Cytowanie Komentarza do Diwrej ha-jamim I 1:39

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.