창세기 13:8의 인용 해설

This was the greatness of our forefathers. In addition to being righteous, pious, and lovers of God to the utmost degree, they were also yesharim. That means they were civil with the [other] nations of the world, despite [the latter] being detestable idol worshipers. Our forefathers nevertheless extended them love and concern for their welfare, as this fortifies [God’s] creation.
[To illustrate,] we see how our forefather Avraham exerted himself greatly in prayer for the welfare of Sodom. He desired their survival, even though he totally detested them and their king due to their evil ways (as is clear from how he spoke to the King of Sodom).¹⁰When Avraham returned from his victory over Chedorlaomer and his allied kings, the King of Sodom greeted Avraham with the request for them to split the spoils. Avraham then replied (Gen. 14:23): Neither from a thread to a shoe strap, nor will I take from whatever is yours, that you should not say, “I have made Avram wealthy.” Avraham refused to profit from any of the spoils as he did not want to be associated with the king of Sodom in any manner (See Ha’amek Davar ad loc.). In the Midrash Rabbah on Parashas Vayerah, (Parasha 49) we find the following about this:
The Holy One Blessed Be He said to our forefather Avraham, “You love righteousness and loathe wickedness.¹¹Ps. 45:8, You love to vindicate My creations and you loathe to convict them.”
He literally was like the father of a multitude of nations.¹²Gen. 17:4, 5: You shall be a father of a multitude of nations. Your name shall no longer be Avram, but Avraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. For even when one’s son is not walking in righteousness, [the father still] seeks out his wellbeing and benefit. Similarly did graciousness and the most remarkable civility abound within Avraham’s words to Lot, as will become clear in the parashah of Lech L’cha.¹³13As Avraham and Lot accumulated much wealth and many herdsmen they could no longer avoid contact with one another. Since Lot and his employees were of a significantly lower moral nature they instigated strife with Avraham and his herdsmen. Even so it was Avraham who extended the “olive branch” and offered Lot the first choice of where to settle: “Is not all the land before you? Please part from me; if [you go] left, I will go right, and if [you go] right, I will go left” (Gen. 13:9). See Ha’amek Davar to Gen. 13:1-9.
We also see how conciliatory our forefather Yitzchak was with his enemies, and was reconciled to a much greater extent than befitted the minimal words of appeasement submitted by Avimelech and his friends – as explained over there.¹⁴Gen. 26: 13-31. When Yitzchak became exceedingly prosperous, Avimelech and the Philistines became hostile towards Yitzchak and evicted him from their land. At a later period when Yitzchak dwelled in Gerar, Avimelech together with his general, Pikhol, and his companions, returned to Yitzchak expressing their intent to make a treaty that Yitzchok refrain from harming them. Yitzchak expanded the scope of the treaty to encompass love and peace as stated, Isaac escorted them, and they went away from him in peace (ad loc. v. 31). For an explanation of what harm Avimelech feared could result from Yitzchak, see Ha’amek Davar ad loc.
Further, even though our forefather Yaakov was justifiably furious with Lavan – as he was aware that Lavan wanted to eradicate [him and his followers; and it would have happened] were it not for God [stopping him]¹⁵When Lavan stated (Gen. 31:29): I have the power to inflict harm upon you, but the God of your father spoke to me last night, saying, “Beware of speaking with Yaakov either good or bad.“ Yaakov understood how Lavan was concealing his real intent, which was to murder him and his followers, and to bring back his family in order to erase their religious beliefs. – he, nevertheless, spoke with [Lavan] in a gentle manner,¹⁶Yaakov refrained from openly accusing Lavan of wanting to kill him and his followers. This is the case to such an extent that [the Sages] said of him in Bereishis Rabbah (Parasha 74), “ [Better] the anger of the forefathers than the modesty of the descendant”¹⁷To quote the Midrash in full: [Better] the anger of the forefathers than the modesty of the descendants. The anger of the Fathers: (Gen. 32:36) And Yaakov was annoyed, and he quarreled with Lavan, and he said to Lavan, "What is my transgression? What is my sin, that you have pursued me?” You might think that they would come to blows and violence, but instead there were words of reconciliation. Yaakov appeasing his father-in-law: (Ibid: v. 36) For you have felt about all my things. What have you found of all the utensils of your house? R. Simai said: “When a son-in-law lives with his father-in-law, [urged Yaakov], can he possibly avoid benefitting himself to the extent of a single vessel or a knife? Here, however you have felt about all my things and have you not even found even a needle or a hook?” Than the modesty of the sons: We know this from David: (I Sam. 20:1) And David fled from Naboth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan: “What have I done? What is my sin? And what is my sin before your father, that he seeks my life?” Thus in his very words of appeasement he refers to bloodshed. Here, however, [Yaakov merely says], that you have pursued me. ─ [Yaakov] was readily appeased by him.
We have likewise gleaned much [more] from the forefathers’ societal behavior. This behavior is that which sustains the world, which is in turn a theme particular to this Book, the Book of Creation. For this reason this book is also entitled Sefer Ha-Yashar, highlighting this aspect of our forefathers’ actions.

Together in their inheritance, etc. I.e., only if they are “together in their inheritance,” meaning, that one inherits the other if one of them dies. This includes paternal brothers, but excludes maternal brothers who do not inherit one another. For all paternal relatives inherit a person, and not his maternal brothers. You might ask, why learn this from “together”? Why not derive it from a gezeira shava by comparing “brothers” here to “brothers” by the sons of Yaakov? It is written here “brothers,” and it is written there (Bereishis 42:13), “Your servants are twelve brothers, the son of one man, etc.” Just as there [“brothers” are] paternal, so here too “brothers” are] paternal! The answer is that since we find that even relatives are called “brothers” as it is written (ibid 13:8), “For we are kinsmen (אנשים אחים, lit. “people who are brothers”), you may have thought that even relatives are obligated to perform a levirate marriage, and as we find with Boaz. Therefore it is written “together,” together in their inheritance, etc. The Gemora in chapter 2 of Yevamos (17b) gives a different answer, see there. Re”m cites it, see there.

Someone who incites a man to sin is worse than someone who murders him, etc. You might ask: Why are they not totally despised? If Amon and Moav who did nothing except to incite Israel to sin, and they were totally despised, why then were Edom and Egypt who wanted to kill them not totally despised? You cannot answer because [Amon and Moav] “did not greet you, etc.” (v. 5), since it is obvious that Edom too did not greet you, for otherwise, why does the verse say you should not despise Edom “for he is your brother,” and also not say the reason is because he met you, etc.? This indicates that this is not the main reason! You also cannot say the difference is that Moav hired Bilam to curse them while Edom did not hire Bilam, because perhaps Edom failed to hire Bilam only because Edom was not aware that whomever Bilam cursed was cursed, whereas Balak knew this from the war against Sichon, as Rashi explains above (Bamidbar 22:6). Thus there is no reason to show gratitude to Edom because of this. On the contrary, we should despise them more because they wanted to kill them by the sword. And if because he is your brother, Amon and Moav are also related to us, as Avraham said to Lot (Bereishis 13:8), “For we are kinsmen.” Rashi answers, “Thus we learn, etc.”

אחותי בת אבי היא SHE IS MY SISTER, THE DAUGHTER OF MY FATHER — And the daughter of the same father is permitted to be married to a descendant of Noah, for the paternal relationship is not taken into consideration in the case of the marriages between idolators (i.e. the “Sons of Noah”). He answered them in this way in order to bear out his former statement that she was his sister. If, however, you ask, “But was she not his brother’s daughter? (see chapter 11:29, and so she was granddaughter of Terah, Abraham’s father), then I reply, one’s children’s children are considered as one’s own children. Thus, too, did he say to Lot, (13:8) “For we are brethren” (although the relationship was that of uncle and nephew, as here it was that of uncle and niece).

כי אחי אביה הוא HE WAS HER FATHER’S BROTHER — near kin to her father, as (Genesis 13:8) “for we are men, brothers (אחים)” (i. e. near kin). A Midrashic explanation is that he meant: if he (Laban) intends to practice deceit upon me then I am his brother (a match for him) in deception; if, however, he is an honest man then I, too, am the son of his sister, the pious Rebekah (Genesis Rabbah 70:13).