הִנֵּ֥ה יְחַבֶּל־אָ֑וֶן וְהָרָ֥ה עָ֝מָ֗ל וְיָ֣לַד שָֽׁקֶר׃
Lihatlah, ia bersalin dengan kejahatan; ia mengandung kelaliman, lalu melahirkan dusta.
Radak
which he sang unto the Lord concerning Cush, a Benjamite: – Our teachers of blessed memory have said (Targum ad loc. and Babli, Moed Katon 16 b, with some variation) that this Psalm was uttered concerning Saul. And he calls him Cush because he was beautiful, as “the Cushite woman” (Num. 12:1), which is interpreted in the Targum as “the beautiful woman”; and such is the opinion of all the exegetes. And they say that he calls him “Cushite” as a Cushite is one who does not change his skin, so Saul did not change in his hatred towards David. And in this way it is said (Jer. 13:23), “Can the Cushite change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also be able to do good who are accustomed to do evil.” And the learned R. Abraham ben Ezra, of blessed memory, rejected this interpretation; for he asks, How should anyone say of the Lord's anointed, Behold, he travaileth with iniquity (5:15)? And he says there was one of the children of Benjamin who hated him, and his name was Cush. And his objection to Behold, he travaileth with iniquity as being said of Saul does not hold. Why should he not say so? Behold, did (not) David say to his very face: “Out of the wicked proceedeth wickedness” (1 Sam. 24:14)? And did he (not) say to him: “And the Lord avenge thee of me” (ibid. 24:13)? And in the Haggadic exposition (Shoher Tob, ad loc.) (it says that) he surnames him Cush, because it is written (Koheleth 10:20): “Curse not the king, no, not in thy thought.” x And the Haggadic interpretation is correct. You see that all agree that the Psalm was spoken of Saul, apart from the (one) interpreter mentioned. And as regards the expression concerning (על דברי, lit. “concerning the matters of”), (it is used) because the matters and affairs which he had in connexion with him were numerous. Many times also he had purposed to slay him, as it is written (in Scripture). The first occasion, when he became his son-in-law, he purposed to make him fall into the hand of the Philistines; afterwards he purposed to slay him in his house; and when he stood (ministering) before him he hurled the javelin at him many times; and (even) after he had parted from him (he acted) in a like manner also when he was pursuing him. And the interpretation of דברי על is “concerning the matter of” in accordance with (the use of the expression in such a passage as): “concerning (דבר על) the frogs” (Exod. 8:8), and similar passages.
Kli Yakar
Another explanation is that “His children” [or “His sons”] is a reference to a person’s deeds, which are called a person’s offspring. The offspring of the righteous are good deeds, while the deeds of the wicked are as it says He conceives trouble and gives birth to falsehood (Psalms 7:15). The wicked person never admits the truth, and regarding all the evil offspring that he produces, he will say “they are not his children.” This is the main blemish within them — that they do not place blame on themselves for any of their evil deeds, and they deny saying, “These are not my children, I did not give birth to them.” The reason for this is that they are a perverse and crooked generation. Because they are a perverse generation, they never admit the truth and say to anyone who rebukes them, “I have not done wrong.” A second reason is that when a person commits a sin and repeats it, becoming accustomed to doing it many times until it becomes like a permissible act to them (Yoma 86b). This is what Scripture means by saying and crooked [petaltol], like a threefold thread [petilah], so too someone who transgresses, and repeats, and does it a third time — it becomes like a permissible act to them, and they will never turn back from their way.
Ramban
‘VAYEILEIDU’ (AND THEY BORE CHILDREN). If this is understood literally as referring to his wife, and his maidservants and stating that the Eternal had restrained their wombs, it is astonishing! For it appears that on the first night that Sarah was taken to Abimelech’s house, and he had not even approached her,294Verse 4 here. G-d immediately came to him in the dream, and in the morning he rose early and called his servants and also Abraham.295Verses 8-9 here. When then did they experience this restraining of the womb? Perhaps it so happened that they were in their due time, experiencing the pangs of childbirth, unable to be relieved by giving birth. Perhaps, also, Abraham delayed his prayer for many days. But according to this interpretation, the nature of Abimelech’s healing as well as his sickness have not been explained in Scripture.
Now Rashi comments: “Vayeileidu — and they were relieved,296In our Rashi: “Explain it as the Targum does, ‘and they were relieved.’” their channels were opened, and they brought forth their wastes. This was the leidah (bringing forth) as it referred to them. All the wombs means every opening of the body.”
But this is not correct. Even if we were to say concerning the word vayeileidu that it means “bringing forth” — as we do indeed find the word leidah used in many contexts, such as: Yea, he conceiveth mischief ‘veyolad’ (and bringeth forth) falsehood;297Psalms 7:15. Before the decree ‘ledeth’ (bring forth);298Zephaniah 2:2. for thou knowest not what a day ‘yolad’ (may bring forth),299Proverbs 27:1. meaning what the days will bring forth and originate — but the word rechem (womb) never refers to any other openings. This is not contradicted by the verse, Or, who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth, and issued out of the womb,300Job 38:8. for this is merely a figure of speech,301Meaning when the sea broke from the abyss, where it was formed as a child in his mother’s womb. (Ramban in his commentary to Job, ibid.,) similar to “the belly of the earth.”302See Jonah 2:3, the belly of the netherworld.
Now Onkelos’ opinion is not like that of the Rabbi303Rashi. for even if he translated, “and they were relieved,” yet the word rechem (womb) he renders literally as “the opening for giving birth to a child.” However, [the reason why Onkelos translated it, “and they were relieved,” and not “and they gave birth,” is that] he wanted to include Abimelech also in the word vayeileidu.
In Bereshith Rabbah30452:14. it is said: “For the Eternal had fast closed up (‘atzor atzar’),305Verse 18 here. i.e., closed up the mouth, closed up the neck, closed up the eye, closed up the ear, closed up above,306“Above… below,” a reference to urination, the minor function of the body, and defecation, the major function. and closed up below.” Now the Rabbis derived this exposition from the double usage of the expression, atzor atzar, but they did not explain the expression, every womb, as meaning every opening of the body.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that from the day Sarah was taken to Abimelech’s house, Abimelech was stricken in his limbs and was unable to fulfill his needs. This is [what the verse alludes to when it says], Therefore I did not suffer thee to touch her,307Verse 6 here. as “touching” or “approaching” women are euphemisms for sexual intercourse, as in the verse, Draw not near a woman;308Exodus 19:15. And I came unto the prophetess.309Isaiah 8:3. And He restrained the wombs of his wife and his maidservants who were pregnant so they could not give birth. “Restraining a womb” means that the woman could not conceive, even as it says, And the Eternal had closed up her womb.310I Samuel 1:5. But “restraining the womb” denotes inability to give birth, similar in usage to the verse, He hath hedged me about, that I cannot go forth.311Lamentations 3:7.
Sarah stayed in Abimelech’s house many days, and Abimelech did not repent his way as he did not understand his transgression until G-d came to him in a dream and informed him of it. Now Scripture does not explain Abimelech’s sickness explicitly but mentions it only by hint in an ethical manner and out of respect for Sarah. After Abraham’s prayer, Abimelech and his wife and his maidservants were healed, and the women gave birth.
Now Rashi comments: “Vayeileidu — and they were relieved,296In our Rashi: “Explain it as the Targum does, ‘and they were relieved.’” their channels were opened, and they brought forth their wastes. This was the leidah (bringing forth) as it referred to them. All the wombs means every opening of the body.”
But this is not correct. Even if we were to say concerning the word vayeileidu that it means “bringing forth” — as we do indeed find the word leidah used in many contexts, such as: Yea, he conceiveth mischief ‘veyolad’ (and bringeth forth) falsehood;297Psalms 7:15. Before the decree ‘ledeth’ (bring forth);298Zephaniah 2:2. for thou knowest not what a day ‘yolad’ (may bring forth),299Proverbs 27:1. meaning what the days will bring forth and originate — but the word rechem (womb) never refers to any other openings. This is not contradicted by the verse, Or, who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth, and issued out of the womb,300Job 38:8. for this is merely a figure of speech,301Meaning when the sea broke from the abyss, where it was formed as a child in his mother’s womb. (Ramban in his commentary to Job, ibid.,) similar to “the belly of the earth.”302See Jonah 2:3, the belly of the netherworld.
Now Onkelos’ opinion is not like that of the Rabbi303Rashi. for even if he translated, “and they were relieved,” yet the word rechem (womb) he renders literally as “the opening for giving birth to a child.” However, [the reason why Onkelos translated it, “and they were relieved,” and not “and they gave birth,” is that] he wanted to include Abimelech also in the word vayeileidu.
In Bereshith Rabbah30452:14. it is said: “For the Eternal had fast closed up (‘atzor atzar’),305Verse 18 here. i.e., closed up the mouth, closed up the neck, closed up the eye, closed up the ear, closed up above,306“Above… below,” a reference to urination, the minor function of the body, and defecation, the major function. and closed up below.” Now the Rabbis derived this exposition from the double usage of the expression, atzor atzar, but they did not explain the expression, every womb, as meaning every opening of the body.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that from the day Sarah was taken to Abimelech’s house, Abimelech was stricken in his limbs and was unable to fulfill his needs. This is [what the verse alludes to when it says], Therefore I did not suffer thee to touch her,307Verse 6 here. as “touching” or “approaching” women are euphemisms for sexual intercourse, as in the verse, Draw not near a woman;308Exodus 19:15. And I came unto the prophetess.309Isaiah 8:3. And He restrained the wombs of his wife and his maidservants who were pregnant so they could not give birth. “Restraining a womb” means that the woman could not conceive, even as it says, And the Eternal had closed up her womb.310I Samuel 1:5. But “restraining the womb” denotes inability to give birth, similar in usage to the verse, He hath hedged me about, that I cannot go forth.311Lamentations 3:7.
Sarah stayed in Abimelech’s house many days, and Abimelech did not repent his way as he did not understand his transgression until G-d came to him in a dream and informed him of it. Now Scripture does not explain Abimelech’s sickness explicitly but mentions it only by hint in an ethical manner and out of respect for Sarah. After Abraham’s prayer, Abimelech and his wife and his maidservants were healed, and the women gave birth.
Rashi
עמל denotes transgression, as in (Psalms 7:15): “He conceiveth transgression (עמל)"; (Psalms 10:14) “For thou beholdest transgression (עמל) and vexation” — and it denotes this because transgression is a vexation (עמל) before the Omnipresent.