons, followed by the names of his grandsons. No grandchildren of Oholvamah are mentioned. This need not mean that she did not have grandchildren, but, since the Torah was concerned with listing the Alufim, men of positions of authority, it is likely that none of Oholivamah’s grandchildren rose to such positions whereas her sons did.

ותמנע היתה פילגש AND TIMNA WAS CONCUBINE — This is stated to tell you in what importance Abraham was held — how eager people were to attach themselves to his descendants. This Timna was a descendant of chieftains, as it is said (v. 22) “And Lotan’s sister was Timna”, and Lotan was one of the chieftains inhabiting Seir — he was one of the Horites who had dwelt there from ancient times. She said to Eliphaz, “If I am unworthy to become your wife would that I might become your concubine!” In Chronicles (1 Chronicles 1:36) Scripture enumerates her amongst the children of Eliphaz, thus intimating that he took Seir’s wife and from the two of them Timna was born. When she grew up she became his concubine. This is why it is stated, “and Lotan’s sister was Timna”, and why Scripture does not enumerate her amongst Seir’s children, merely stating that she was sister to Lotan, Seir’s son, (see 5:20) because she was his sister from one mother and not from one father (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 1).

AND TIMNA WAS CONCUBINE TO ELIPHAZ ESAU’s SON. Because Scripture was not particular to tell us the names of the mothers of all the others, our Rabbis have interpreted that this was to tell us of the esteem in which Abraham our father was held, i.e., how eager people were to attach themselves to his descendants. This Timna was a descendant of chieftains, as it is said, And Lotan’s sister was Timna,²⁶³Verse 22 here. [and Lotan was one of the chieftains of Se’ir]. She said to Eliphaz, “If I am unworthy to become your wife, would that I might become your concubine,” as Rashi has written.
It is possible that the five sons of Eliphaz, mentioned in the preceding verse, were generally known as his children since he had begotten them from his wives. But Amalek, [born of Timna, the concubine of Eliphaz], was not known among his brothers, [who were the recognized children of Eliphaz], and he might have been included among Esau’s children because he was his descendant. Therefore, Scripture found it necessary to say that his mother so-and-so, to whom Amalek was known to have belonged, bore him to Eliphaz, but he is not listed among the descendants of Esau and did not dwell with them on mount Se’ir. Only the sons of the mistresses, and not the son of a concubine, are called Esau’s seed, since the son of the handmaid will not be heir with his sons, in keeping with the practice of his father’s father.²⁶⁴Above, 21:10.
Now concerning the descendants of Esau, we have been commanded not to abhor them²⁶⁵Deuteronomy 23:8. or take their land.²⁶⁶Ibid., 2:5. This refers to all his known sons who dwell in Se’ir, as they are called Edomites by his name, but the son of the concubine is not part of the descendants of Esau, and he did not inherit together with them in their land, and in fact with respect to him we have been commanded to the contrary, i.e., to abhor him and blot out his name.²⁶⁷Ibid., 25:19.
Now Rashi wrote further: “In the book of Chronicles²⁶⁸I Chronicles 1:36. Scripture enumerates Timna among the children of Eliphaz! This implies that he lived with Se’ir the Horite’s wife and from this union Timna was born. When she grew up she became his concubine. And this is why Scripture says, And Lotan’s sister was Timna,²⁶³Verse 22 here. [since Lotan’s father was Se’ir the Horite]. And the reason why Scripture does not enumerate her among Se’ir’s children is that she was Lotan’s sister maternally but not paternally.”
But I do not agree with this since in the book Chronicles, it should have said, “and Timna his daughter.”²⁶⁹See further, 46:15: “and Dinah his daughter.” Why should Scripture enumerate the woman among the sons? Perhaps Scripture is not particular about this when a matter is known for so we find there in Chronicles: And the sons of Amram: Aaron and Moses, and Miriam. And the sons of Aaron: Nadab and Abihu, etc.²⁷⁰I Chronicles 5:29. [Scripture thus enumerates a woman among the sons.] If so, it is fitting that we say that this Timna was the daughter of Eliphaz, who had been born to him of the wife of Se’ir the Horite after the death of her husband, and she was thus Lotan’s sister from one mother. Eliphaz took her as a concubine, this being permissible to an idolater.²⁷¹Sanhedrin 55b. Or we shall say, in accordance with the opinion of our Rabbis [that Timna was illegitimate, as explained above in the words of Rashi], that the Timna mentioned in Chronicles²⁶⁸I Chronicles 1:36. is identical with Timna the chieftain mentioned further on,²⁷²Verse 40 here. for he is enumerated there in Chronicles²⁶⁸I Chronicles 1:36. among the sons of Eliphaz, just as Korah is enumerated there²⁷³I Chronicles 1:35. among the sons of Esau [while here in Verses 15-16 Korah is listed among the sons of Eliphaz. You must therefore conclude that he was illegitimate, as was Timna]. Furthermore, Korah is listed here in Verse 5 as the son of Oholibamah [and Esau, and further in Verse 16 he is enumerated among the sons of Eliphaz. You must therefore conclude] that both Korah and Timna were illegitimate, born of one father, and enumerated with the children of another, for it is far-fetched to say that the woman Timna was enumerated among the sons, as was suggested above.
In line with the simple meaning of Scripture it is feasible to conjecture that Timna, the concubine of Eliphaz, after having given birth to Amalek [as stated in our present verse], gave birth to a son, and she had hard labor and died. As her soul was departing she called his name Timna so that her name be remembered, while his father Eliphaz called him Korah. Scripture, however, does not ascribe this son Timna to Timna his mother in order not to prolong the account for the intent is only to enumerate Amalek by himself. However, the sons of Eliphaz were seven, [as they are enumerated here in Verses 15-16, and Korah is among them]. Now Scripture enumerates there the chieftains who were the sons of Eliphaz in the order of their importance. Therefore, it gave Kenaz and Korah precedence over Gatam [although the order of their birth as stated in Verse 11 was: Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz].
I have an additional opinion concerning this verse in connection with that which our Rabbis have said in the Midrash of “Thirty-two Rules by which Agadah²⁷⁴The part of Rabbinic teaching which explains the Bible homiletically, as opposed to the Halachic (or legal) interpretation, which is governed by the famous thirteen principles of interpretation mentioned by Rabbi Ishmael. This Midrash of “Thirty-two Rules” for Agadah was collated by Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean. is explained.” There they mentioned this rule: “There should have been one arrangement for [two verses, meaning that there are verses which should really be combined] but the prophets divided them for some reason! An example is the verse which says, For a multitude of the people, etc.”²⁷⁵For a multitude of the people… had not cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the passover otherwise that it is written. For Hezekiah had prayed for them, saying: The good Lord pardon, (II Chronicles 30:18). And then in Verse 19 it continues: His whole heart he hath set to seek G-d, the Eternal, the G-d of his fathers, though not according to the purification that pertaineth to holy things. Now Verse 18 does not explain whom G-d should pardon, while Verse 19 does not explain “who set his heart, etc.” Combining the two verses makes the sense clear. Hezekiah prayed that the good Lord pardon every one who, though he had not cleansed himself according, etc., had set his whole heart to seek G-d. Those who pursue the plain meaning of Scripture apply this to other verses. And so too this verse says: (And) the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam and Kenaz,²⁷⁶This concludes Verse 11, while And Timna begins Verse 12. Ramban combines the two verses into one, with the result that Timna is also enumerated among the sons of Eliphaz. and Timna. Then Scripture returns to say, there was a concubine to Eliphaz Esau’s son, and she bore to Eliphaz Amalek, but Scripture does not mention the name of the concubine. But in truth she was Timna, as it is said, Lotan’s sister was Timna,²⁶³Verse 22 here. and this is the reason that Scripture did not mention her name here since it did not want to say “and Timna” twice, once in reference to the male chieftain and once in reference to the female concubine. Thus Eliphaz had seven sons, [who are enumerated in Verses 11-12: Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, Kenaz, Timna, and Amalek], and they are the same chieftains ascribed to Eliphaz in Verses 15-16, but they changed the name of this youngest son of Eliphaz — namely Timna — to Korah because his name was like that of the concubine and so that he should not be thought of as her son. He was named Korah upon his ascending to the position of chieftain.
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that Korah the son of Esau’s wife Oholibamah is counted twice; [in Verse 5 he is mentioned as Oholibamah’s son while in Verse 16 he is listed as Adah’s son], because he was the youngest of Oholibamah’s sons, [as indicated in Verse 5 where he is mentioned last. Upon his mother’s death] Adah raised him, [which explains why he is mentioned among Adah’s children in Verse 16]. So also the verse, the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul,²⁷⁷II Samuel 21:8. as our Rabbis have said.²⁷⁸Sanhedrin 19 b: “But they were really Merab’s children! [See I Samuel 18:19.] It is because Merab gave birth to them. However Michal raised them; therefore, they are called by her name.”
According to this opinion [of Ibn Ezra, i.e., that because Adah raised Korah he is counted among her children], the explanation of Scripture in the book of Chronicles (I, 1:36), [where it mentions seven sons of Eliphaz, and among them, and Timna and Amalek, while here in Verses 11-12, it mentions only six sons of Eliphaz, is as follows: The expression in Chronicles, and Timna and Amalek, means] that Timna gave birth to Amalek, the sense of the verse thus being, “and to Timna, Amalek.” The letter lamed meaning “to” is missing just as in the verse: And there were two men that were captains of bands Saul’s son,²⁷⁹II Samuel 4:2. which means “to Saul’s son.” [Thus it was Timna who was his mother, but because Adah raised him he is enumerated here in Verse 12 among the sons of Adah].
The correct interpretation however is, as I have suggested, [that Timna, Lotan’s sister, bore Amalek to Eliphaz], and the verse stating, And these are the sons of Adah — [namely, Verse 16, which mentions Amalek among them], refers to the majority of the names mentioned there, for Amalek was not her son. Similarly the verse, These are the sons of Jacob, who were born to him in Padan-aram,²⁸⁰Above, 35:26. does not apply to Benjamin, [who was born in the Land of Israel, although he is mentioned in the enumeration which follows].

ותמנע היתה פילגש, I have found in a Midrash on Psalms (שוחר טוב) that the prefix ו before the word תמנע suggests that this word may be read as part of what follows or as part of what preceded it. In fact, in Chronicles I 1,36 בני אליפז, תימן ואומר צפי וגעתם קנז ותמנע ועמלק it is understood as belonging to verse 11 in our chapter.

ותמנע היתה פלגש, Eliphaz was one of the conquerors of that land and Timna a sister of the אלופים of the original inhabitants of the region fell to him as a conquest and became his concubine.

ותמנע, it is possible that the Timna mentioned here was not a sister of Lotan as opined in the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 82,14) where we were told that this woman’s name and husband is mentioned in order to further illustrate the tremendous esteem in which Avraham had been held internationally at the time. This woman, who was the sister of an Aluf, i.e. a well known dignitary, a man of great prominence, said that seeing she did not have the good fortune to marry a direct descendant of Avraha, she was willing to settle for the lower rank of being a concubine to a son of Esau in order somehow to become a member of this outstanding family.

ותמנע היתה פילגש לאליפז בן עשו. “Timna was a concubine of Eliphaz, son of Esau.” Seeing that the Torah did not mention by name any of the mothers of Esau’s children except this one, Rashi was prompted to explain that Timna was outstanding, as expressed by her urge to marry into Avraham’s family, even to be married to Esau’s son as a concubine, if that was the best she could do. Nachmanides writes that it is possible that the sons of Eliphaz were already well known to him [i.e. he knew who their mothers were. Ed.] seeing their mothers were his real wives. On the other hand, Amalek, the son of a concubine, had to be identified clearly, else we could not have been certain who the father was. Amalek therefore was not included in Esau’s sons (grandsons) as he also did not dwell with his brothers. The Torah has commanded us not to detest the sons of Esau, and not to grab any part of their ancestral lands. This law refers to the known ancestral lands of Esau, the region of Mount Seir. The inhabitants of that region were known as Edomites. The son of the concubine did not reside in that land and was not called Edomite, and this is why there is no contradiction in the Torah having commanded us to wipe out the memory and name of Amalek. Rashi explains that in Chronicles I 1,39 Timna is included without hesitation as one of Eliphaz’s children, something which reveals to us that Eliphaz must have committed incest (adulterous) with the wife of Seir. When she grew up she became the concubine of Eliphaz, and that is the meaning of the words אחות לוטן תמנע, that from the father’s side she was a sister of Lotan. She is not enumerated with the descendants of Seir, as she was only a sister through the mother. Nachmanides does not agree that we can accept an explanation which would result in our accepting that Ezra in Chronicles counted Timna with the male offspring of Eliphaz when she clearly was a daughter and not a son. She should have been identified as Eliphaz’ daughter in Chronicles if Rashi is correct. Perhaps the Bible is not so explicit when the subject is something so well known, [that Timna was a woman. Ed.] We also find Miriam paired with Aaron and Moses in the same line in Chronicles I, 5,29 which would give the impression to the uninitiated that all three were males. The three personages are so familiar to the readers of Chronicles, that Ezra did not see the need to add that Miriam was a woman. At any rate, it is quite unlikely that Timna, not a world famous lady, would be enumerated together with the males. Perhaps we should say, in agreement with our sages, that the Timna mentioned in Chronicles was identical with the Aluf Timna who appears in verse 40 of our chapter, and is enumerated there as one of the sons of Eliphaz, just as the name Korach is also enumerated with the sons of Eliphaz This Korach who was the son of Oholivamah, wife of Esau, was also a mamzer, bastard, born from a forbidden incestuous relationship. He too was not listed with the category he belonged to. According to the plain meaning of the text we would have to say that Timna who was the wife of Eliphaz and bore him Amalek, became pregnant again and experienced a difficult birth as a result of which she died. The Torah did not mention the name of the baby whose birth caused her death. His father may have called that son Korach, a detail that the Torah omitted in order not to make the narrative unduly long. The major purpose of the Torah when narrating all these details was to isolate Amalek in such a way that the subsequent commandment that we are to wipe out the memory of Amalek should not be perceived as contradictory to the Torah’s injunction not to discriminate politically against the family of Esau. The Torah was not concerned with telling us who Amalek’s mother was. While it is true that when the Alufim are enumerated later on, the name Korach appears prior to the name Amalek although he was senior, these Alufim were mentioned in the order of their relative importance. This is also why Kenaz, though younger, was listed ahead of both Korach and Gaaton. I have to add that the verse needs to be understood as follows: “the sons of Eliphaz are Teiman, Omer, Tzfo, Gaaton, Knaz and Timna; i.e. Timna was also one of the sons of Eliphaz.” At that point, the Torah backtracks by saying that Eliphaz, the son of Esau, also had a concubine who bore Amalek for him. The name of the concubine is not mentioned. Actually, this concubine called Timna was a sister of Lotan. The reason why her name was not mentioned where you would have expected it, was that the Torah did not want to confuse the reader by listing two “Timnas” consecutively, one being male the other female. The seven sons of Eliphaz who were named here, appear later under the heading of “Alufey Esau,” ‘the “headmen” of Esau. As to the fact that this name of Timna has been exchanged when the Torah enumerates the “alufim,” this is precisely because his name was the same as that of Eliphaz’ concubine who was not considered a son of his in the regular manner. Hence he was renamed “Korach,” who had been elevated to the status of “Aluf.” Our sages believe that Eliphaz had slept with Oholivamah, the wife of his father, and that the result of this union was Korach. Ibn Ezra considers that Korach was the son of Oholivamah, wife of Esau, and that he is listed as one of her sons.

She said: “I may not merit being married to you, but, if only I could be your concubine.” Otherwise, why does it say, “Timna became a concubine...”? It should just say that Amalek, too, was among Eliphaz’s sons. Why was his mother’s name mentioned, over and above that of Eliphaz’s other sons? Also, what difference does it make if she was Eliphaz’s concubine or his wife? Therefore Rashi explains, “This is to inform us... if only I could be your concubine...” And therefore Rashi explains [on v. 24] that this is why the Torah had to write the families of the Chorites in vs. 29—30. (R. Meir Stern)

In the version in Chronicles, when listing the descendants of the בני שעיר, Timna is again listed in verse 39 as a sister of Lotan. This is parallel to Machalat, the daughter of Yishmael whom Esau married as a concession to his parents’ disgust with his other wives (Genesis 28,9) being described asאחות נביות “a sister to Nevayot, son of Yishmael.” The description of a woman as a sister of her brother rather than as a daughter of her father or mother also occurs in Exodus 15,20 where Miriam is described as Aaron’s sister. What happened here is that the first time Timna is mentioned, she is described in terms of he relationship to Avraham’s family, i.e. as the concubine of a great grandson of Avraham, Eliphaz, son of Esau, whereas the second time Timna is described as a sister of Lotan (verse 22) not genetically related to Avraham at all, but part of the genealogy of the בני שעיר. Such digressions in the sequence of a narrative are not unknown in the Bible. We find the following in Joshua 13,7-8 after G’d had instructed him at the beginning of the chapter to proceed with distributing the land of Israel to the various tribes, ועתה חלק את הארץ הזאת בנחלה לתשעת השבטים וחצי שבט המנשה. עמו הראובני והגדי לקחו נחלתם אשר נתן להם משה בעבר הירדן מזרחה נתן להם משה עבד ה' “Therefore, divide this territory into hereditary portions for the nine tribes and the half tribe of Menashe. Now, the Reubenites and the Gadites, along with the other half tribe of Menashe had already received their shares which Moses assigned to them on the east side of the Jordan- as assigned to them by Moses the servant of the Lord.” There can be no question that something is missing here as part of the second verse. You would have to say that this verse answered the question implied by the first verse, i.e. “what about the other half of the tribe of Menashe?” The reason for this peculiar division in describing the tribal allocation for the tribe of Menashe is that one half of the tribe, i.e. the half mentioned last, received their allocation by the authority of Moses himself, whereas the second half of the tribe received its allocation by the authority of Joshua. I, Samuel, (our author) have found a third verse [in addition to the two mentioned in the Midrash quoted. Ed.] about the genealogy in Chronicles I 8,35-36 where we deal with the family of Yonathan son of King Sha-ul the following: ובני מיכה פיתון ומלך ןתארע ואחז. ואחז הוליד את יהועדה, ויהועדה הוליד את עלמת וגו'.. “The sons of Micah: Pithon, Melech, Taarea, and Achaz. Achaz begot Yehoadah; and Yehoadah begot Alemeth, etc.” This same paragraph is repeated once more in chapter 9,41-43. In that sequence mention of Achaz is missing in the first of the two verses so that he appears out of nowhere in the second verse. Not only that but he is introduced with the connective letter ו, i.e. “and Achaz, etc. We must therefore conclude that the word ואחז הוליד, “and Achaz begot,” answers the verse which had in effect been interrupted in 8,35 with the word אחז. The author takes up the thread interrupted in chapter 8 and fills the reader in about the offspring of Achaz.

אלה בני עדה, “These are the sons of Adah.” .The meaning is that the majority of these listed were her sons, barring Amalek who was not hers.

Indicating that he came upon Seir’s wife... Re’m asks: How does Rashi know that Timna was an illegitimate child? Perhaps Eliphaz took Seir’s wife after Seir’s demise, and begat Timna from her. Maharshal answers: If so, how could Eliphaz’s own daughter publicly become his concubine? But it is understandable if Eliphaz illicitly came upon Seir’s wife, as people would not know that Timna was Eliphaz’s daughter. But it seems to me [that the answer is:] that if Timna was Eliphaz’s [legitimate] daughter, why does it say, “Lotan’s sister was Timna”? It is understandable if she was Eliphaz’s illicit daughter, as people would assume she was Seir’s daughter and thus Lotan’s full sister. And Scripture would be informing us of the greatness of Avraham, [for the sister of Chief Lotan became a concubine to Eliphaz]. But if Eliphaz legitimately begat Timna, and then took her as a concubine because a ben Noach is [technically] permitted to his daughter, why does the verse tell us she was Lotan’s sister? To inform us of Avraham’s greatness? [This cannot be,] because she anyway was known to all as Avraham’s descendant. For Eliphaz legitimately took Seir’s [former] wife and begat Timna from her. Re’m answers: All these families were written here only to tell of their shame and illegitimacy. So wherever the opportunity arises, we attribute it to [their] illicitness.

ותלד לעשו את יעוש “she bore Ye-ush for Esau.” The word is spelled as יעיש, but read as if it had been spelled יעוש.

אלה אלופי בני עשו THESE WERE CHIEFTAINS OF THE SONS OF ESAU — Heads of families.

All the Alufim mentioned in this chapter are heads of cities of clans. I believe that the אלוף קרח mentioned in this verse as one of the sons of Eliphaz is identical with the תמנע mentioned in Chronicles as a son of Eliphaz, (compare verse 12) whereas the קרח, mentioned in verse 18 here as the son of Oholovimah, is a different person by the same name.

Heads of families. Rashi is saying they were leaders and heads, each over a different family, but not that the families were formed by them.

אלוף קרח. Korach had not been mentioned earlier as a son of Eliphaz, but merely as a son of Oholovimah. Perhaps this Korach was another son of Eliphaz who had become an Aluf, and has now been mentioned with the other Aluphim who were sons of Eliphaz.

אלוף קרח, “a chieftain over a thousand, named Korach. This person has already been listed amongst the sons of Eliphaz that has been mentioned in Chronicles I 1,36, seeing that the Korach who was a son of Oholivamah is a different Korach. In the tractate Sotah 13, Rashi explains that there was a Korach who was the son of Eliphaz as well as a Korach who was the son of Oholivamah. Some commentators argue that both times the Torah refers to the same Korach; the reason why the Torah mentions the “second” Korach is only because he lived together with the alufey Eliphaz. His mother Oholivamah died while Korach was still very young and she adopted him and raised him with her own children. We find something parallel concerning Amalek, who is linked together with the sons of Adah because he was the son of Adah’s servant maid.

בארץ אדום, who had been born in the land of Edom and who had risen to the positions of Aluphim there.

אלה בני עדה, the sons of the son of Adah. Amalek was not a son of Adah, seeing he was the son of a concubine. The only reason why he is mentioned in this verse is because he too had risen to the position of an Aluph. The Torah, concentrating on the majority, simply lumps them all together as “sons of Adah.”

אלה בני עשו ואלה אלופיהם, the sons of Esau are the “patriarchs” all of whom have been mentioned as being Aluphim, heads of families, clans. Our sages in Sanhedrin 99 have said that every person named here as אלוף was in fact a king, except that he had not formally been “crowned.” The reason why the Torah bothered to list all these descendants of Esau was as a sign of respect for Yitzchok, just as the descendants of Yishmael had been listed at the end of Parshat Toldot as a sign of respect for Avraham. An additional reason for mentioning all these names is to teach us that it is important for any human being to know his antecedents, and after whom he himself has been named. In the case of Israelites this will help ensure that their legitimacy will not be challenged, that no one can call them mamzer, bastard, and get away with it. The Torah considers this so important that when referring to the Israelites entering lands which once belonged to the sons of Esau, it writes: “you are now crossing into territory of your brothers the sons of Esau.” (Deut. 2,4.)

ישבי הארץ THE INHABITANTS OF THE LAND — i.e. who had been its inhabitants before Esau came there. Our Rabbis explained (Shabbat 85b) that they are called יושבי הארץ because they were experts in making the land habitable (by skillful cultivation) saying: this entire rood of ground is suitable for planting olives, that entire rood for vines — because they tasted the soil and so discovered what was suitable for planting in it.

THESE ARE THE SONS OF SE’IR ‘HACHORI’ (THE HORITE). Hachori was the name of a man who was the father of an ancient nation which was called by his name, just as the Amorite and the Perizzite, as it is said, When He destroyed the Horites from before them.²⁸¹Deuteronomy 2:22. And he was called Se’ir because of the name of the land which was Se’ir — a name derived from Esau who was a hairy man²⁸²Above, 27:11. — from the day Esau came there. The name Edom likewise stemmed from Esau. However, Scripture seems to distinguish between “Se’ir” and “Edom” for it says, These are the sons of Se’ir the Horite who were the inhabitants of the land from the first, not the sons of Se’ir the Edomite who came there. With the help of G-d, I will yet explain the genealogy of the Horite in the book of Mishneh Torah.²⁸³Deuteronomy 2:10.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “Scripture mentions this in order to delineate the genealogy of Se’ir and Esau since Israel was to be commanded, concerning the sons of Esau, [not to abhor them or take their land].”²⁸⁴Ibid., 23:8; 2:5. And Rashi wrote: “It would have been unnecessary to write the genealogy of the Horites had it not been that Scripture wishes to mention Timna, thereby showing the esteem in which Abraham was held.”

יושבי הארץ, originally, before Esau’s time. The clan of Esau inherited their land as mentioned in Deuteronomy 2,12 וישבו תחתם, “they settled in their place. (replaced them)”

אלה בני שעיר החורי, the reason the Torah lists the outstanding people of that region is to show that Esau overpowered them in spite of their prowess. Obviously, this must have been G’d’s will, as the Torah testifies in Deuteronomy 2,22 כאשר עשה לבני עשו היושבים בשעיר, “as He did on behalf of the sons of Esau who are now living in Seir.”

אלה בני שעיר החודי, These are the sons of Se-ir the Chorite, etc. The reason the Torah writes this whole detailed chapter is only to tell us how generously G'd endowed the wicked Esau on account of the merit of his father and grandfather. Our sages in Shabbat 85 also explain this in the following words of Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov: "The word Chori means that 'freed' the Chorim [the former inhabitants of Se-ir] of their possessions. In other words, the Torah speaks of G'd handing over their lands to the sons of Esau. We have an interesting statement in Sanhedrin 99 saying that Timna who was prince Lotan's sister, the most highly placed woman in that land, became the concubine of Eliphaz, son of Esau because all her efforts to intermarry with either Abraham, Isaac or Jacob were to no avail. Rather than remain a princess in her own right she chose to become a slave in the house of Esau. When her attempt to belong to the Jewish people became frustrated she became the maternal grandmother of Amalek instead.

אלה בני שעיר החרי ישבי הארץ, who used to dwell in that land before the sons of Esau and their offspring came to live there. This story has as its objective that the whole earth and all that is in it belongs to the one and only G’d Who has created it, and Who therefore may allocate it to whoever He wishes. He may deprive one nation of its homeland and give it to another. In this situation G’d expelled the nation which had lived in the region known as Mont Seir and allowed Esau and his clan to displace them. According to Bereshit Rabbah, or to Shabbat 85 and quoted by Rashi, the word חרי is derived from ריח, smell, fragrance. The people described as having lived in that land were such expert farmers that they could determine merely by their sense of small which piece of land was best suited to grow different crops.

אלה בני שעיר החרי, “These are the sons of Seir, the Chori.” Rashi writes that the genealogy of all the people following was recorded here only in order to demonstrate the outstanding reputation of Avraham, which had caused Timna to make every conceivable effort to become related to him by marriage to him or one of his family members. Ibn Ezra writes that the reason for this chapter having been written is to separate the genealogy of Esau from that of the local inhabitants, the Chori. The Israelites received instructions from G’d concerning the descendants of Esau, but these were not applicable to the descendants of the Chori. Nachmanides explains that the Chori was the name of a founder of a nation which had been named after their founder-father. The nation was also called Seir, on account of the region inhabited by that nation. This latter name became associated with Esau and his descendants. The land of the Chori, which had first been inhabited by members of that tribe, was taken over by Esau and his sons. Our verse shows that the name Seir for the region concerned predated the arrival of Esau in that region. It is related to the arrival there for the first time by Esau, whom we have known from birth as איש שעיר, “a hairy man.” The name “Edom” also is traced back to Esau. The Torah makes a distinction between the inhabitants of the land Seir traced to Chori, and those traced to Esau. The difficulty with Nachmanides’ explanation is that we do find already in Genesis 14,6 a reference to “Chori in their mountains of Seir.” The chapter in question describes a situation prevailing at least 100 years before Esau was born. Ibn Ezra understands the word חרי as in חרי יהודה, “outstanding men of Yehudah.” (compare Jeremiah 27,20; Nechemyah 6,17)

'אלה בני שעיר וגו, “these were the sons of Seir, etc.” We do not know Seir’s ancestry. The Torah mentions his offspring merely in order to distinguish them from Esau’s offspring, seeing that the Torah (Deuteronomy 2,12) discusses them in connection with the nations whom the Israelites under Moses and Joshua are not to attack or harass.

יושבי הארץ, “the inhabitants of the land;” originally that land had belonged to them as we know from Deuteronomy 2,12: ובני עשו יירשום וישבו תחתם, “an the descendants of Esau disinherited them and settled there in their place.

וצבעון וענה, “and Tzivon and Anah;” this was the same Tzivon who had slept with his mother as a result of which Anah had been born. Subsequently, he slept with his daughterinlaw, the wife of Anah, as a result of which he produced Oholivamah, Esau’s wife.

ודישון ואצר ודשן, as well as Dishon, Atzar, and Dishan.” According to the vocalisation by the authors of the tradition that we rely on, the sequence for reading these names is as follows: דישון, דישן, דישון, דישן, דישן דישון, דישן to help us memorize this sequence (these names appear a total of seven times) it pays to commence with the seventh day, i.e. Shabbat. On the seventh day the second day and the fifth day of the week (the three days of the week the Torah is read in public) this recalls the spelling with the letter ו. On the days of the week when we do not read from the Torah in public, i.e. first, third, fourth and sixth day, this recalls the times it is read as if spelled defectively. Do not be astounded concerning the phrasing of: ואלה בני דישן חמדן וגו', “and these were the sons of Dishon, Chemdon,” in verse 27. This refers to the first time we read about דישון. Verse 27 refers back to דישן in verse 26 which should have been vocalised as דישון. We must understand that whenever in the Holy Scriptures books written later, refer to names of persons or places which appear spelled differently from the first time they had appeared, they refer to the ones mentioned the first time in the Bible, unless otherwise stated. Examples of the names of the same people, or the same verbs, being spelled differently in different Books of the Bible, are: Samuel II 22 as opposed to Psalms chapter 18, where the word מגדל, in verse 51 of the former means the same as the word מגדיל in the verse 51 of Psalms.[You will note the similarity of the subject matter in both chapters, plus the fact that both of these words appear in verse 51 of the chapter mentioned. Compare also Genesis 32,32 and 31 respectively, where the name of the place פנואל is once spelled with the letter ו and the other time with the letter י in the middle. Compare the spelling of the ears of corn in Pharaoh’s dream in Genesis 41,7 as דקות, and when Joseph interprets it in about it in Genesis 41,27, as רקות. Our author cites a few more examples which I have decided to skip as he has made his point. Ed.]

AND LOTAN’s SISTER WAS TIMNA. This is analogous to the verses: And the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah;²⁸⁵Above, 4:22. And their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail;²⁸⁶I Chronicles 2:16. And Tamar was their sister;²⁸⁷Ibid., 3:9. and Serah their sister.²⁸⁸Genesis, 46:17. It is the custom of Scripture to trace the genealogy of a daughter through the brothers. Now it would have been proper that Timna be enumerated above with the sons of Se’ir by saying, “And Dishon, and Ezer, and Dishan²⁸⁹Verse 21 here. and their sister Timna.” But since she was Lotan’s sister both paternally and maternally, and not the maternal sister of the other brothers, Scripture therefore wanted to trace her genealogy through Lotan. It may be that she was Lotan’s maternal but not paternal sister and she was not the daughter of Se’ir the Horite, [and therefore could not be listed among his children].

ואחות לוטן תמנע. Seeing that Lotan was the outstanding one among his brothers, Timna’s genealogy is linked to her prominent brother rather than to her father. We have encountered the same principle when Machalat whom Esau married to assuage the hurt feelings of his parents, is described as the sister of Nevayot, a son of Yishmael. Also Miriam the prophetess, is described as Aaron’s sister instead of as Amram’s daughter. (Exodus 15,20)

ואחות לוטן תמנע. “Lotan’s sister was Timna.” It is customary for the Bible to trace the ancestry of the daughters by mentioning their brothers. Examples are: “the sister of Tuval Kayin was Naamah,” (Genesis 4,22) Actually, she should have been listed already together with the sons of Seir and Dishan, etc. (36,30). It is possible, however, that she was a full sister to Lotan, both having the same father and mother, whereas she was not a sister to the sons of Seir mentioned in verses 26-30, as she was not a daughter of the tribe of Seir.

ואחות לוטן תמנע, “Lotan’s sister was called Timna.” Seeing that Lotan was the senior of the brothers, Timna’s name appears next to his. [Normally, we would have expected the sequence: ותמנע אחות לוטן, “Timna was the sister of Lotan.” Ed.] We find a similar example of this construction in Genesis 28,9, as well as in Exodus 15,20 and in Exodus 6,23.

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.

AND THESE ARE THE CHILDREN OF ANAH: DISHON AND OHOLIBAMAH THE DAUGHTER OF ANAH. Such is the way of Scripture when referring to daughters, as in the expression, and his daughter Dinah.²⁹⁷Further, 46:15. Now this Anah was the fourth son of Se’ir the Horite, enumerated above,²⁹²Verse 20 here. after Zibeon his brother, for the section enumerates seven sons²⁹⁸Verses 20-21 here. of Se’ir the Horite in the order of their birth. This Anah had another son also called by the name Dishon as was his uncle,²⁹⁹Verse 21 here. and he had a daughter called Oholibamah, which was also the name of her relative, the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon.³⁰⁰Verse 2 here. This is why Scripture says concerning Esau’s wife, Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon,³⁰⁰Verse 2 here. in order to relate that she was the daughter of Anah who had found the mules, and granddaughter of Zibeon, not Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, the son of Se’ir the Horite, Zibeon’s brother. However, in the opinion of some of our Rabbis²⁹⁴Pesachim 54a. there is in this entire section only one man called Anah, and he was Zibeon’s son.³⁰¹Verse 24 here. Since Zibeon committed incest with his mother, the wife of Se’ir the Horite, Scripture thus enumerates Anah among Se’ir the Horite’s sons²⁹²Verse 20 here. because people considered him as Se’ir’s son and called him “Anah the son of Se’ir,” and he grew up among his sons because Se’ir thought he was his son. Scripture, however, enumerates him a second time as Zibeon’s son³⁰¹Verse 24 here. in keeping with the true facts. This is the interpretation of the symbolizing interpreters as is mentioned in Tractate Pesachim,²⁹⁴Pesachim 54a. but it is not the consensus of opinion in the Gemara and is not at all the plain meaning of Scripture.

ואלה בני ענה, דישון ואהלבימה בת ענה, “this is the offspring of Anah; Dishon and Oholivamah daughter of Anah.” This is the way the Bible lists names of girls, as for instance in Genesis 46,15 ואת דינה בתו, “and his daughter Dinah.” This Anah was the fourth son of Seir, being a brother of Tzivon; he is listed after Tzivon, as they are listed in order of their prominence, not their ages. He had another son, named Dishon, the same name as that of his uncle, and this son had a daughter whose name was Oholivamah, the same name as her relative the Oholivamah who was a daughter of Anah, son of Tzivon. In order to avoid confusion, the Torah writes in connection with Oholivamah the wife of Esau, that she was the daughter of Anah who was the son of Tzivon, seeing that she had been the daughter of the Anah who had discovered the mules. In other words, she was a granddaughter of Tzivon. She was not the Oholivamah who was the daughter of Anah, who was the son of Seir the Chivi, a brother of Tzivon. Ibn Ezra writes that “Oholivamah the daughter of Anah,” does not refer to the Anah mentioned at the end of the verse (24 as the father of Oholivamah), for if it had been, there would have been no reason to mention him once more. He must therefore be the one mentioned at the end of the first verse, and there was only one Oholivamah. Our sages explain that there was only one man called Anah, the result of his father Tzivon having slept with his mother. This Anah was raised in the house of Seir the Chori together with his other sons. This is why he is enumerated together with the sons of Tzivon, seeing he was his son. Rabbeinu Tam believes that Anah was a woman and proves it from the line “Oholivamah, daughter of Anah” (verse 13). Anah herself was a daughter of Tzivon. As to the apparent contradiction, seeing the Torah writes: "הוא ענה" which means “he is the Anah, etc.;” this means that she inherited part of Seir’s estate together with Tzivon, her uncle’s other sons. (compare Talmud Baba Batra 116) Rashi claims that the reason why Oholivamah is described as the daughter of Anah was because Anah slept with his mother the wife of Tzivon and that he sired Oholivamah from that union. This is why she was referred to as “the daughter of Anah.and the daughter of Tzivon.”

ואלה בני ענה, “and these are the offspring of Anah:” even though the verse mentions both בני ענה as well as בת ענה they are the same person.

AND THESE ARE THE CHILDREN OF DISHAN: HEMDAN AND ESHBAN. This Dishan is identical with Dishon, the fifth son of Se’ir,²⁹⁹Verse 21 here. it being of no consequence whether he is called Dishan or Dishon, except when both names are mentioned in one verse²⁹⁹Verse 21 here. in order to distinguish between them. Similarly, And Hirom made the pots…³⁰²I Kings 7:40. So Hiram made an end of doing all the work.³⁰³In the same verse. Since Hirom and Hiram refer to the same person, there is no objection even if both names are used in the same verse. The case is different with Dishon and Dishan, who are two persons. It was necessary for Scripture to call him Dishan here so that it should not be thought that he is identical with Dishon the son of Anah mentioned nearby [in Verse 25] for the purpose of ascribing his children to him, for so it would have appeared.

ואלה בני דישון, חמדן וגו', “and these are the sons of Dishon, Chemdon, etc.” This refers to Dishon the fifth son of Seir, and it does not matter that once he is referred to as דישון and another time as דישן. These two spellings would refer to different people only if they would appear in the same verse. In that instance, the difference in the spelling would alert us to the fact that the Torah refers to two different people whose names sound alike. We encounter a similar situation in Kings I 7,40 ויעש חירום, “Chirom constructed etc,” and ויכל חירם, “Chiram completed.” In this verse the Torah had to refer to Dishon once with a letter ו and once without it, in order to make sure that we understand that these are two different people and not the Dishon son of Anah who had been mentioned before, unless, of course, he had changed his name.

ואלה בני דישן, “these are the sons of Dishan, etc.” This is the same Dishan mentioned earlier in verse 21, the fifth son of Seir HaChori. Sometimes the Torah spells his name דישון; other times it spells the name דישן. It is the same person each time. We find such differences in the spelling of the names of one and the same person elsewhere, such as in Kings where Chirom is sometimes spelled חירם other times חירום (compare Kings I 7,9). This principle applies only when these names appear in different verses. When both spellings appear in the same verse, however, it is clear that two different people of similar names are meant. The spelling is changed so that we become aware that the Torah refers two separate people.

אלה בני אצר, These are the sons of Ezer, etc. This verse may be understood homiletically. Yalkut Shimoni on Proverbs 2, asks rhetorically why the Jewish people are frequently poor. G'd answered because He wanted to ensure that they would have enduring riches in the Hereafter (Proverbs 8,21). If someone wants to assure himself of such an enduring inheritance he must be willing to endure poverty or some other problems in this world. The word אצר in this verse is equivalent to אוצר, treasure. People desirous of accumulating treasures in the world to come must be prepared to suffer afflictions in this world, i.e. בלהן, זעון ועקן. Such afflictions will ultimately prove to be blessings.

’ואלה המלכים וגו AND THESE ARE THE KINGS etc. — There were eight and Jacob raised an equal number in whose days the kingdom of Esau temporarily ceased to exist, viz., Saul, Ishbosheth, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Asa, Abiah and Jehoshaphat. For of the days of Yoram his (Jehoshaphat’s) son it is written, (2 Kings 8:20) “In his days Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah and made a king over themselves”, whereas in the days of Jehoshaphat it is written, (1 Kings 23:48) “And there was no king in Edom: a deputy was king”. (יובב בן זרח מבצרה (33 JOBAB, THE SON OF ZERAH OF BOZRAH — Bozrah was one of the Moabite cities, as it is said (Jeremiah 48:24 which chapter is a prophecy against Moab), “[Judgment is come upon…] and upon Keriath and upon Bozrah etc.” Because it produced a king for Edom it is to be smitten together with them (the Edomites), as it is said (Isaiah 34:6) “For the Lord hath a slaughtering in Bozrah, [and a great slaughter in the Land of Edom]’ (Genesis Rabbah 83:2).

AND THESE ARE THE KINGS THAT REIGNED IN THE LAND OF EDOM. This was written in order to relate that the blessing of Isaac was fulfilled in Esau. He had said to him, And by thy sword shalt thou live,³⁰⁴Above, 27:40. and they prevailed over the sons of Se’ir the Horite and reigned over them in their land. These cities mentioned here were provinces in the land of Edom, for Bozrah³⁰⁵Verse 33 here. belonged to Edom, as it is written, For the Eternal hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Edom.³⁰⁶Isaiah 34:6. Similarly, the land of the Temanites,³⁰⁷Verse 34 here. is also of Edom, as it is said concerning it, And thy mighty men, O Teman, shall be dismayed, to the end that every one may be cut off from the mount of Esau,³⁰⁸Obadiah 1:9. as are all the cities mentioned here. Scripture, however, relates that these kings did not succeed their fathers, as was the case in Israel.
The expression, Before there reigned any king, means “many years before.” But before there reigned any king does not mean that these kingdoms of Edom continued to exist until the kingdom of Israel. Instead, it means to say that at that time the Edomites will not have sovereignty, in order to fulfill Isaac’s words, and thou shalt serve thy brother.³⁰⁴Above, 27:40. It is possible that all these kings had already passed away in the days of Moses³⁰⁹Ramban here implies that the expression before there reigned any king, refers to Moses. This coincides with the opinion of Ibn Ezra expressed in his commentary on Verse 31. as they were old when they crowned them, and their lives were not prolonged.

לפני מלך מלך, before Moses arose as the saviour of Israel. All national heads of a people are automatically called “king,” regardless of their constitutional function. I have found in the historic writings of Josephus a list of about 40 such kings in Israel before the establishment of the Davidic dynasty.

ואלה המלכים, the Torah informs us that the Edomites had to appoint outsiders, members of other tribes, as their kings, seeing that they did not find a suitable personage for such a task among their own. Not only that, but none of the kings whom they did appoint raised a son fit to take over the position of king from his father.

ואלה המלכים אשר מלכו בארץ אדום, And these are the names of the kings who ruled in the land of Edom, etc,. The Torah enumerated all who intermarried with Edom or supplied kings to Edom to tell us that ultimately they too would be destroyed when Edom would fall. Bereshit Rabbah 83 explains that because Bazrah provided a king for Edom (verse 33), it too would ultimately share the fate of Esau because it had helped Edom to its feet again when it had already been close to annihilation. Isaiah 34,6 refers to that time when G'd is described as killing many in Bazrah, linking it with the slaughter that would take place in Edom. The same applies to the other cities mentioned in our chapter.

ואלה המלכים, the kings of the nation Edom are mentioned at length in the Torah before any kings of the Jewish nation. According to what we read here eight kings and eleven Alufim ruled in Edom before the first Jewish king was crowned. The kings that ruled over Edom were not hereditary dynasties, i.e. father bequeathing his throne to his son, but the Edomites appointed outsiders as their kings. This was the basic difference between the power structure in Edom and that in the Jewish state afterwards. Even though the Edomites were politically organised, had experience in being ruled centrally by a king, this did not help them once the Jewish people began to be organised under the rule of kings. Already the very first of the Jewish kings, Sha-ul, fought a war against the Edomites, and the Edomites could not defeat him. King David, a few years later, totally subdued the Edomites, resulting in that nation being enslaved to Israel. This situation continued until the reign of Yehoram son of Yehoshaphat, (about 150 years later ) According to Bereshit Rabbah 83,1 this is the meaning of Proverbs 20,21 נחלה מבוהלת בראשונה ואחריתה לא תבורך, “an inheritance gained hastily at the outset, will not be blessed in the end.” The Midrash there also states that both the Edomites and the Israelites appointed eight Kings. The eight Edomite Kings were: Bela, Yovav, Chusham, Haddad, Simla, Sha-ul, Baal Chanan, and Hadar. The Jewish Kings were Sha-ul, Ish Boshet, David, Solomon, Rechavam, Aviah, Assa, Yehoshaphat, and during the reign of his son Yehoram the Edomites rebelled.

ואלה המלכים, “and these were the kings, etc.” The Torah narrates all this in order to show that Yitzchok’s blessing to Esau that he would survive by his sword was fulfilled, seeing that his descendants had overpowered the tribe of the Chori and they ruled over them and their lands for hundreds of years, as the cities mentioned are all part of the land of Edom. The Torah also informs us that the Kings of Edom were not automatically the sons of the former kings so that no dynasties had been founded.

ואלה המלכים אשר מלכו בארץ אדום, “and these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text all of the kings listed here were descendants of Esau. There were a total of eight of them, namely: Bela ben Be-or, Yovav ben Zerach, Chusham, Haddad ben Bedad, Samlah, Saul of Rechovot, Baal Chanan ben Achbar, and Hadar.
Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 75,11 state that these eight kings corresponded to the eight times Yaakov called Esau אדוני, “my lord.” According to this Midrash G’d immediately told Yaakov that as a consequence of his demeaning himself in front of Esau, Esau would produce eight kings before Yaakov’s descendants would produce the first king. (compare the beginning of our portion to see the eight times Yaakov called Esau: “my lord”). An additional allusion to this is found in the eight words of the verse beginning with the word תמנע as I have already pointed out in my commentary on verse 12. The names of the places mentioned by our portion as belonging to Edom are: Bazra and Teyman; the former has been mentioned also in Isaiah 34, 6 ”for the Lord holds a sacrifice in Bazrah, a great slaughter in the land of Edom.” The name Teyman is mentioned in Ovadiah 9 “your warriors shall lose heart O Teyman and not a man of Esau’s mount shall survive the slaughter.” Interestingly, we find that not a single king mentioned in the list given by the Torah was the son of his predecessor. This is in sharp contrast to the kings who ruled over Israel, most of whom were succeeded by their sons. The reason the Torah reports all these seemingly irrelevant details is that it wanted to demonstrate that Yitzchak’s blessing that Esau would live by the sword came true.

Yaakov established a corresponding number in whose days Eisov’s kingdom ceased... Rashi means: It is written [about Yaakov and Eisov], “One government will be mightier than the other” (25:23), implying they will not be simultaneously great [see Rashi there]. Thus, when the kings of Yisrael ruled, Eisov’s kingdom ceased that entire period, as Rashi proceeds to explain.

לפני מלך וגו׳. Esaus Geschick entwickelt sich nach den natürlichen Kausalitätsverhältnissen des "Schwertes". Während Jakobs Nachkommen noch in ägyptischer Sklaverei schmachteten und ihnen noch nicht der erste Führer in Moses erstanden war. blühte schon Edom als Staat mit einer ganzen Reihe königlicher Dynasten. Ein Gegensat, !ואתן לעשו את הר שעיר לרשת אותו ויעקב ובניו ירדו מצרים :auf den Josua 24, 4 hinweist

לפני מלך מלך לבני ישראל, ”before a king ruled over the Children of Israel;” the “king” referred to here is none other than Moses. We know that he was the equivalent of a crowned king from Deuteronomy 33,5: ויהי בישורון מלך, “he was King over Yeshurun” (pseudonym for Jewish people). The reason he was described by this “title” was that he had been the saviour of the Israelites when he took them out of Egypt.” [The word מלך is derived from מוליך, leading. He who is the leader of others is described as their “king,” i.e. מלך. Ed.] It would be incorrect to understand the comparison of historical developments between the descendants of Esau with those of the Jewish people who did not have a crowned head until Samuel crowned Shaul as their king about 400 years after Moses’ death as recorded in Josephus, for after the kings mentioned here at least 40 kings whose names we know ruled over Edom before the ascent to the throne of the Jewish people by King David. Here only eight of these kings have been named. There were 14 generations between Avraham and King Shaul. When David ascended the throne of the Jewish people he deprived the Edomites of their King. We know this from Samuel II 8,14: וישם באדום נציבים ויהיו כל אדום עבדים לדוד, “he appointed governors in Edom, and all of Edom became a vassal state to David.” You find confirmation of this in Chronicles I 18,13.

Before any king reigned. Before Moshe reigned over them.

לפני מלוך מלך בישראל, “before a king ruled over Israel.” This does not mean that the kings mentioned here ruled during the entire period until King Sha-ul became king (some 800 years later than the time frame during which Yaakov and Esau lived). What the Torah did mean to show was that once the Israelites had a king, the Edomites did not, so that Yitzchok’s blessing to Yaakov (when he thought that Esau stood before him) “your mother’s sons will prostrate themselves before you,” (27,29) was fulfilled. It is quite possible that the last of the kings mentioned in this chapter already died during the days of Moses, a view held by Ibn Ezra. Ibn Ezra feels that if we did not understand the history in that way, whence did Moses know the names of Edomite kings who lived long after he himself had died. Some commentators hold that Moses’ prophetic insights enabled him to record the names of as yet unborn Edomite Kings. Nachmanides disagrees with such an interpretation, saying that there would be no point in Moses’ prophetic insight including such matters, moreover, if so, how many years of history beyond his death was Moses able to foresee in such detail, and when did such prophetic insight stop? The proper explanation is that all these Edomite kings lived before the Torah was given to the Jewish people. Many ruled simultaneously over different parts of that kingdom. [The Midianites also had 5 kings, (Numbers 31) and the Canaanites in the time of Joshua had 31 kings simultaneously. Ed.] It is also possible that each of these kings ruled only for a short period.

About the days of Yoram his son, it is written: “In his days Edom revolted...” Since Yoram was at the end, the kingdom of Eisov began immediately in his time. And so too in the time of Shaul who was the first king, the kingdom of Eisov immediately ceased.

This chapter also alludes to the ultimate redemption of the Jews which will be a long time arriving; this is why G'd listed the number of kings who would rule over Edom who in turn preceded the kings of Israel. The author expresses the hope that just as after the destruction of the Temple we experienced a series of kings who ruled over Edom, this in turn would be followed by a series of kings ruling Israel until such time as the final redemption (6000 years) would materialise (based on the assumption that the period of ימות המשיח is the seventh millenium; compare one view in Sanhedrin 99).

יובב בן זרח מבצרה JOBAB, THE SON OF ZERAH OF BOZRAH — Bozrah was one of the Moabite cities, as it is said (Jeremiah 48:24 which chapter is a prophecy against Moab), “[Judgment is come upon…] and upon Keriath and upon Bozrah etc.” Because it produced a king for Edom it is to be smitten together with them (the Edomites), as it is said (Isaiah 34:6) “For the Lord hath a slaughtering in Bozrah, [and a great slaughter in the Land of Edom]’ (Genesis Rabbah 83:3).

Because it provided a king for Edom it is destined to be smitten together with them... Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse identify Yovav by his father, if it [also] identifies him by his place? [The place alone should suffice,] as with “Samlah of Masriekah” (v. 36), etc. Rashi answers: Yovav was not well known by his place. Scripture mentions his place only in order to teach, “It is destined to be smitten...” (R. Hendel)

המכה את מדין בשדה מואב WHO SMOTE MIDIAN IN THE FIELD OF MOAB — for Midian came to war against Moab and the king of Edom went to assist Moab. From here we learn that although Midian and Moab were at strife one with the other yet in the time of Balaam they made peace in order to band themselves against Israel (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 3).

WHO SMOTE MIDIAN IN THE FIELD OF MOAB. The intent thereof is to tell of Hadad’s prowess, for the Midianites had come into the field of Moab to overpower them, but he was victorious over them all.
Baal-hanan the son of Achbor³¹⁰Verse 38 here. was of the same place as Shaul of Rehoboth by the River,³¹¹Verse 37 here. in whose stead he reigned, and therefore Scripture does not ascribe another city to him. It is possible that “Hanan” is the name of a place, and he was the master thereof, which accounts for his name Baal-hanan, and afterwards he became king.

וימלוך תחתיו הדד, “Haddad reigned in his stead.” The second time the word Haddad appears, it is spelled with the letter ד, whereas the third time it is spelled with the letter ר, i.e. הדר.

בעל חנן בן עכבור He was from the place in which Sha-ul had ruled before him. This is why no other city is mentioned in connection with him. It is also possible that the name of his city was Chanan, and that the word בעל חנן simply means that he was in authority over the city known as Chanan.

בת מי זהב THE DAUGHTER OF ME-ZAHAB — meaning מהו זהב what value has gold? He was so rich that gold had no value in his eyes (Genesis Rabbah 83:4).

וימלוך תחתיו הדר...ושם אשתו וגו', we do not know why both his wife’s name and that of her father have been mentioned.

I will now proceed to enlighten you about this subject. The Torah first mentions that one of the kings was called Hadad (verse 35) whereas in verse 39 we are told that a King by the name of Hadar followed the King Baal Chanan. Both these names are derived from the expression הוד והדר both of which expressions describe attributes, character traits. The meaning of the name (הדד (בן בדד whose letters comprise a numerical value of 13 is that that King possessed 13 character traits. These traits derive from the ten emanations (the numerical value of the word בדד, whereas בן means “derived from”). The 13 characteristics are the ones required to guide this terrestrial universe along the lines G’d desires. This world is also perceived as the world of בחינה, “perceptions”, i.e. in which we have to decide what is right and what is wrong and act accordingly. [I believe the term is borrowed from the writings of the author of Chovot Halevovot and means that by means of observing both the evidence of our eyes that there was a Creator, etc., as well as the evidence of history and how G’d revealed His attribute of Mercy as well as that of Justice, we can form a more or less accurate picture of both the wisdom and the Justice which are the foundations of this universe. Ed.]
Hadad called the name of the city which was his capital עוית, “something corrupt,” to symbolise the presence of the evil urge which is bent on corrupting man. It was a place from which onlookers perceived perverted justice as emanating. In verse 39 the Torah goes on to write וימלך הדר תחתיו, “Hadar ascended the throne in his place, and the name of his capital was פעו, (a reference to flying creatures)” as the souls would fly from there. The word “his city (capital)” i.e. עירו, is derived from the expression עיר וקדיש, in Daniel 4,10, i.e. “a wakeful flying angel.” The wife of this Hadar was called מהיטבאל, Mehetabel, a reference to the attribute of “goodness” which G’d promised Moses to let parade in front of him (compare Exodus 33,19). This attribute is also known as אל seeing that G’d had said of Moses [to Miriam and Aaron in Numbers 12,8, Ed.] that the latter was thoroughly at home and trusted in G’d’s entire “house,” i.e. in His universe. The house is the place where a human being feels “good,” at ease. When the Torah continued to describe Mehetabel as “the daughter of Matred,” this is a euphemism and does not refer to Matred being an actual mother of Mehetabel and her as being a biological daughter of someone called Matred. The expression בת מטרד means that Mehetabel in turn was a derivative of the major attribute Matred. We find the term בת as meaning a measure (attribute) in Kings I 7,26 where the size of the basin in which the priests washed their hands before proceeding to perform Temple service is described as containing 2000 such measures of water. This attribute was capable of misleading man’s thoughts as our sages said when they sought to explain how Rabbi Elisha ben Avuyah (known as אחר, “the other one, the heretic,” as he took the wrong theological-philosophical turn). The Talmud Chagigah 14 described this Elisha as becoming guilty of קצץ בנטיעות, becoming a heretic in his thinking.
The Torah here explains further that this attribute (Matred) was one which was composed of a combination of Mercy and Justice; the Torah alludes to this by calling it בת מי זהב, “a derivative of water and gold.” The Shechinah, which is also known as בת, is perceived as radiating in 6 directions all combining elements of the attribute of Mercy as well as elements of the attribute of Justice.
We also know that the letter ד in the Holy Tongue is sometimes substituted for by the letter ת, so that the word מטרד could be understood as מטרת, the Aramaic translation of משמרת, “protective supervision.” In Psalm 121 we encounter this word (שמר) no fewer than 6 times when the psalmist describes G’d as watching over him in every direction.
Up until now, the Torah spoke about what goes on in the celestial regions of the universe. From here on it addresses itself to what goes on in our terrestrial regions. These “lower” regions are presided over by “mere” אלופים, mortal chiefs, rather than מלכים, “kings, celestial attributes, forces.”
May the Lord grant us the wonderful insights which the prophet Hoseah prayed for (Hoseah 6,3) when he described the heart as gaining knowledge of G’d comparing this new-found knowledge to a fountain of water gushing forth. After all, the Torah has been compared to a fountain of water as we know from Solomon who is on record in Song of Songs 4,15 מעין גנים באר מים חיים ונוזלים מן לבנון, “purified in a garden spring, a well of living waters flowing clean from the Lebanon.” We also have an assurance from the prophet Isaiah 12,3 concerning the future insights we shall be accorded when he wrote ושאבתם מים בששון ממעיני הישועה, “and you will draw waters joyfully from the fountains of salvation.”

ואלה שמות אלופי עשו AND THESE ARE THE NAMES OF THE CHIEFS OF ESAU — [… AFTER THEIR PLACES ACCORDING TO THEIR NAMES] they were called by the names of their districts after Hadad died and the royal dignity had ceased so far as they were concerned. The former names mentioned above (v. 15ff.), are the names given them at their birth. This, too, (the first statement made here) is expressly set forth in Chronicles (2:51) “And Hadad (Hadar) died, and the chiefs of Edom were: the chief of Timna etc.” (We must therefore translate here: “the chieftain of Timna etc.”)

AND THESE ARE THE NAMES OF THE CHIEFS THAT CAME TO ESAU. At first³¹²Verses 15-19 here. Scripture enumerated Esau’s grandsons who were chieftains in that generation, and afterwards some of his descendants succeeded in attaining sovereignty. After that their kingdom ceased, and the Edomites once again appointed these chieftains as their head. And so it is said in the book of Chronicles:³¹³I, 1:51. And Hadad died. And the chiefs of Edom were: the chief of Timna. So did Rashi explain it here in his commentary on this verse.
And that which Scripture says here, according to their families, after their places, by their names, [and in Verse 43], after their habitations in the land of their possessions means that among the previous chiefs, [mentioned above in Verses 15-19], all the brothers who were the chiefs dwelled in one city, ruling one people, or their position was analogous to the princes of the tribes and the heads of families [in Israel]. But these latter ones were chiefs according to their families, meaning that each one was chief of all the families of Esau’s descendants, and in all of their dwelling places, for in that generation he alone was called “chief,” no other person being so called in all the land they possessed. Thus they were as kings in their countries, but they were not enthroned, and the glory of royalty was not bestowed upon them.
In the opinion of many commentators³¹⁴See Rashi on Verse 31. In his opinion, before there reigned any king (Verse 31) refers to Saul, king of Israel. Moses who wrote the Torah could therefore know it only by prophecy. this section was written as a prophecy. But this is not correct. Why should prophecy mention these kings, and until what point in time was Scripture to enumerate them and stop? Rather the correct interpretation is that all these ruled before the Torah was given in the days of Moses. Now we may say that they all ruled in one time, and then the explanation of after their places would be that each one ruled in his place, or else their rule lasted but a short time, as Scripture says, But the years of the wicked shall be shortened.³¹⁵Proverbs 10:27.

ואלה שמות אלופי עשא למשפחותם למקומותם, among the “Alufim” listed in the verses following there are several who had been mentioned earlier simply as sons of Esau. We must assume that these sons eventually rose in rank to become “Alufim.” We already mentioned that the title “Aluf” essentially means that the people so described were mayors of cities, which is most likely the reason why the Torah adds the word למקומותם, “in their respective locations.” Proof of the correctness of what I surmise may be the fact that in Chronicles all the details provided by the Torah here in this chapter are repeated verbatim. However, the first list of the “Alufim” of the sons of Esau (36,15-19) are not mentioned there at all.

ואלה, now the Torah mentions eight Alufim who were in positions of leadership after the kingdom of Edom had ceased to exist as such. There were eleven such Alufim.

ואלה שמות אלופי עשו, the significance of the additional words למקומותם בשמותם may be that they were not distinguished enough to be recorded by their individual names, but only in association with the location where they practiced their authority.

ואלה שמות אלופי עשב, “and these are the names of he headmen of Esau.” First the alufim among the sons of Esau who were such in that generation are mentioned. From positions as headmen, the success of these people in war led to them or their sons becoming Kings, and in due course their pre-eminence ebbed again so that they were simply ראשים. Compare Chronicles I 1,43 -54) 36,43 בארץ אחוזתם, “in the land of their ancestral inheritance.”

Called by the names of their states... I.e., when the verse says, “According to their places, by their names,” it means they are named after their places. And lest we object that the chiefs of Eisov were listed before, and furthermore, other [chiefs] are also listed there, Rashi goes on to say: “The previous chiefs... are their family names.” The proof that the ones listed here are named after their provinces is that Magdiel is Rome [as Rashi says on v. 43]. For it says in Midrash Rabbah: “[The day that Lotianos became Caesar in Rome,] R. Ami was shown in a dream that today, Magdiel became king.” But from the other ones, such as Chief Kenaz, etc., [there is no proof.] It could be family names, since they were called by these same names even before. And Chief Oholivomoh and Chief Timna seem more likely to be family names, since we saw before that these are names of people. And nothing forces us to say that the others are names of provinces, either. Therefore Rashi brings a proof from Magdiel, which is the name of a place—and so they all are named after their provinces, because Magdiel serves as an example for the others. (R. Meir Stern)

ואלה שמות אלופי עשו למשפחותם למקומותם, “the following are the names alufim (clans) of Esau, according to their names and locations.” These latter ones were the principal descendants to be counted separately in each city that they dwelled; this is why here the Torah adds the word: למקומותם, “according to the localities they lived in.” The Torah also adds the word: אחוזתם, “their ancestral homes,” in verse 43. Proof of the importance of the ones listed here is the fact that the previous ones have not been listed in Chronicles I 1,51 54 at all.

The heads mentioned earlier were all brothers, the alufim all residing in the same town, and ruling over a single nation, or they were heads of a tribe each. The ones mentioned here were heads of the combined families of Esau, their authority extending over all the towns inhabited by Esau’s offspring. They were comparable to kings in their authority.

אלוף תמנע. Ibn Ezra believes that the “Timna” mentioned here was a man. It is not unusual to find men or women having the same names. Oholivamah was one such example. It is also possible that seeing the word aluf at this point is superfluous, we must understand the verse as follows: the headman of the family of Timna who had been a concubine of Eliphaz produced several alufim, their names being Alvah, and Yetet. Similarly, the family of Oholivama, wife of Esau, produced alufim known as Eylah, and Pinon.

אלוף אהליבמה. This Oholivamah was a male. This is so in spite of the fact that his name ends with the letter ה suggesting that the person mentioned was a female. The same name occurs elsewhere for females in this very chapter (verse 5). Other males whose names conclude with the letter ה are שמלה, מסרקה in verse 36. Timna was a concubine of Eliphaz, although the name of one of the Alufim of Esau was also Timna. (verse 40)

מגדיאל MAGDIEL — This is Rome (Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer 38).

MAGDIEL. This is Rome. Thus the words of Rashi. But I have not understood this. If we say that this is a prophecy for many days to come, and of times that are far off,³¹⁶Ezekiel 12:27. then many Roman kings have ruled over the Roman kingdom, and Rome is not a chieftaincy, but rather it is a great empire, terrible, and strong exceedingly,³¹⁷Daniel 7:7. there never having been her like among kingdoms. However, the Rabbis have said in Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer,³¹⁸Chapter 38. “In reward for having cleared out his utensils in the face of our father Jacob,³¹⁹Above, Verse 6. G-d granted him one hundred provinces, from Se’ir to Magdiel, and Magdiel is Rome, as it is said, The chief of Magdiel, the chief of Iram.” By this the Rabbis intended to say that of which I have already informed you several times, i.e., that that which occurred with the first ones contains allusion to their descendants. Now these last ten chiefs, together with Magdiel who is the tenth, allude that there will be ten Edomite kings³²⁰Daniel 7:23-24. See also Note 8 in Seder Vayeitzei. in their sovereignty during the Fourth Kingdom³²⁰Daniel 7:23-24. See also Note 8 in Seder Vayeitzei. who will rule over Edom, and the tenth of these will rule over Rome, and from there their kingdom will spread over the whole world. It is to this that the name Magdiel — [from the words gadol and el] — hints that he will magnify himself above every power, as it is said concerning him, And the king shall do according to his will, and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every power.³²¹Ibid., 11:36. And it is this which is written, And as for the ten horns, [which were on the head of the fourth beast], out of this kingdom shall ten kings arise; and another shall arise after them, and he shall be diverse from the former.³²²Ibid., 7:24. And the Rabbis have said in Bereshith Rabbah,³²³It is found in Shmoth Rabbah 15:4. “All of the chiefs mentioned by Scripture are descendants of Esau.” And the Rabbis have further interpreted:³²⁴Bereshith Rabbah 83:3. “The chief of Iram — that he is destined to heap up [l’arom] treasures for the king Messiah.” May he speedily reveal himself.
Vayeishev

Magdiel. See Rashi. This name derives from magdil — “magnify,” just as “Rome” derives from romemus — “exaltation.” The next name, Iram, also alludes to Rome and together they correspond to the ir vemigdal (“city and tower”) of the Generation of the Dispersion (see 11:4), which intimates that like that generation, they were destined to be humbled by Hashem.