Citazione Commento su I Cronache 1:32

דגל מחנה יהודה, “the banner of the camp of Yehudah, etc.” This camp traveled first and was situated in the east of the Tabernacle. It was accompanied by the soldiers from the tribes of Issachar and Zevulun. The Torah describes these three tribes as ראשונה יסעו, “being the first ones to start journeying.” The word ראשונה is an allusion to the fact that these three tribes were all endowed with more than an average amount of חכמה, wisdom, i.e. the first of the emanations. Scriptural verses supporting this claim are found in Psalms 60,9: “Yehudah My law giver.” The 200 men attending David’s crowning as king over the nation have been described as “people who understood the needs of the times,” (Chronicles I 1,32). The men of Zevulun have been described in Judges 5,14 as “holding the marshal’s staff.” In view of these tribes having wisdom as a common characteristic they were suitable partners traveling together as one single camp. The entire camp was known as the camp of Yehudah, being a counterpart of the camp comprising the angels Gavriel, Ezriel, and Shemiel in the celestial spheres which is known as the camp of Gavriel.

BUT UNTO THE SONS OF THE CONCUBINES, THAT ABRAHAM HAD. By way of the plain meaning of Scripture, since it was said to Abraham, For in Isaac shall seed be called to thee,¹⁶³Above, 21:12. and in no other seed, all his consorts were concubines to him, not as wives since their children would not be among his heirs. Thus, Hagar, Sarah’s handmaid, was his concubine. However, Keturah he took unto himself as a wife for if she whom he took as a concubine had been a handmaid in his house, Scripture would not have said, And Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.¹⁶⁴Verse 1 here. She is called “concubine” in Scripture — it is written in Chronicles, And the sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine¹⁶⁵I Chronicles 1:32. — only for the reason that I have explained, [namely, that it had been said to Abraham, For in Isaac shall seed be called to thee]. Thus we note that Abraham took unto himself a wife from the daughters of Canaan! And should you say that she was an Egyptian or from the land of the Philistines, we may yet question why he did not send to his country and to his kindred as he did in the case of his son. But the answer is that he guarded only the seed of Isaac since it was concerning him that the Covenant was made. Furthermore, Scripture does not say, “And Abraham took a wife by the name of Keturah, the daughter of a certain Hivite or Philistine or Egyptian from a certain land,” as it says concerning Esau’s wives¹⁶⁶Further, 26:34 and 28:9. and similar cases. Rather, Scripture mentions only Keturah’s name because she was a Canaanite, and therefore it cut short her genealogy. Scripture does so in many places where it is not concerned with the genealogy.
Perhaps Keturah was called “concubine” because she was a handmaid who was descended from a family of slaves. And if she was a handmaid in his [Abraham’s] household and he had connection with her, Scripture would not mention her genealogy since even among the matriarchs, such as Zilpah and Bilhah, it mentions only their names.
Now Rashi wrote, “Wives are those whom a man marries with a marriage-contract; concubines have no marriage-contract, as it says in reference to the wives and concubines of David, in Tractate Sanhedrin.”¹⁶⁷21a. But the matter is not so. A woman is called a concubine only when there is no betrothal, for a marriage-contract is only a Rabbinic ordinance. And the correct text in Tractate Sanhedrin is: “A concubine has no marriage-contract or betrothal.” However, it is possible that the sons of Noah¹⁶⁸See Seder Bereshith, Note 222. too when they married wives, as is their law, by intercourse, were accustomed to write them a marriage-contract which granted dowry and gift.¹⁶⁹Further, 34:12. However, for one who wished to be a concubine to them, whom he could send away when he pleased and whose children would not be among his heirs, he would not write anything. But according to the opinion of our Rabbis that Keturah is Hagar,¹⁷⁰Bereshith Rabbah 61:4. she was certainly a concubine [since it clearly says that Hagar was Sarah’s handmaid].¹⁷¹Above, 16:1.

ABRAHAM BEGOT ISAAC. Rashi comments: “Since it was written, Isaac, Abraham’s son, it became necessary for Scripture to say, Abraham begot Isaac, since the scoffers of the generation³Those who did not believe in the Divine Providence that guided Abraham’s destiny. were saying, ‘It was from Abimelech that Sarah became pregnant.’ Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, formed Isaac’s facial features similar to those of Abraham so that all should say,⁴“Say.” In our text of Rashi: “testify.” Abraham begot Isaac.”
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra further says that the meaning of the word holid (begot) is “bring up and raise,” as is the expression, ‘Yuldu’ (were raised) upon Joseph’s knees,⁵Further, 50:23. The word yuldu there could not mean “were born,” for it would then mean that Joseph’s great grandchildren were actually born upon his knees. It must mean “raised.” Similarly, it means here, “Abraham raised Isaac.” even as it says, And he sent them away from Isaac his son.⁶Above, 25:6, referring to the other children that Abraham sent away. Thus it is clear that only Isaac was raised by Abraham.
In my opinion the correct reason [that Scripture states here, Abraham begot Isaac], is that it now reverts and begins the genealogy with the founding father, in consonance with Scriptural custom, which is to revert to the head of the ancestry when dealing with people of distinction.⁷The Hebrew anshei hama’alah, which literally means “men of elevation,” refers to spiritual or political distinction. Similarly, it is written in the book of Chronicles, The sons of Shem: Elam and Asshur, and Arpachshad, and Lud, and Aram, and Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Meshech. And Arpachshad begot Shelah, and Shelah begot Eber.⁸I Chronicles 1:17-18. After Scripture concluded this listing, it began again by saying, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah,⁹Ibid., Verse 24. This is explained by the fact that Shem is the head of Abraham’s ancestry. Hence Scripture reverts to him in tracing the generations. until, Abram, the same is Abraham.¹⁰Ibid., Verse 27. So also in the genealogy of Benjamin in the book of Chronicles, Scripture reverts to previous generations and begins, And Ner begot Kish, and Kish begot Saul.¹¹Ibid., 9:39. Saul was king of Israel. Hence Scripture reverts to his founding ancestor. Here also [the Torah reverts to the founding father and says], Abraham begot Isaac, and Isaac begot Jacob, as Scripture will soon mention.
It is necessary that Scripture return to relate this¹²“This” refers to the statement, Abraham begot Isaac. For the purpose of indicating Jacob’s distinction it would have been sufficient to mention, And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son. Merely mentioning Abraham in this connection would have satisfied the Scriptural principle of reverting to the founding father in the case of “people of distinction.” Why then did the Torah continue, Abraham begot Isaac? Ramban proceeds to resolve this difficulty in accordance with Scriptural textual principles as opposed to Rashi, quoted above, who resorted to an Aggadic explanation: “Since the scoffers of the generation were saying etc.” since it said, And these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham’s son.¹³Above, 25:12. Now, had it only said, And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son, it would appear that Scripture equated Ishmael and Isaac with respect to genealogy and distinction, all the more so since it mentioned the firstborn first.¹⁴Thus, Ishmael, the firstborn son of Abraham, would seem to be more significant than Isaac since he was referred to in exactly the same manner as Isaac and additionally he was mentioned first. Hence it became necessary to augment Isaac’s distinction by saying, Abraham begot Isaac. Furthermore it would have been fitting that it begin with Abraham¹⁵In other words, instead of saying, And these are the generations of Isaac, it would have been proper that Scripture begin with Abraham, but Scripture had to avoid this for reasons explained further on in the text. and say, “These are the generations of Abraham.” But Scripture did not wish to do this in order to avoid listing Ishmael and the children of Keturah.¹⁶Above, 25:1-4. It is for this reason that Scripture returns and completes the verse by stating, Abraham begot Isaac, as if to say that it is he [Isaac] alone who is Abraham’s offspring. It is considered as if he [Abraham] did not beget anyone else, just as it says, For in Isaac shall seed be called to thee.¹⁷Ibid., 21:12. It is for this reason that it also says above, And these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s handmaid, bore unto Abraham:¹³Above, 25:12. the phrase, whom Hagar, etc., is for the honor of Isaac, as if to say that the genealogy of these generations is not traceable to Abraham, rather they are the children of the handmaid, even as it says, And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation.¹⁸Ibid., Verse 13. Scripture does also similarly in the book of Chronicles. At first it states: The sons of Abraham; Isaac and Ishmael. These are their generations: the first born of Ishmael, Nebaioth.¹⁹I Chronicles 1:28-29. Then it mentions, And the sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine: she bore Zimran.²⁰Ibid., Verse 32. Now it would have been logical to follow this by saying, “the sons of Isaac,” but instead it reverts and begins: And Abraham begot Isaac. The sons of Isaac: Esau, and Israel.²¹Ibid., Verse 34. The repetition, And Abraham begot Isaac, is necessary lest we equate “the sons of Ishmael” with “the sons of Isaac.”