Comentário sobre Gênesis 21:35

'וה' פקד את שרה וגו AND THE LORD VISITED SARAH —It (Scripture) places this section after the preceding one to teach you that whoever prays for mercy on behalf of another when he himself also is in need of that very thing for which he prays on the other’s behalf, will himself first receive a favorable response from God, for it is said (at end of last chapter), “And Abraham prayed for Abimelech and his wife and they brought forth” and immediately afterwards it states here, “And the Lord remembered Sarah” — i. e. he had already remembered her before he healed Abimelech (Bava Kamma 92a).

AND THE ETERNAL ‘PAKAD’ (VISITED) SARAH AS HE HAD SAID. That is, by granting her pregnancy. And the Eternal did unto Sarah as He had spoken by granting her the birth of a son..Thus the words of Rashi.
But the word pekidah is only an expression of remembrance and attention to the one who is remembered, such as: G-d will surely remember (‘pakod yiphkod’) you;³¹²Further, 50:25. I have surely remembered you;³¹³Exodus 3:16. And Samson remembered his wife by [bringing her] a kid.³¹⁴Judges 15:1. Here, too, the sense of the verse is that the Eternal remembered Sarah, and He did to her as He had spoken. This expression is also found in connection with all barren women who later give birth. Thus, in the case of Rachel: And G-d remembered Rachel;³¹⁵Further, 30:22. and in the case of Hannah: And G-d remembered her.³¹⁶I Samuel 1:19. Similarly, the Rabb is said,³¹⁷Rosh Hashanah 32b. “Biblical verses which mention pikdonoth are equivalent to verses which mention Divine remembrances.”³¹⁸In the Additional Service of the New Year day, ten Biblical verses which speak of Divine remembrance are recited. A verse mentioning pikadon is treated as one mentioning remembrance. Thus, Ramban proves that the word pakad in the verse here can mean “remembered,” and not as Rashi explained it as meaning “granting pregnancy.”

And the Lord took account of Sarah as He had said (amar), and the Lord did to Sarah as He had spoken (dibber): There is a distinction between the expression, taking account, and the expression, doing (assiya). As taking account is only just remembering, whereas doing is an actual act, like it is written (Genesis 12:2), "And I will make you (e'esecha) into a great nation." And it (Bereishit Rabba 39:11) concludes [that it means that I will make you a new creature]. And also the expression, speaking (dibbur), indicates greater love than the expression, saying (amirah), since speaking indicates the explicit clarification of things by use of the tongue. And that relates to the expression, doing.

Ad-noy remembered. Literally, “And Ad-noy remembered” — after Avraham prayed for Avimelech, Hashem remembered Sarah.

וה׳ פקד את שרה כאשר אמר. G'd remembered Sarah as He had said. The Torah tells us that this would have occurred even if Abraham had not prayed on behalf of Avimelech as we stated already. We should not think that G'd needed a prayer to prompt Him to keep His promise.

And the Lord did to Sarah as He had spoken: The doubling of the statement is a wonder. And Rashi's explanation (Rashi on Genesis 21:1) about this does not handle it. As, in fact, the birth was already stated in God's utterance (maamar) as well. And just the opposite, in God's speech (dibbur), Sarah as not mentioned at all. And it would have been possible to understand that it was about Yishmael that God spoke. Rather [the correct explantion] is the thing we have explained (on Genesis 18:12-15) - that the Holy One, blessed be He, was upset with Sarah for her laughing and being in doubt about that which she did not see any difference in the face of Avraham, like she found in herself - that she had been rejuvenated. And because of this, she was punished with the story of Avimelekh - as will still be explained - that a doubt was born in people's minds about the essence of the birth, whether [the child] was not from Avimelekh: Even as there was no longer a wonder with herself, because everyone saw her youth; this was not the case with Avraham, who still looked like a hundred year old man. And this is the meaning of, "and the Lord did to Sarah as He had spoken." And speech (dibbur) is an expression of harshness, as is known - [here] meaning that He did to her, that about which He was angry with her. And it ends (Genesis 21:2), "And [Sarah] conceived and bore Avraham a son in his old age." But it is not written, "in her old age," as behold, she had become a youth. However the nature of Avraham's body did not change, but she nevertheless bore him a son.

וה' פקד את שרה, she conceived and gave birth in accordance with the times predicted. Seeing the matter was something so unusual, miraculous, the Torah repeats this fact repeatedly. Normally, when the Torah repeats certain information it does so by using different words, changing the syntax; Here too, the verse commences with the verb פקד, but then uses the word ויעש to tell us the same thing. At the very end of the verse it changes the syntax a third time, writing כאשר דבר, “as He had said.”

וה' פקד את שרה, “at this time G’d remembered Sarah benevolently;” The words כאשר אמר, “as He had said,” implies that the word פקד refers to her becoming pregnant, whereas the words כאשר אמר, refer to her giving birth, according to Rashi. Nachmanides writes that the expression פקידה always refers to remembering something pertaining to the party that is being remembered, such as פקוד יפקוד אלוקים אתכם, “G’d will surely remember you, etc.” in Genesis 50,23. Therefore, the meaning of ה' פקד את שרה is that “G’d remembered Sarah and did for her as He had said.” This formula is customary in connection with women who had been barren until G’d remembered them benevolently, as in the case of Rachel Genesis 30,22 who could give birth after being benevolently remembered by G’d. Rabbi Joseph Kimchi points out that the reason that the Torah used the term פקידה when referring to Sarah, and the term זכירה for remembering with Rachel, was that in the case of Sarah who was already way past child bearing age, G’d had to extend Himself more than in the case of Rachel who was still in her twenties. G’d had to restore bodily functions to Sarah, functions that had not ceased functioning in the case of Rachel. The Mishnaic term for the days between two menstrual cycles is מפקידה לפקידה. Rachel’s menstrual cycles had not yet ceased to occur regularly at the time she became pregnant and bore Joseph as a result. In the case of Channah giving birth to Shemuel, at a time when she was still young, the prophet uses the term זכירה, when she first prayed for children, (Samuel I 1,11) whereas when we hear about her having 5 more children in Samuel I 1,21 the prophet attributes this to a פקידה by G’d. seeing she had aged greatly in the interval.

To teach you that whoever prays for mercy for another... You might ask: How does this prove it? Perhaps she was remembered now because this was the time Hashem set. She needed to give birth on Pesach, and she was remembered on Rosh Hashanah, so it had to be now. The answer is: Rashi himself answered this when he wrote, “He had already remembered her before He cured Avimelech.” And what is the verse teaching us by saying that Hashem cured Sarah first? Perforce, “To teach you that whoever prays for mercy for another...” (Re’m) The Re’m objects: Rashi implies that this section is out of place, for he says, “This section was placed here to teach you...” But this is not so, for on the fifteenth of Nisan the angel foretold to Sarah, and on the sixteenth, Sedom was overturned and Lot was rescued with his daughters. And right after the incident of Lot with his daughters, Avraham traveled to reside in Gerar, where Sarah was taken and Hashem restrained every womb of Avimelech’s house, whereupon Avraham prayed for them and they were cured. And on Rosh Hashanah, Sarah was remembered. Everything is in chronological order! He answers: וה' פקד implies He remembered her before He cured Avimelech. [Had Sarah conceived after, it would say ויפקוד ה'.] Thus, Avimelech’s curing should not have been written before. And why was it? In order “to teach you that whoever prays for mercy for another...”

פקד, wie bereits bemerkt, verwandt mit בגד, einen Gegenstand im Geiste mit seinen Attributen, seinen Verhältnissen und Beziehungen umkleiden, ihn sich mit allen seinen Beziehungen gegenwärtig machen. Daher auch tatsächlich jemanden in eine Beziehung setzen, in eine neue Stellung bringen, ihn, wie wir ja auch ähnlich sagen, mit einem Amte, einer Vollmacht usw. bekleiden. Von Gottes Vorsehung, wie hier, bezeichnet es das spezielle Eingreifen zur entsprechenden Gestaltung der Verhältnisse eines Menschen oder Volkes. כאשר אמר. Siehe zu 1. B. M. Kap.1, 22. Die spezielle Verheißung für Sara ist wohl die oben Kap.17, 15 f. (siehe daselbst) ausgesprochene. Mit der אמירה war bereits die פקידה vollzogen und Sara die MutterFähigkeit erteilt. Jetzt erfüllte ihr Gott durch die Geburt Jizchaks אשר דבר, was er als etwas in der Zukunft erst zu Verwirklichendes ausgesprochen hatte.

וה' פקד את שרה, “and after Hashem had taken due note of Sarah, etc;” whenever in the Torah the name of Hashem is introduced with the prefix ו, meaning “and,” it is a hint that G-d did not act singlehandedly but in consonance with His heavenly Tribunal. (Compare B’reshit Rabbah 51,2) In B’reshit Rabbah 53,6 this function of the Heavenly Tribunal is dealt with at greater length, especially in connection with Numbers 5,28 where the subject is the woman whose husband accused her of violating a specific command not to be alone with a certain man. This woman denied that she had committed an indiscretion, and the Torah promises that if she told the truth, and drank from the “bitter” waters, she will be rewarded with bearing a child she had been unable to conceive prior to this scandal. It is foolish to raise the question that since we know that G-d had known the truth all along, just as He does all the time, why was a miracle needed to demonstrate this truth? Her husband had not known, nor had her peers.

פקד את שרה כאשר אמר HE REMEMBERED SARAH AS HE SAID — He remembered her by granting her pregnancy.

And the explanation of the matter is that when Sarah was taken account of, all the barren women were taken account of with her - as I explained, Parashat Lech Lecha, on the verse, "and she shall become nations" (Kli Yakar on Genesis 17:16). But even though they were taken account of with her, they were nevertheless not the same as Sarah. For the taking account of Sarah was with the expression of actual doing actively by the hands of God, may He be blessed. It is as it is written (Midrash Tehillim 139:5), "The righteous are greater than the creations of the heaven and the earth, since the righteous were created with two hands, etc." - that is actual doing. [It was also] with an expression of speaking which indicates love, as it is written (Genesis 15:4), "And, behold, the word (devar) of the Lord came to him [...], 'This one shall not be your heir, but rather the one who comes out from your innards, etc.'" But the other barren women were only with an expression of taking account of and with an expression of saying, with which there is not so much love. For Parashat Lech Lecha begins with an expression of saying; and there it is stated (Genesis 17:16), "and I shall bless her and she shall become nations" - meaning to say she will be a help to all of the nations; that the barren women of the nations of the lands will be taken account of with her. This is the meaning of that which is written, "And the Lord took account of Sarah (et Sarah)" - it is as if it stated with Sarah. The explantion is that et serves as an expression of with, as [in], "that came et (with) Yaakov" (Exodus 1:1). As those woman that were taken account of with Sarah were only taken account of with an expression of taking account of, and with an expression of saying. However the explanation of, "and the Lord did to Sarah as He had spoken," is [that] for Sarah herself, it was with an expression of speech - "as he had spoken," and with actual doing. By way of a parable, even though one who does not love his friend greatly will sometimes remember him, he will nevertheless not do that much for him. But for one whom he loves, he will enter the heaviest part of the job and do it for him. And [regarding] that which it states, "And the Lord," with [a conjunctive letter], vav - our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Bereishit Rabba 51:2), "Everywhere it says, 'and the Lord,' it is He and His court." There is a support from here for the words of our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, that this taking account of was on Rosh Hashanah, which is when the Holy One, blessed be He, sits with all of His court above. That is why we read this section on Rosh Hashanah.

As He had said. “I will bless her” (17:16) — that is, He delivered her from the curse of Chavah (see 3:16).

To Avraham. Not to Sarah, as it says nowhere that Hashem spoke to her [about this]. The Re’m asks: Why did Rashi not explain that also Hashem’s saying was to Avraham and not to Sarah? He answers: Perhaps because it is written there (17:19), “God said, ‘Indeed your wife Sarah will bear you a son,’” [so it is obvious] that this was said to Avraham; Rashi did not need to explain it. And Rashi did not need to explain it even for Hashem’s speaking, since it is written there (15:1), “The word of Adonoy came to Avram.” Rather, Rashi comes to tell us the difference between “Hashem did for Sarah as He had spoken,” and “At the designated time that Elokim had spoken” (v. 2). The former refers to Avraham, while the latter refers to [His declaration of] the designated time, as Rashi explains there. You might ask: Why does Rashi explain this? The answer is: Rashi means that Hashem said only to Avraham, “That one [Yishmael] will not be your heir” (15:4), and never promised that the heir will come from Sarah. Nevertheless, “Hashem did for Sarah,” although He had spoken only to Avraham. (Maharshal)

There was, however, a connection between Abraham's prayer on behalf of Avimelech and G'd "remembering" His promise to give Sarah a son. G'd provided Abraham with an opportunity to perform a מצוה which in turn would trigger His removing Sarah's sterility. This is the deeper meaning of the additional words כאשר אמר. Whenever G'd wants to do someone a favour, He provides him with an opportunity to perform a good deed in response to which G'd can translate His intention into practice. The reason that G'd did not make Pharaoh and his household sterile at the time Sarah was kidnapped by Pharaoh was so that Abraham could pray for them because there had not yet been a promise to Sarah whose fulfilment could have been triggered by Abraham's prayer.

את שרה, the word את here seems superfluous, as we do not hear about other barren women suddenly becoming pregnant at the same time. As a result of Avraham having prayed for the women in Avimelech’s palace to be able to give birth, even though his own wife had been unable to do so, he was rewarded in that she now became pregnant. All other barren women at the time were also now able to conceive. (Compare Torah Shleymah, 11, on this verse).

כאשר דבר [HE DID TO SARAH] AS HE HAD SPOKEN — by granting her the birth of a son (Pesikta). Where are the expressions “saying ״ and “speaking” used respectively in regard to these? “Saying” is mentioned in the verse (17:19) “And God said (ויאמר): “nay, but Sarah, thy wife” etc.; — “Speaking“ is mentioned in (15:1) “And the word (דבר “speaking”) of the Lord came to Abraham”, and this was when He made the Covenant between the Pieces where it was stated, “This man (Eliezer) shall not be thine heir, [but one who shall be born from thee shall be thine heir],” and He brought forth this heir from Sarah.

As He had spoken. “I will also give you a son through her” (17:16) — in defiance of the general rule that elderly parents beget daughters.

ויעש…כאשר דבר, and G'd did for Sarah as He had foretold. The reason that the Torah repeats "He did" is explained in Tanchuma on our verse. When the angel had announced the impending birth by saying "כעת חיה," he had made an incision on the wall to mark the exact time of day the baby would be born, i.e. when the sun would hit that line. The Torah here confirms that the birth took place exactly as predicted.

כאשר אמר, “as He had said,” when the angel said that he would return around the same time in the following year and by then Sarah would have a baby. (Genesis 18,10)

ויעש ה' לשרה כאשר דבר AND THE LORD DID UNTO SARAH AS HE HAD SPOKEN — means, spoken to Abraham.

The verse also reports something we have explained on 18,10 and again on 17,19, namely that the son Sarah bore originated in the female (negative) side of the emanations. This in turn was the reason Isaac needed to submit to the binding on the altar, something that resulted in Sarah's death. The word דבר always refers to speech containing some harsh element. The Torah therefore uses it when it wants us to note that the birth of Isaac was not something that was perfect. He had to undergo a process of refinement as a result of which he could become holy. When the Torah says ויעש ה׳ לשרה כאשר דבר, this really means that "G'd did to Sarah as He had foretold." Isaac was born in response to Sarah's prayer, not in response to Abraham's.

כאשר דבר, “as He had spoken.” A reference to a previous prophecy in Genesis 15,18, when G-d had concluded His first covenant with Avraham.

למועד אשר דבר אתו Render it as Onkelos translates: “At the appointed time which He had spoken: — the time He had said and appointed. When He had said to him (18:4) “At the set time I will return unto thee”, He scratched a mark in the wall and said to him (Genesis 53:6), “When the sunrays touch this mark next year she will bear a son” (Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 59:1).

ותהר ותלד שרה לאברהם בן. Sarah became pregnant and bore a son for Abraham. The Torah needed to mention the pregnancy because we had learned that Sarah did not have a womb. This shows that G'd performed an additional miracle for her (Bereshit Rabbah 53,5). The reason the Torah underlines לאברהם is to make it clear that only this son is to be viewed as an extension of Abraham, not Ishmael, as we read later in 21,12. Even though the Torah described Hagar as bearing a son "for Abraham" (16,15), the fact is that at that time Abraham was still called Abram. Once his name was changed, Abraham was no longer to be referred to by his original name. This means inter alia that Ishmael was not a son of Abraham. Perhaps the statement in Berachot 13 that someone who calls Abraham Abram is guilty of violating a positive commandment is precisely for that reason. Our sages do not want Ishmael characterised as a son of Abraham. Such considerations did not apply to Jacob whose name was changed to Israel as he could comfortably identify with all his sons. I have written some more about this subject on 35,10.

ותהר, seeing that the conception had not been mentioned in the previous verse, the Torah now reports conception and birth as if it had been a consecutive activity. We find a similar construction in Genesis 4,1 ותהר ותלד את קין, “Chavah conceived and gave birth to Kayin.”

At the set-time of which [God] had spoken, etc.: This too is part of the [harsh] speech (dibbur) that came as a punishment. As it would have been good to her that she not give birth for another year, so it would remove the doubt [about the child's paternity]. But because of the punishment, she give birth at that set-time that He had spoken.

למועד אשר דבר אותו אלוקים, “at the appointed time G’d had spoken of.” In this instance the word מועד is a time which G’d announced directly to Avraham when he was about to circumcise himself (compare 17,21) when He said “at this time in the coming year.” It was when Sarai’s name was changed to Sarah and Avram’s name to Avraham.

And she conceived: This verse explains the previous verse - that which is written, "And the Lord took account of Sarah as He had said," since, "Sarah conceived and gave birth." And that which is written, "and the Lord did to Sarah as He had spoken," since it was, "at the set-time of which God had spoken." And likewise did it say in the Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 52:13), "I, the Lord, have spoken and I have done' (Ezekiel 37:14) - where did He speak? 'At the set time I will return to you' (Genesis 18:14). 'And I have done' - as it is written, 'and the Lord did to Sarah as He had spoken.'" And it comes out like Rabbi Yehudah [Rabbi Nechemiah] (Bereshit Rabbah 53:5): "'And the Lord took account of Sarah as He had said' - that which He had said in an utterance. 'And the Lord did to Sarah as He had spoken' - that which He had spoken to her though an angel."

The designated time that He spoke... Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written אֹתו? It should be vowelized אִתו, since it was spoken to Avraham. Therefore Rashi explains that אֹתו refers to the designated time. And since it cannot be said that one “speaks” a time, Rashi needed to add the phrase “and set” so that the speaking refers to the setting of the designated time.

בן לזקניו, indem Sara in den Worten, mit welchem sie das ganze Hochgefühl einer beglückten Mutter und die ganze Tiefe der Bedeutsamkeit dieses Glückes Raw Hirsch on Genesis 21: 7 ausdrückt, ebenfalls wiederholt: כי ילדתי בן לוקניו, so ist dieser Ausdruck wohl schwerlich bloß in dem Sinne zu verstehen, dass ihm ein Sohn in hohem Alter geboren worden. Es findet sich der ähnliche Ausdruck Kap.37, 3 von Josef: וישראל אהב את יוסף מכל בניו כי בן זקנים הוא לו, auch dort kann es nicht füglich in diesem Sinne genommen werden. Josef war kaum sieben Jahre jünger als Reuben und nicht mehr als um ein, zwei Jahre jünger, als die ihm unmittelbar vorhergehenden Söhne. In ב"ר wird beides durch מלמד שהיה זיו איקונין שלו דומה לו erläutert, wörtlich: der Glanz seines Angesichtes habe dem Vater geglichen. Bei Josef spricht sich noch eine andere Auffassung dahin aus: שכל הלכות שמסרו שם ועבר מסרן לו, alle Jakob gewordenen Überlieferungen habe er ihm übergeben. זקֻנים sind die Jahre, in welchen dem Manne der Gedanke an das nicht mehr ferne Scheiden von der Erde näher tritt, in welchen er sich daher nach der jüngeren Menschensprosse sehnt, auf welche er die geistigen Errungenschaften seines Lebens vererben könne, die ihn ersetzen und in welcher er geistig fortleben werde. Das Kind, das ein solcher geistiger Stellvertreter des seinem Scheiden sich nahenden Greises zu werden verspricht, den der Vater für ein solches Ziel sich zu erziehen vermag, ist ein בן לזקניו, und ein solcher war ja Jizchak seiner ganzen Bestimmung nach, und dass er ein solcher zu werden versprach, das, meint das Wort der Weisen, blitzte dem kleinen Geschöpfe schon aus dem Geiste seines Kindergesichtchens, in welchem die hochbeglückte Mutter den verjüngten Abraham erblickte.

ותהר ותלד, “she conceived, became pregnant and gave birth.” The reason why both stages are mentioned is that just as conceiving-becoming pregnant was painless, so her giving birth was also painless.

למועד אשר דבר, at the appointed time He had spoken of. According to Rashi, this refers to 18,14. According to Rashi, based on Tanchuma, Avraham scratched a line in the sundial in order to check in due course whether Yitzchok would be born at that hour of day. (or to when she would become pregnant). If so how could we have a disagreement in the Talmud as to whether Yitzchok was born in Nissan or in Tishrey? Seeing that both Nissan and Tishrey share the same equinox this is quite possible.

In his old age. That his [Yitzchok’s] facial features were similar to his [Avraham’s].

לאברהם, as G’d had said “אשר תלד לך שרה,” “whom Sarah will bear for you.” This is a customary form of syntax, as for instance in 16,15 ותלד הגר לאברהם בן, or Exodus 21,4 וילדה לו בנים ובנות, and many similar examples. A woman is considered similar to the earth in this respect, i.e. just as the earth yields fruit for its owners, so a woman produces children for her husband after he had planted his seed in her. The child was named after its father.

לזקוניו. In his old age. The Torah adds this word and does not content itself with the more appropriate לזקנתו, because, as I wrote earlier, there was an element of the divine soul missing in Isaac at the time he was born. Isaac had only been equipped with a soul which originated in the female emanations. The repetition of the words denoting birth in verses 2 and 3, are an allusion to the eventual birth of another soul during another stage of Abraham's old age. [לזקוניו, literally: "in his old ages." Ed.] In order for someone in this world to receive something, such as an additional dimension to his soul, it is essential that the one from whom the something new is imparted has prepared himself suitably prior to imparting it. This is a concept that kabbalists are familiar with. If Isaac had possessed only the "female" soul at the time of the עקדה, the fact that he himself was ready to receive an additional soul would not have sufficed. The Torah wrote here ותלד…לזקוניו, to indicate she gave birth "twice." When Abraham offered his son on the altar this was his preparation for the "second" birth of Isaac.

לזקוניו, the Torah writes this so that we better understand why Sarah had laughed when she had heard the prophecy in 18,12 and had said that her husband was too old to sire children. Another reason for the expression לזקוניו is to inform us that whereas Sarah had regained her youth at that time and had ovulated again after having ceased to do so for many years, Araham did not experience any rejuvenation, but sired a child in spite of not shedding signs of old age. There are some words in the Hebrew language which always appear in the plural mode, זקונים is one of them, so are נעורים and בתולים.

A simpler explanation of the plural לזקוניו, would see in that word the old age of both Isaac's father and mother respectively. This would reflect Sarah's having spoken about both אחרי בלותי…ואדני זקן (18,12).

אשר דבר אותו, the word אותו here is the same as if the Torah had written עמו, “with him.”

בנו הנולד לו, His son who had been born to him. Inasmuch as Abraham had another son, Ishmael, the Torah records here that Abraham stressed that this was the son who was fit to bear his name and who would fulfil the aspirations he had for him. No such comment is recorded at the time Ishmael was born. The Torah's addition אשר ילדה לו שרה, whom Sarah bore for him, is an allusion to the fact that both had constantly prayed. Abraham had asked that all his descendants should be issue of his righteous wife Sarah, whereas Sarah had also prayed to be the mother of all of Abraham's children. The word שרה refers to her prayer, whereas the words אשר ילדה לו, refer to Abraham's prayer.

ויקרא, he complied with G’d’s instructions issued in 17,19 to call the son that would be born to him by Sarah Yitzchok.

Who was born to him: The lengthier expression than what is written (Genesis 16:15) regarding Yishmael - "the name of his son whom Hagar bore" - is coming to teach through this that at the time of the naming, Avraham publicized that [Yitzchak] was his son, to remove [any doubt] from people's minds.

And he called: Behold, God commanded Avraham, "your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will name him Yitzchak" (Genesis 17:19) - and he had to implement this immediately on the day that he was born; and He commanded him to circumcise him on the eighth day. So Avraham implemented, "And he called his son's name," immediately; and he circumcised, "when he was eight days old" (Genesis 21:4). And about both of them, it stated, "as the Lord had commanded him." And it stated, "that was born to him, to which Sarah had borne to him" - as it was written, "your wife Sarah will bear you a son" - that is to say, a son who will be the heart and treasure that will be descended from you. As this could only be from the righteous woman, Sarah.

הנולד לו אשר ילדה לו שרה, in beiden Beziehungen: dass ihm, dem Hundertjährigen, noch und erst ein Sohn geboren wurde, und dass Sara, die neunzigjährige, noch und erst Mutter ward, war die Geburt dieses Kindes, zumal nach allem, was sich an dieselbe knüpfte, צחק, etwas den natürlichen Verhältnissen zufolge Lächerliches (siehe oben zu Kap.17. 17), und als Abraham seinen Sohn יצחק nannte, war ihm beides lebhaft gegenwärtig.

Another reason for this nuance is that the name יצחק, i.e. joy, reflects the fact that an old woman had given a son to an old man. Sarah spelled this out in greater detail in verse 6.

וימל...כאשר צוה אותו אלוקים, compare 17,12 that any son should be circumcised when eight days old. Our sages explain that the word אותו, means that only the father is commanded to perform circumcision on his son, not the mother.

As He had commanded: [He commanded] the laws of circumcision orally; as it is found in Berakhot 5 (a), "'and the commandment' (Exodus 24:12) - that is the Mishnah (meaning the oral teaching)." There were several commandments like this to Avraham, our father, such as [doing the circumcision] specifically during the day, and not at the beginning of the night of the eighth day.

בן שמונת ימים, “when eight days old;” Nowadays (author’s time) the parents are in the habit of bringing the baby to the Synagogue where he is welcomed with the words: ברוך הבא, “blessed be the new arrival.” The reason why this formula has become popular is that the numerical value of the word הבא=8. The benediction therefore is meant to say: “blessed be he who is being circumcised on the eighth day.”

ואברהם בן מאת שנה, although as an old man we could have expected Avraham to delegate the task of performing his son’s circumcision, he did so himself, ignoring the fact that he was an old man. [the commentary is based on the fact that we knew that Avraham was 100 years old at the time, so why repeat it?]

ואברהם...את יצחק בנו, this verse is another example of the word את appearing in conjunction with verbs which appear in the passive mode. To name just a few such examples: Numbers 26,55 יחלק את הארץ, or Deut. 20,5 ולא ימס את לבב אחיו. What is the reason that the Torah saw fit to write this verse at all? Seeing that the Torah had told us that Avraham had been 99 years old when he had received the commandment of circumcision, and G’d had told him that Sarah would bear this son for him in the following year, we knew that he would be 100 years old at that time! (17,21) Perhaps the Torah wanted to tell us that Avraham had completed 100 years when Yitzchok was born and that the previous prophecy had been revealed to him when he had completed 99 years. In that event, Sarah’s pregnancy lasted fully 12 months, so that the news revealed in our verse is that her pregnancy was unnaturally lengthy.

And Avraham was a hundred years old: But it is no longer written, "and Sarah was ninety years old'; for behold, she had already reverted to being a youngster.

Avraham was one hundred years old: Since at the time that it was announced to Avraham that he would father a son, he fell "on his face and laughed and said in his heart, 'Can a hundred year old man have children'" (Genesis 17:17). And he laughed with joy about the miracle that He would do to him; so God told him that he should call him Yitzchak based on this laughter (tzchok). And afterwards when Sarah heard of the announcement, she also laughed with joy, as she went back to her youthfulness and would bear a child in the natural way; whereas Avraham would remain in his old age and require a miracle - as I wrote in my commentary there. According to this, it can be said that that which Avraham called the name of this son Yitzchak was because "Avraham was one hundred years old when his son Yitzchak was born to him." As he laughed and rejoiced about this - "can a hundred year old man have children?" And he was commanded to call him Yitzchak based on this. But about this, Sarah said (Genesis 21:6) that "God made for me" the main laughter and miracle - he made a greater miracle for me, to the point "that anyone who hears," will not laugh about the miracle of Avraham. Rather he "will laugh for me," about the miracle that was done for me. And she explained the thing - that even though I went back to my youthfulness, and based on this, the birth was in the natural way, nevertheless...

יצחק לי means will rejoice on my account. The Midrashic statement is (Genesis Rabbah 53:8): Many barren women were remembered together with her, many sick were healed in that day, many prayers were answered with hers and there was great rejoicing in the world.

צחוק, a joy occasioned by the miracle which she had experienced.

צחוק עשה לי אלקים, even though my son has to endure the pain of the circumcision at such as tender age, nonetheless my heart is full of joy. Therefore, everyone who hears about this event will rejoice on my behalf ignoring the aspect of the circumcision.

ותאמר שרה צחק, she said that she really called the boy יצחק in order to give expression to the joy G’d had granted her. She was convinced that everyone hearing about her good fortune of having given birth in her old age would share her joy at this. Any person being surprised by some unexpected happy event laughs for joy.

God has made laughter for me: [God's] trait of [strict] justice has made laughter for me - meaning, all who hear of it will laugh for me, the explanation of which is, about me; like someone who doubts if I truly gave birth from Avraham.

יִצֲחק klingt wie ein Kompositum vom Kal und Piel. צחק Kal ist das natürliche, unwillkürliche Lachen, dessen wir uns beim Anblick einer Lächerlichkeit kaum enthalten können. צַחֵק im Piel ist das willkürliche, spottende Lachen, das die Inkongruenz zwischen der Absicht und dem Tun, zwischen dem Wollen und Vollbringen etc. verhöhnt. Möglich, dass hier schon diese ironische Seite des Lachens mit hineingezogen ist. Die Welt kannte ja die "Prätension", mit welcher Abraham und Sara, diese zwei einzelnen, wider den Strom der Zeit zu schwimmen wagten, ja, mit welcher sie sich die Hoffnung zu nähren erkühnten, diesen ganzen mächtigen Strom noch einst wieder zurück zu stauen und in ein anderes Bette zu leiten! Und nun noch gar diese ganze, schon an und für sich so lächerliche Prätention auf ein spätes, zartes Reis zu pfropfen! — Ein Stoß, und die ganze Hoffnung ist auf ewig in ihrem ersten Anfang begraben! Wollen wir es den Zeitgenossen verdenken, wenn sie an der Wiege des jüdischen Volkes sich eines spöttischen Lächelns nicht erwehrten, da dem, Gott nicht in die Berechnung der Ereignisse und der Gänge der Zeiten mit Hineinziehenden, die welthistorischen Prätentionen des welthistorischen Judenvolkes noch heute zum Gespötte sind? Auf diese Stellung sind wir von vornherein hingewiesen, der erste Abrahamssohn ward יצחק genannt und wird so lange also genannt werden, bis alle die nur auf Gottes Waltung und Gottes Verheißung gegründeten Hoffnungen sich erfüllen, dann: ,או ימלא שחוק פינו dann wird unser Mund der zuletzt lachende sein — heißt ja יצחק: er wird lachen! — und dieses Lachen wird kein צחוק — wird das mild hauchende Lächeln der Freude — שחוק — sein.

God has made laughter for me: Meaning to say that is why jis name is called Yitzchak - since people will laugh (yitzchaku) at me, saying, "Have you seen Sarah, she gave birth at 90 years, and she began now to [...]."

מלל, kommt nicht häufig vor. Es heißt eigentlich: abrupfen, וקטפת מלילות. Während דבר (als verwandt mit תפר ,טור ,תור ,דור, die alle eine einheitliche Verbindung von mehreren bedeuten) einen vollen Begriff ausdrückt, daher auch Sache be deutet, (sowie ja auch חשב eigentlich verbinden, kombinieren heißt), ist מלה ein einzelnes, von dem Baume der Gedanken abgepflücktes Blatt, ein Wort, das nicht einmal einen vollen Begriff auszudrücken braucht, und מַלֵל heißt nur: Gedankenteile aussprechen, etwas nur annäherungsweise zum Ausdruck bringen. Daher מִלִים in Job größtenteils in mehr verächtlichem Sinne, Worte, die nichts vollständig, oder überhaupt nichts aussagen. Daher auch מי ימלל גבורות ד׳, wer kann auch nur annäherungsweise etwas von den Allmachtstaten Gottes aussprechen. Ebenso auch hier: Gelacht haben viele, allein wer unter allen Lachern hat dem Abraham auch nur annäherungsweise ein Wort davon geäußert, was ich in diesem Knaben an meine Brust drücke! In ihm nähre ich die ganze Zukunft eines Volkes, seiner ganzen Nachkommenschaft Mutter bin ich in ihm, denn er wird weiter tragen, was Abraham geistig erworben. Nicht ein Kind nährt eine Sara; wenn sie das eine mütterlich pflegt und erzieht, so hat sie Söhne genährt und erzogen, היניקה בנים שרה, denn !ילדתי בן לזקניו

מי מלל לאברהם The word מי is used as an exclamation of praise alluding to the distinguished position of the Being spoken of. The sense therefore is: See, Who it is, and to what extent He keeps his promise! The Holy One, blessed be He, promises and performs!

‘MI’ (WHO) WOULD HAVE SAID UNTO ABRAHAM. The word mi is used as an exclamation of praise and distinction. The sense of the verse is thus: “See Whom it is and to what extent He keeps His promise. He promises and performs!” Thus the language of Rashi.
But we do not find the word mi used in this way in expressions of distinction and honor. Instead, we find it used only in a derogatory sense: ‘Mi’ (Who is) Abimelech, and ‘mi’ (who is) Shechem?³¹⁹Judges 9:28. ‘Mi’ (Who is) the son of Jesse?³²⁰I Samuel 25:10.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that Sarah said, “G-d hath made laughter for me; and every one that heareth will laugh on account of me,³²¹Verse 6 here. filling his mouth with song and laughter for the wonder that has been done to me, for who among the hearers would have previously said to Abraham that Sarah will suckle children? There is not a person in the world who would have told him this, even merely to console him, for the possibility would never have occurred to anyone.” Onkelos’ rendition is close to this interpretation: “How faithful is He who spoke to Abraham! He has fulfilled His word that Sarah will suckle children.” That is to say, “Everyone that heareth will laugh on account of me” for there is no person who would have maintained his credulity even in the eyes of Abraham if he were to have told him this wonder.

ותאמר: מי מלל לאברהם, everyone knows that it was the One and only G’d Who had foretold Avraham that Sarah would bear a son for him.

ותאמר, she said something else reflecting her happy surprise,

And she said: She explained that she understood that it was like this, even though no one was so brazen as to laugh in front of her. Nevertheless, she understood; as, behold, who would have declared to Avraham - in the way of those who give blessings - that he should father more children? And she did not hear anyone that came to the celebration saying to Avraham, "will Sarah nurse children" - meaning that she should give birth again. Rather [they came] because they could not believe it. And she explained the reason that they did not believe it:

מי מלל לאברהם, “who had foretold Avraham, etc.” According to Rashi, the word מלל is a form of a laudatory prediction such as an exclamation of “who would have known that Avraham is so distinguished and that HE who promised him this was capable of fulfilling his promise.” Nachmanides, on the other hand, writes that the word מי never introduces something laudatory but the contrary. Examples cited are the expressions מי אבימלך and מי דוד ומי אנשיו, in the Book of Judges and the Book of Samuel, respectively. He explains that Sarah exclaimed “the reason why all the people who hear about me nursing children will be so happy is that none ever believed that anyone who predicted that Avraham would father children was in earnest and knew what he was talking about.”

Who declared to Avraham that Sarah would nurse children? Since that which Avraham fathered [a child] in his old age - he was promised about that from God. And God said to him that he would father a son from me; so this is not a wonder, that the word of God would materialize. But that which I am nursing children and have milk to nurse, there was no promise about that at all. Who declared and forecast this miracle? Is it not that this was not announced, not by God and not by an angel? So why was this miracle done, once I have already "borne him a son in his old age," and God's promise already materialized? And why should this miracle be prolonged also after the birth, that an old woman should have milk in her breasts to nurse children? As this miracle is superfluous, since I could have given him to a wet-nurse. So in that case, God did this miracle only for laughter and joy; so that the whole world would laugh and rejoice about this miracle.

An expression of praise and esteem... [Rashi is saying] that the word מי is similar to the word מה, which infers greatness and honor, such as (Tehillim 31:20): “How (מה) great is Your goodness!” and (ibid. 92:6): “How (מה) great are Your works!” (Re’m) But it seems to me that [Rashi explained as he did] because if the verse follows its plain meaning, why did Sarah ask, “Who said to Avraham?” Hashem clearly said it to him! Perforce, it is “An expression of praise...”

'ותאמר: מי מלל וגו, she said: “who would have dared predict, etc.” This was a way of giving thanks to the Lord. It is similar to Isaiah 3,10: אמרו צדיק כי טוב, “tell the righteous that he has done something good.” Sarah here gave thanks to whosoever had foretold her husband Avraham that she would bear him a son in her old age and would even be able to nurse not only him but also other babies. In other words: she thanked the Lord. An alternate interpretation of this exclamation of Sarah: “Who would have foretold that Avraham was still virile enough still to have impregnated Sarah so that she could produce a healthy son.” According to this interpretation the word מלל is similar to the word מלילות in Deuteronomy 23,26: “(plucking) ears of corn.”

Who would have declared to Avraham: Meaning to say, who would have said to Avraham that this thing occurred - that Sarah nursed children? No one would have said this to him, since he would not have believed [it] and [the speaker] would have been in his eyes, like a joker.

מי מלל, “who would have dared predict that the day would come when I would nurse children?” If someone had predicted this he would not have been believed.

מלל SAID — Scripture employs here an unusual expression and does not use דבר, said, because its numerical value (i. e. of מלל) is one hundred, signifying as much as: Who was it who spoke in reference to the end of one hundred years of Abraham’s life (Genesis Rabbah 53:9).

כי הניקה שרה בנים, such a prophecy that Sarah who had become old without ever conceiving would nurse children could only have emanated from the One and only G’d!

Since I have borne him a son in his old age - and not in my old age, but in his old age - because of this, they are in doubt and laughing to themselves about this.

מי מלל לאברהם, who would have dared foretell Avraham that Sarah would nurse babies? If G’d Himself had not been at work in this, no one would have foretold Avraham that something like this could occur.

הניקה בנים שרה THAT SARAH WILL HAVE SUCKLED CHILDREN. What is the force of the word “children”, in the plural? On the feast-day princesses brought their children with them and she (Sarah) gave them suck, for these women said, “Sarah has not given birth to a son; she has brought into her house a foundling from the street” (Bava Metzia 87a).

לזקוניו, we already explained the meaning of this word in verse 2. As to Sarah speaking of בנים, children in the plural mode, although she had given birth to only one child, she assumed that if she had been able to nurse one child there would be nothing to prevent her from nursing more children if she so desired. There is an allegorical Midrash on this verse (quoted by Rashi) saying that many women did not believe that Yitzchok was drinking mother’s milk from Sarah’s breast. In order to silence their doubts or derision, Sarah offered to nurse also the children of such women.

ויגמל AND HE WAS WEANED — at the expiration of twenty- four months (Gittin 75b).

ויגמל, he was separated from depending on his mother’s nipples.

ויגדל הילד ויגמל , he stopped receiving mother’s milk. This occurred after he was 24 months old. This was the standard period that babies nursed at the breasts of their mothers.

And Avraham made a great banquet: [He did this] in order to show everyone that the newborn was precious to him, given that he was his son. However...

ויעש אברהם משתה גדול, “Avraham prepared a great feast.” There is no doubt that the notables in the land were invited to this feast seeing that the birth of Yitzchak had been a most remarkable event. Also, Avraham was a very wealthy man, and it is quite possible that even kings of surrounding countries attended this feast. We know that kings and other rulers sought out Avraham’s advice and made a point of being on good terms with him (compare 21,23). As the occasion was one of physical indulgence, the names of the participants have not been mentioned by the Torah. We find that Scripture does make a point of mentioning who went to a house of mourning as these people troubled themselves to share in someone’s else’s grief. This is why the Book of Job mentions not only who came to visit him but also that these people traveled a great distance in order to offer their support to Job in such a time. (compare Job 2,11) This caused Solomon to say in Kohelet: 7,2 “it is better to go to a house of mourning than to a house of feasting.” By not mentioning the names of the participants the Torah hints that all pleasures in this life are only vain and pointless.

And the child grew: [So] that you do not say that he was born a weakling from the elderly people - as he grew. And do not say that he was weaned because she did not have milk in order to nurse, since he was not weaned until he grew. As the miracle of the milk continued until he grew like one [fit to be] weaned from his mother. And Avraham made a great banquet: He did not make a banquet at the time of the circumcision, since the circumcision was a commandment specific to him and the circumcised members of his household. So he only made a small banquet before them. But at the time of the weaning, he made a great banquet for the great ones of the generation, as the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said.

After he was twenty-four months old. [Rashi knows this because otherwise] it should have written ותגמל (she weaned him). Perforce, ויגמל means the child weaned himself. [And Rashi deduced that this happened] because he was twenty-four months old, when a child rejects his mother’s milk and stops nursing. (Maharshal)

גמל, vom Baume, der seine Früchte bis zur vollendeten Reife mit seinen Säften genährt hat, dass sie nun seiner nicht mehr bedürfen, ויצץ ציץ ויגמל שקרים ebenso von der Mutter in Beziehung zum Kinde, daher ;(4. B. M. 17, 23): entwöhnen. Vielleicht heißt auch das Kamel גמל, weil es lange ohne Trinken zubringen kann. Alle Ereignisse als an dem Baume der Vergangenheit reifende Früchte begreifend, heißt denn auch גמל, allgemein: diese Früchte der Zeiten zur Reife bringen, d. h. die Geschicke des Menschen leiten, so: אשירה לד׳ כי גמל עלי, ich singe es Gott, dass, was über mich gekommen, Er zur Reife gebracht; כל תגמולהי עלי, alles, was Er über mich hat reifen lassen. Speziell: jemandem die Früchte seiner Handlungen zur Reife bringen, d. i. vergelten. Wenn der Baum vorzeitig seiner Frucht die Säste versagt, so heißt es קמל.

ויעש אברהם משתה גדול, “Avraham prepared a great feast.” This was the custom in those days, as opposed to nowadays when the feast is prepared on the day of the circumcision compare Samuel I 1,24, when Chanah took her two year old son to the High Priest Eli after having weaned him. She took with her oxen and sheep to offer as a sacrifice in the Temple.

משתה גדול A GREAT FEAST — it is so designated because the great men of that generation were present at it (Genesis Rabbah 53:10) — Shem, Eber and Abimelech (Tanchuma Yashan, Vayishlach 23).

We find a similar expression in connection with Samuel I 1,23 referring to the day he was weaned. Such days were marked by a feast. Chanah brought Samuel to Eli in Shiloh at the time. (Samuel I 1,24)

משתה גדול, this too may have been the custom in those days, to mark the baby starting to receive solid food with a great celebration. Alternately, Avraham gave such a party to mark his personal joy over Yitzchok having attained that stage. Apparently this development of the baby coincided with his beginning to speak. He was capable of being taught the letters of the alphabet. Our sages in Tanchuma Kedoshim claim that the age at which children could learn the letters of the alphabet was when they had reached age 3.

Because the great people of the time were there... Re’m explains that [Rashi knows this because] for a prophet [such as Avraham, unlike for a king such as Achashveirosh,] it makes no difference if his feast was great in its number of days or guests. Perforce, it means that the world’s great people were there.

מצחק MAKING SPORT — This means worshipping idols, as it is said in reference of the Golden Calf, (Exodus 32:6) “And they rose up to make merry (לצחק).” Another explanation is that it refers to immoral conduct, just as you say in reference to Potiphar’s wife, (Genesis 39:17) “To mock (לצחק) at me.” Another explanation is that it refers to murder, as (2 Samuel 2:14) “Let the young men, I pray thee, arise and make sport (וישחקו) before us” (where they fought with and killed one another) From Sarah’s reply — “for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son״ — you may infer that he (Ishmael) was quarrelling with Isaac about the inheritance, saying, “I am the first-born and will, therefore, take a double portion”. They went into the field and he (Ishmael) took his bow and shot arrows at him (Isaac), just as you say (Proverbs 26:18-19) “As a madman who casteth firebrands, [arrows and death] and says: I am only מצחק mocking” (Genesis Rabbah 53:11).

‘METZACHEIK’ (MAKING SPORT). This refers to worshipping idols, murder and sexual immorality. He [Ishmael] quarrelled with Isaac about inheritance, saying, “I am the first-born and will take a double portion.”³²²Deuteronomy 21:17. They then went into the field, and Ishmael took his bow and shot arrows at Isaac, just as you say, As a madman who casteth firebrands, arrows and death, so is the man who deceiveth his neighbor, and saith, Am I not in sport?³²³Proverbs 26:18-19. It is from Sarah’s complaint to Abraham — for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir, etc.³²⁴Verse 10 here. — that you learn [that they were quarrelling about the inheritance]. All this is Rashi’s language.
Here too,³²⁵See above, 19:24, where Ramban criticizes Rashi in a similar manner. Hence the word “too.” the Rabbi³⁰³Rashi. writes all the different opinions, [mentioned in the following]: “We have been taught:³²⁶Tosefta Sotah 6:6. A part thereof is mentioned in Rosh Hashanah 18b. Rabbi Shimon the son of Eleazar said, ‘There are four interpretations of Rabbi Akiba which I interpret differently, and my interpretation seems more acceptable than his. Rabbi Akiba interpreted: “And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne unto Abraham, making sport. Making sport is but a designation for idolatry, etc.” But I say Heaven forbid that such be in the house of the righteous one! Is it possible that he, of whom it was written, For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household, etc.,³²⁷Above, 18:19. will have in his household idolatry, sexual immorality, and murder? Making sport mentioned here is but a designation for the inheritance. When Isaac was born and everyone rejoiced, Ishmael said to them, “Fools, I am the first-born, and I take a double portion.” From the complaint of our mother Sarah to Abraham you learn [that making sport refers to the inheritance]. And my interpretation seems more acceptable than that of Rabbi Akiba.’”
The expression of the Rabbi,³⁰³Rashi. “that Ishmael quarrelled with Isaac about the inheritance,” also does not appear correct for if so, this must have happened much later when Isaac was grown up, and Ishmael would then have been too big for his mother to carry him on her shoulder.³²⁸See Verse 14 here. Our Rabbis have also said³²⁹Yalkut Shimoni Genesis, 95: “Ishmael was seventeen years old when he left his father’s house.” Isaac was then three years of age (see Note 330). See also the note in my Hebrew commentary, p. 123. that Ishmael was seventeen years old [at the time he left his father’s house]. If so, this happened at the time when Isaac was weaned,³³⁰At the time of Isaac’s birth, Ishmael was fourteen years old. (He was thirteen at his circumcision (17:25), and a year later Isaac was born.) Now since Ishmael was seventeen when he left his father’s house, Isaac was three years old at the time, at which age he was weaned (Verse 8). [and Isaac was thus too young for Ishmael to quarrel with him about the inheritance].
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said in line with the literal interpretation of Scripture that metzachek means “playing,” as is normal for every boy, and she was jealous of him because he was bigger than her son.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that this event took place on the day that Isaac was weaned,³³¹Verse 8 here. and Sarah saw Ishmael mocking Isaac or the great feast. It is for this reason that the verse says, And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian — rather than Ishmael — making sport. Similarly, she said, Cast out this bondwoman and her son,³²⁴Verse 10 here. for she said: “The slave who mocks his master is deserving of death or stripes, but I want only that you cast him out from before me, and that he should in no way inherit your belongings together with my son, who is the son of the mistress.” She also told Abraham to cast out his mother, as the boy was unable to leave her for he would die if he were to leave his mother.³³²See further, 44:22.

מצחק, in the meantime Ishmael was already 16 years old. Sarah did not want him to remain in the same household any longer so that he would not get ideas about sharing in the inheritance with Yitzchok.

את בן הגר המצרית, she assumed that the reason Ishmael had made disparaging remarks about Yitzchok was due to his mother putting him up to it, or to the Egyptian genes of his mother coming into play here. We have a saying in Sukkah 56 that the prattle of children in public reflects either what they picked up from their father or what they picked up from their mother. In the case of Ishmael, he certainly did not overhear his father make such disparaging remarks.

ותרא...מצחק. Ishmael was belittling Yitzchok for having a father who was so much older than he.

But Sarah saw, etc. laughing: [Yishmael] was still planting a doubt [about Yitzchak's paternity]. He was saying that there is no proof from this, as Avraham was doing it for the benefit of his wife, who was very beloved to him. Hence the things struck her heart.

מצחק, making ”blasphemous comments” according to Rashi. Ibn Ezra claims that Ishmael used the fact that he was older and stronger to make life somewhat difficult for Yitzchok who could not fight back. He indulged in pranks like most youngsters. Sarah could not stand watching this. Nachmanides claims that the incident occurred on the day Yitzchok was weaned, as appears from the context of our verse. It is therefore wrong to interpret Ishmael’s behaviour as connected to his disputing Yitzchok’s right to inherit the estate of his father when the time would come as stated by Rashi. Rather, Ishmael was making snide comments about the great feast Avraham had prepared in honour of Yitzchok’s being weaned. Sarah claimed that a slave who makes snide remarks about his master deserves either the death penalty or severe physical punishment. She, however would be content to see him expelled from the household to ensure he would not be a contender for Avraham’s estate claiming to share it with Yitzchok.

And make sport before us... [Rashi brings all three explanations] because if Scripture meant only one, Scripture should have stated it expressly. Perforce, the general term מצחק was used to refer to all of them. (R. Meir Stern) Re’m asks: When Hashem asked, “What is Yishmael now, righteous or wicked?” the angels responded: “He is righteous” (see Rashi on v. 17). But according to Rashi here, on the contrary, Yishmael was exceptionally wicked! Re’m answers: Hashem was asking only about the particular sin for which the angels were condemning him [i.e., killing the Jews through thirst]. And similarly Yishmael was not judged as a בן סורר ומורה [who is killed for his future sins] because a בן סורר ומורה has already become involved in activities leading to his eventual death penalty, whereas Yishmael did not as yet do anything to deserve to die of thirst.

Ismael wird hier nach den beiden in ihm vereinigten Naturen charakterisiert: er war der Sohn einer chamitischen Mutter und sollte dem Abraham geboren worden sein. Sara, ja die Urheberin dieser Geburt, hatte gehofft, es werde gelingen, durch erziehenden Einfluss die chamitische Natur völlig vom abrahamitischen Geist bewältigen zu lassen. Sie hatte gehofft, als Herrin Hagars Einfluss völlig paralysieren zu können. Es ward uns schon oben erzählt, wie sie sich hierin getäuscht. Wir haben dort anzudeuten versucht, wie sich in Ismaels Nachkommen diese doppelte Natur bewahrt. Sara sah diesen Gegensatz schon in Ismael hervortreten. Er hatte von den großen Ideen Abrahams gerade so viel in sich aufgenommen, um sie mit Jronie zu verachten, und was die Welt nur mit צחוק begrüßte, in welchem (Raw Hirsch on Genesis 21: 6) nur leise der Spott andämmerte, darüber war Ismael vollends מְצַחֵק, und daher völlig unfähig, mit Jizchak gemeinschaftlich das Erbe Abrahams anzutreten.

את בן הגר מצחק, “showing off in front of his younger brother, as older brothers are wont to do.” (Ibn Ezra) Sarah, Yitzchok’s mother, could not stand her son being belittled by Ishmael. She was deeply offended by Ishmael’s behaviour, presumably encouraged by his mother.

מצחק, making fun of the big party Avraham had given to mark the weaning of Yitzchok, He claimed that surely Sarah must have become pregnant from Avimelech. The reason he had not made such remarks already at the time when Yitzchok had been born, was because he had only overheard wicked gossip about this at a later stage, and now he repeated what he had heard.

עם בני עם יצחק WITH MY SON, WITH ISAAC —For since this is my son, even though he were not as good as Isaac really is, or if he were as good a man as Isaac really is, even though he were not my son, this one (Ishmael) is not deserving of inheriting with him: how much less is he deserving of inheriting with my son, with Isaac — with one who possesses both these qualities (of being my son and of being the good man Isaac) (Genesis Rabbah 53:11).

For the son of this maidservant shall not inherit: And [just] because he banished him, is it impossible for him to return for his inheritance after the death of his father? So it appears that it was speaking about the inheritance of his deeds. As Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she bore for Avraham, laughing with sexual immorality - from the angle that he was the son of Hagar the Egyptian, [as] she gave birth to one similar to herself. For it is known that the Egyptians are awash in licentiousness, as it is stated (Ezekiel 23:20), "and whose issue was like that of horses"; and their offspring are similar to them. Therefore Sarah said to banish him, so that Yitzchak would not learn from his deeds. But perhaps you will say, it is the opposite - maybe Yitzchak will change him and bring him back to the good! It is about this that she said, "I knew it through prophecy that he will not inherit with my son from the good deeds of his father, Avraham." And hence the concern remained that Yitzchak would learn from him. And [for] more of the content of this section, see below, Parashat Chaye Sarah, on the verse, "and her name was Keturah" (Kli Yakar on Genesis 25:1).

גרש האמה הזאת ואת בנה, seeing that what the son did was at the instigation of his mother. He spread lies about Yitzchok’s legitimacy in order to establish a claim to your inheritance.

ותאמר...גרש האמה, it was inconceivable to expel the son without his mother as she would not remain after he had gone.

Drive out this maidservant and her son: And through this, everyone will know that Yitzchak is your son. As behold, a man as great as Avraham would not drive out his only son out of love for his wife. And do not say that it is not proper to distance Yishmael - as the transferal of the legacy and the inheritance will be included in this; all the more so, the rights of the first born. Hence she said...

And she said: That is why she requested that he drive out the maidservant, who incited him, and also drive out her son with her. Since she thinks that he should inherit equally with Yitzchak - or that he has an advantage over Yitzchak, according to her mockery. But the truth is that he will not inherit, from the perspective that he is the son of the maidservant; as the offspring of a maidservant is [considered to have a status] like her. And he would not inherit with him, from the perspective that [Yitzchak] was his son, the son of the lady; and from the perspective that he was Yitzchak, who was born by a miracle and is the heart and the treasure.

That he is my son even if he were not as deserving as Yitzchok... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why does it say עם twice? It should say: עם בני יצחק. Perforce, it means that being “my son” is reason enough to exclude Yishmael from the inheritance, as is being “Yitzchok,” each on its own. [Rashi considered this explanation] preferable to that of Targum Yonasan. (R. Meir Stern)

גרש, nicht bloß ein räumliches Entfernen, sondern ein Entlassen, womit aller Zusammenhang mit dem Hause aufhört. So גרש) .אשה גרושה מאישה, verwandt mit ירש, aus dem Besitz drängen, daher auch תירש: der aus der Hülse getriebene Saft. קרש: die vom Zutritt fernhaltenden Wandbretter. Vielleicht auch כרש und davon der Name Cyrus, des Eroberers).

For the son of this maidservant shall not inherit: Meaning to say, it is not right that the son of the maidservant inherit with my son. And therefore I do not want that he should live here, lest he should say after our death, "I am also the son of Avraham," and come to inherit.

כי לא יירש, “for he will not have a share in the inheritance;” it appears clear from this remark of Sarah that Ishmael had claimed a double portion of his eventual inheritance based on the fact that he was his father’s firstborn son. (Compare B’reshit Rabbah 53,11)

כי לא יירש בן האמה, seeing that he is not part of your family; the child always is considered as part of the halachically defective parent. (Maimonides issurey bi-ah 15,7)

for the son of this maidservant shall not inherit: He should not inherit even without this. As a result, it is appropriate that you should publicize this in your lifetime.

כי לא יירש, “he imagines that he will share equally in the inheritance because he is your son. This is the reason why he is so overbearing, making fun of my son.”

Es klingt dies hart, und ist doch ganz durch die Verhältnisse motiviert. Sollen Abrahams Haus und Jizchak nach beider Ableben Hagars und Ismaels, ja des ältesten Sohnes, Einfluss nicht zu fürchten haben, so müssen diese beide in einer Weise entlassen werden, dass sie damit diesem Hause gegenüber in ihrem wirklichen, rechtlichen Verhältnisse, d. i. als Sklavin und Sklavinsohn, somit selbst Sklave, erscheinen. Nachher konnte Abraham ja, wie es auch wirklich geschehen, ihr Los so freigebig ausstatten, als es seinem Wohlstande und seinem Herzen gemäß war. Nicht umsonst wiederholt Sara das: diese Magd, האמה הזאת. Nicht, dass keiner Sklavin Sohn überhaupt ihres Hauses Mitfortträger sein solle. Hatte sie doch selbst dieses Verhältnis ganz ausdrücklich beabsichtigt und ganz allein aus eigenem Antriebe veranlasst. Allein diese Magd hatte sich für ein solches Verhältnis völlig ungeeignet erwiesen, darum: גרש בן האמת הזאת לא יירש בן האמה הזאת וגו׳. Ich habe gehosst אבנה ממנה, Hagars Sohn werde mein Sohn werden, ich würde ihn dir erziehen können. Das hat aber Hagars Wesen vereitelt.

With my son, with Yitzchak: The exactitude of this expression will still be explained below.

עם יצחק, the words suggest that Sarah had told Avraham “didn’t G’d tell you that He would perpetuate His covenant with Yitzchok who Sarah will bear for you? (17,21)?”

על אדות בנו ON ACCOUNT OF HIS SON — because he heard that he had taken to degenerate ways (Exodus Rabbah 1:1). The real meaning, however, is because she (Sarah) had told him to send him away.

AND THE THING WAS VERY GRIEVOUS IN ABRAHAM’s SIGHT ON ACCOUNT OF HIS SON. That is, for he had taken to degenerate ways. The plain meaning, however, is that he was grieved because she had told him to send him away. Thus the language of Rashi.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that Scripture is speaking in honor of Abraham, saying that the reason why the matter was very displeasing to him was not due to a craving for his concubine and his desire for her. Therefore, if she had told him to cast out only the maidservant, he would have done her will. But it was on account of his son that he was very much incensed and did not want to listen to her. But the Holy One, blessed be He, told him that he should not resent it at all, neither for the son nor for the maidservant, and that he should listen to Sarah’s bidding for it is through Isaac alone that his name will be carried on, while Ishmael will not be referred to as his offspring. Now because Abraham feared lest an accident happen to Ishmael upon his sending him away, He told him that He will make a nation of him and He will bless him since he is indeed his son.

על אודות בנו. On account of his son. Abraham was afraid that the expulsion would result in Ishmael pursuing unwholesome activities because he felt rejected. He had to be concerned about this since Ishmael was his son after all.

וירע הדבר...על אודות בנו, even though Ishmael was the son of a slave-woman, he was at the same time also Avraham’s son, and he loved him as a father loves one’s son, especially seeing that he was his firstborn. He was merciful towards him like a father is merciful to all his children. Moreover, he had taught him to behave and had taught him the ways of the Lord. In fact, if he, Avraham, had taught all and sundry the ways of the Lord, he had most certainly not neglected to teach these ways to his own son. Therefore, the request by Sarah to expel his own son was a source of great chagrin to him. Avraham kept his chagrin to himself and did not express anger at his wife as he was concerned with preserving שלום בית, peaceful marital relations with his wife. This was the state of affairs until G’d intervened in the matter.

On account of his son: As Sarah had said (Genesis 21:10), "and her son" - implying that she wanted Avraham to act towards Yishmael like towards the son of a maidservant, since her offspring is like (has the same status as) her and does not go after the father. But he knew it was not so. As behold, he had freed her and taken her as a wife. And it is like it is written above (Genesis 16:15), "and [Avram] called the name of his son."

על אודות בנו. “on account of his son.” According to Rashi, Avraham feared that expelling him would lead to his abandoning the teachings he had learned in his home. Nachmanides writes that the Torah praises Avraham in this verse for not objecting to the demand for the expulsion of his concubine and her son as he was so fond of Hagar, but that he was troubled that the expulsion of his son would even further inhibit his growing up in the monotheistic Abrahamitic tradition. He waited until he had been instructed by G’d to follow Sarah’s instincts when it came to pedagogy. Seeing that Avraham was concerned about the personal security of Ishmael, He promised him that his son Ishmael would develop into a great nation. On the other hand, Yitzchok would be the recipient of G’d’s comprehensive blessings.

And it was bad: Sarah began that he should drive out the maidservant, since she thought that the main love of Avraham was for his concubine, and he loved his son along with her, as well. But Scripture testifies that the essence of what was bad in the eyes of Avraham was "on account of his son."

For he heard that he fell into bad ways. Rashi brings both the Midrashic and the simple explanation because with the simple explanation alone, a question arises: In v. 12, Hashem tells Avraham, “Do not consider this wrong on account of the boy and your slave-woman.” This implies that Avraham was perturbed also about his slave-woman. So why does our verse mention only “his son”? Thus Rashi explains our verse [Midrashically,] that Yishmael fell into bad ways—something not relevant to Avraham’s slave-woman. But without the simple explanation, another question arises: [Since Avraham was not perturbed about sending Yishmael away,] why does Hashem then say to Avraham in v. 12: “Do not consider this wrong... regarding all that Sarah tells you, listen to her...”? What does listening to Sarah have to do with Yishmael’s fall into bad ways? Furthermore, the reason that Scripture then gives, “For only through Yitzchok will seed be considered yours,” is irrelevant to Avraham’s concern over Yishmael’s falling into bad ways. This is why Rashi needed the simple explanation as well. It seems that [Rashi learned] the two explanations from על אודות בנו, for it appears to be repetitious. Since אודות means the same as על, why say על twice? It could have simply said על בנו, as in the next verse: אל ירע ... על הנער. Perforce, it comes to tell us that Avraham was perturbed about two things. But only for sending them away did Hashem say (v. 12), “Do not consider this wrong...” (R. Meir Stern)

Diese ganze Sache erschien dem Abraham außerordentlich bös, hart, רע, (rad. רעע) es war ein Bruch in seinen Vorsätzen, in dem Bilde, das er sich von seiner Zukunft entworfen hatte, und zwar nicht bloß in Beziehung zu Ismael, denn Gott sagt nachher zu ihm: על הנער ועל אמתך, sondern auch in Beziehung auf dessen Mutter. Beides erschien ihm nicht gut, jedoch nicht etwa aus einer persönlichen Neigung für Hagar, sondern על אודות בנו lediglich aus Rücksichten für seinen Sohn, wörtlich: über Veranlassungen seines Sohnes, über Beweggründe von seinem Sohne (אודו Plural von אוד, die Handhabe, der Hebel). Abraham war sicher nicht entgangen, was Sara bemerkt. Allein Abraham dürfte gedacht haben: wenn Ismael schon in seinem Hause von dem Ernst eingebüßt und מצחק geworden, und wenn ferner Hagars Einfluss, obgleich gewiss von Abraham teilweise paralysiert, schon jetzt auf Ismael so groß gewesen, wie wird dies erst dann sein, wenn beide aus dem Abrahamshause fern und Ismael ganz Hagars Einfluss hingegeben sein wird!

And this thing was very bad: Meaning to say, it was difficult in his eyes about Hagar, but it was very difficult for him about his son. Therefore He said to him (Genesis 21:12), "Do not let it be bad in your eyes concerning the youth and concerning your maidservant."

Another meaning of this expression is that Abraham resented Sarah's describing Ishmael as merely "the son of this slave-woman." G'd now interfered by telling him that Sarah was entirely justified. When G'd pointedly referred to Ishmael as הנער, the lad, and not as "your son," He made it plain that only Isaac would be considered an extension of Abraham. G'd added: "also the son of this slave-woman," when He referred to Ishmael as having a major role in history. When the Torah describes Abraham as complying with Sarah's i.e. G'd's request, he no longer refers to Ishmael as "his son," but only as "the child."

שמע בקולה HEARKEN UNTO HER VOICE — we may infer that Abraham was inferior to Sarah in respect of prophecy (Exodus Rabbah 1:1).

יקרא לך זרע, a reference to the covenant between G’d and Avraham, which included that Avraham’s seed would remain strangers in a land not theirs before they would inherit the land of Canaan (15,13). G’d reminded him that his promise referred to Yitzchok and not to Ishmael.

אל ירע בעיניך על הנער ועל אמתך. כל אשר תאמר אליך שרה, do not be angry regarding anything that Sarah says to you concerning the lad and the maid, i.e. to expel them while they wear proof that they are slaves. Avraham’s having placed Ishmael’s on Hagar’s shoulder was a clear sign that Hagar was a slave woman who was charged with carrying Ishmael (verse 14)

ויאמר...על הנער ועל אמתך, G’d knew that Avraham was not only displeased about Sarah’s request to expel Ishmael, but he was also chagrined at being asked to expel Hagar, his maid-servant. [described here as his servant rather than as Sarah’s servant. Ed.] Even though the Torah had only spelled out that Avraham had felt aggrieved on account of his son (verse 11), the reason why our text had mentioned only his son was that he was his principal concern. He was prepared to quarrel with Sarah about the future of his son, whereas he was not prepared to make the continued presence of Hagar an issue between them. G’d, however, knew how he really felt concerning Hagar.

Concerning the youth and concerning your maidservant: The Holy One, blessed be He, did not say, "concerning the maidservant and concerning her son" - as he is certainly his son. But the verdict was nevertheless with Sarah.

And he said: Based on this, God said to him, "Do not let it be bad in your eyes concerning the youth and concerning your maidservant." Since the main thing that was bad in your eyes was concerning the youth - and due to him, it was also bad in your eyes concerning your maidservant, as she is the mother of the youth - from this, it is understood that you consider him to be like your son. Therefore "listen to the voice (bekol) of Sarah" (it has been explained with me that listening bekol is to do like her words) - that if you think that he is your son who will inherit you like Yitzchak, it is a mistake. For it is only "through (lit., in) Yitzchak that your seed will be called" - as the heart and the treasure is only in Yitzchak, meaning in Yaakov who will be born from him. And the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said (Nedarim 31a), "'In Yitzchak,' and not all of Yitzchak." And they said that one who makes a vow [not to benefit] from the seed of Avraham is permitted [to benefit from] the seed of Yishmael and Esav, since they are not called by the name of Avraham but rather by the name of Yishmael and Esav. And if you are concerned about sending him away from you, lest he die of hunger or that which is similar, I promise you - even though he is the son of the maidservant and is not related to you but only to her, nevertheless - "I will make him into a nation," from the perspective "that he is your seed."

To the voice of prophecy that was within her. [Note: although this phrase is absent from our version of Rashi here, it parallels an extant comment of Rashi on 16:2.] Rashi deduced this because it could have said, “Listen to her words,” as it said before, “Regarding all that Sarah tells you.” Or [it could have said] שמע אליה, as in (Devarim 11:13): והיה אם שמוע תשמעו אל מצותי. Furthermore, a voice without words is just a meaningless sound. How could Avraham be told to obey a mere sound? Thus Rashi explains that it means the voice of prophecy. I.e., she did not say it on her own; it was the voice of prophecy. The expression יצאה בת קול is somewhat similar to this. And for this reason, כי שמעת לקול אשתך (3:17), written concerning Adam HaRishon, is interpreted in Bereishis Rabba 19:5 to mean that she was wailing over him with her voice. (R. Meir Stern)

שמע בקול, das wirkliche, reine Gehorchen wird durch שמוע בקול, nicht שמוע בדבר ausgedrückt: auf die Stimme eines andern hören, nicht bloß auf sein Wort; ihm gehorchen, weil er es gesagt, gleichgültig, was er gesagt. Höre auf Saras Stimme, folge ihr, wenn dir auch der Inhalt ihrer Worte nicht zusagt; verlasse dich auf ihr Urteil; sie fühlt es tiefer heraus, wie denn ja überhaupt Frauen einen tieferen Blick in die Charakterrichtung haben. — In Jizchak יקרא לך wird dir Samen genannt werden, Ismael (Raw Hirsch on Genesis 21: 13). זרעך הוא ist dein Same. Ismael stammt von dir, mag auch daher viel Materielles und manches Geistige von dir haben. Allein dein Sohn ge- nannt zu werden, ist er nicht würdig, dein geistiger Erbe kann er nicht sein. —

For it is through Yitzchak that your seed will be called: Your main seed is Yitzchak; that seed about which He said, "to you and to your seed will I give this land" (Genesis 13:15).

Listen to (be, literally, in) her voice: And He did not say, "listen to (le) her voice" - the implication of which [would be] that he should do like she said, like the language of Scripture above (Genesis 16:2), "And [Avram] listened to the voice of Sarai, his wife." But the implication of, "in her voice," is that he be precise and contemplate her words. And see what I have written on the Book of Deuteronomy 30:2, proving this intention.

כל אשר תאמר, this was not a carte blanche for Sarah except in the matter of Ishmael and Hagar. The point was that Ishmael was not to share in Avraham’ s heritage. כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע, the promise I had given to you in 17,8 applies only to Yitzchok as he is the seed specifically yours.

ביצחק, nicht כי יצחק, wie die Weisen bemerken: nicht Jizchak, sondern in Jizchak wird dir Samen reifen. Lass es dir nicht allzuschwer und hart fallen, einen Sohn auszuscheiden; auch von Jizchak werden nicht alle deinem geistigen Erbe verbleiben, an dem besten Baume reifen nicht alle Früchte, und um für das Gottesvolk den rechten Samen rein zu gewinnen, wird noch mancher als untauglich ausscheiden müssen.

כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע, for your descendants will be known through Yitzchok, and Ishmael and his sons will be slaves to him. Ishmael will not be known historically for his being a son of Avraham.

For it is through Yitzchak that your seed will be called: Relative to Yitzchak, he is certainly not considered a son, as only he will be called your seed.

וגם את בן האמה, you have no reason to worry about expelling your son, as you are expelling the son of the slave woman. You do not expel him in his capacity of being your son. At any rate, I will make him into a nation seeing that he is your seed, not because he deserves such a distinction.

But also the son of the maidservant, etc. for he is your seed: On his own, he is certainly your seed. And, if so, Sarah was right concerning the inheritance that was relevant to Yitzchak. But regarding Yishmael on his own - in that which does not relate to Yitzchak your son - he is certainly your seed. And see what I have written above on Genesis 16:6. And that is the exactitude of Sarah's expression, "with my son, with Yitzchak" (Genesis 21:10). But had Sarah's intention been to say that Yishmael not be considered a son to Avraham, but rather a son of the maidservant - if so, Yishmael would not inherit even if Yitzchak had not been born at all. Rather she certainly conceded that Yishmael was considered a son. But he was not considered a son, 'with her son, with Yitzchak,' because that was the stipulation - that regarding Sarah, Hagar would be like a maidservant, and as I wrote there.

וגם את בן האמה, do not worry that he will perish when he leaves your house; on the contrary, I will make him develop into a great nation because he is your descendant

Ismael ist dein Same, trägt manchen Keim deines Geistes in sich, und den werde ich auch in einem Volksleben sich entfalten lassen.

לחם וחמת מים BREAD AND A BOTTLE OF WATER — but not silver and gold, because he hated him for taking to degenerate ways (Exodus Rabbah 1:1).

AND THE CHILD, AND HE SENT HER AWAY. This is to be understood in connection with the above: And he gave to Hagar [the bread and bottle of water]… and the child, for he gave her the child also to go with her wherever she will go.

ותתע במדבר באר שבע, that is why she ran out of water, a supply of which she had carried with her. Avraham had given her a big enough supply if she would have taken the direct route to Beer Sheva.

שם על שכמה, the hose containing the water; this was in order to show that she was a slave woman. A reminder of the angel at the time having told her that she was to submit to her mistress Sarah (16,9) A righteous person of the caliber of Avraham would certainly not send away a woman and her son without provisions adequate to ensure that she can reach the next location where new provisions can be obtained. [I wonder why Hagar was not given an animal to ride on? Clearly, Avraham was intent that she should be known to be a slave by the fact that she had to travel on foot. Ed.] Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 53,15 understand the words ויהי אלוקים את הנער in verse 20, to mean that she had both donkeys and camels at her disposal as well as her son’s servants. If we accept that line in the Midrash at face value, the crisis which overtook Hagar and Ishmael was only that they ran out of water due to having lost their way in the desert. As soon as they found a source of water they had all the means to establish themselves economically, even in the midst of the desert. It was natural for Ishmael to settle in the desert as his mother had been told already while she was pregnant that here son would be a פרא אדם, someone preferring to live in the wilderness, not in civilised society.

על שכמה ואת הילד. On her shoulder together with the child. Abraham put Ishmael also on Hagar's shoulder because the latter refused to leave his father's house. As a result Abraham tied him up as one ties up a child, put him on Hagar's shoulder and expelled her.

וישכם, to carry out G’d’s instruction.

And a skin of water: Our father Avraham estimated that there would be enough for the journey to arrive at another inhabited place; but she went and strayed. And as a result, the water came to an end. And thus did the Rashbam explain.

שם על שכמו ואת הילד, “he placed it on her shoulder together with the child.” According to our sages Avraham placed both the jug of water as well as Ishmael on Hagar’s shoulders. According to the plain meaning of the verse the meaning of the words ואת הילד is that these words mean that not only Hagar but also Ishmael would walk with Hagar (not ride) also.

And he got up early: It recounts the righteousness of Avraham, that he got up early in the morning to implement the commandment of God. Such that he did not give silver and gold into her hand. Rather, "he took bread," since Sarah had said (Genesis 21:10), "drive out this maidservant." And there is a difference between, "drive out," and "send away": With the sending away of slaves, it is written (Deuteronomy 15:13), "you shall not send them away empty." For sending away is with goodness, but driving out is with a strong hand and with anger. And he gave [it] himself to Hagar, and not through an agent, since his mercy was not moved at all. He placed it on her shoulder: Such that he did not allow her to eat in his house and go afterwards; rather he placed [it] on her shoulder. And the child: After he placed [it] on her shoulder, he sent her away with the child, to show her that the main expulsion was hers, because she incited the child to laugh. And on account of her, he is also sending away the child. And he did this so that the child would not be be disgusting in her eyes. And she went and strayed: As he did not send one of his servants to show her the way; sending her without accompaniment, which was not like his way even with guests who were strangers. As he would walk with them to send them away. For he kept the commandment of God.

But no silver and gold because he despised him... But according to the simple explanation [see Rashi on v. 11] he did not fall into bad ways. Why did Avraham not give him silver and gold? An answer is: Avraham assumed that shortly, after Sarah’s anger subsides, he will bring him back. (Maharshal) But according to R. Meir Stern’s explanation on v. 11, the question does not arise, because the simple explanation does not conflict with the Midrash. Both are needed; see there. Furthermore, Maharshal’s answer cannot be correct. For if it was, Rashi himself should have explained thusly, that Avraham intended to bring him back—as this would satisfy both the simple explanation and the Midrash. Rashi should not have given a reason that satisfies only the Midrash.

ואת הילד gehört zu ויתן אל הגר, das שם על שכמה ist Parenthese, es heißt darum nicht: וישם על שכמה, und wird ausdrücklich hervorgehoben, weil es eben die Art des Fortschickens charakterisiert. Als Sklavin, nicht als Abrahams Weib und Mutter seines Sohnes, war sie zu entlassen. Das forderte, wie bereits bemerkt, unerbittlich das Verhältnis und der Zweck dieser ganzen Entfernung. — ילד. Auch Josef war siebzehn Jahre alt und wird noch ילד genannt. (1. B. M. 37, 30.) Im Verhältnis der da maligen und jetzigen durchschnittlichen Lebensdauer von hundertundzwanzig zu siebzig, entspricht ein damaliger siebzehnjähriger Mensch unserem heutigen Knaben von zehn bis elf Jahren.

He placed on her shoulder the skin [of water] and the bread; but the child [he placed] into her hands, since he was fourteen.

ויקח לחם וחמת מים, “he took bread and hose full of water.” Rashi points out that he did not give Hagar silver or gold, as he himself had grown to dislike Ishmael, seeing that he had become a degenerate. Besides, at this stage Avraham did not have any “inheritance” at his disposal that he could give away, seeing that he himself was only a stranger in the land, just as was his son Ishmael. We have learned in the Talmud Kidushin 17 that when a father and a son convert to Judaism they are both “strangers,” i.e. converts, but no longer legally considered as related to one another. As a result, there does not exist a “fatherson” relationship to base any inheritance claim on. (Choshen Mishpot 283) Nonetheless, it had been Avraham’s intention after Sarah’s death to give his son Ishmael “gifts,” as opposed to an inheritance, as is clear from how he treated the sons of Keturah, his concubine after Sarah’s death (and Yitzchok having married and having received his full inheritance. Genesis 25,5).

ואת הילד AND THE CHILD — the child, too, he placed on her shoulder, for Sarah had cast an evil eye upon him, so that a fever seized him and he could not walk (Genesis Rabbah 53:13).

ואת הילד, he also gave her the child;

ויקח לחם וחמת מים, he gave her enough food and water to last for a day or two. She was unable to carry more than that. He also gave her a plentiful supply of water as the distance to Egypt was considerable. On the other hand, she might have had relatives much closer than in Egypt. He gave her also silver and gold so that she could replenish her supplies, although the Torah did not make a specific mention of this.

ותלך ותתע במדבר, ”She went and lost her way in the desert.” The water supply that Avraham had provided was exhausted only because instead of walking straight towards her destination, she procrastinated and made detours.

He also placed the child on her shoulder... ואת הילד refers to what immediately preceded [שם על שכמה] rather than to ויתן אל הגר. [Rashi knows this] because if Avraham did not place the child on her shoulder, Scripture should state that she picked him up before saying, “And she threw the lad...”

שם על שכמה, “he placed on Hagar’s shoulder;” this refers to the bread and the hose of water. [Not as most commentators assume to Ishmael. Ed.]

ותלך ותתע AND SHE WENT AND WANDERED — she reverted to the idol worship of her father’s house (Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 30).

וישלחה, he first accompanied her some distance out of his loving concern for them. (compare 18,16).

ואת הילד, he placed the bread and the water on her shoulder, and arranged for Ishmael to walk ahead of her. He was approximately 15 and the time, and if he would tire, Hagar would have to carry him for a while either on her shoulder or in her lap.

She returned to her family’s idolatry. Rashi deduced this because ותלך connotes going along deliberately and willingly, as הליכה always means. Yet then it says ותתע, connoting that she did not know where she was going, as she lost her way in the desert. One term contradicts the other. And we cannot say that at first she knew where she was going but then lost her way, because why should Scripture tell us she went deliberately? It is obvious that she went where she was going before she lost her way! Furthermore, the verse’s intent is to recount how she lost her way in the desert and therefore had no water, etc. There is no reason to say she went deliberately on the way. Therefore Rashi explains that her ותתע was deliberate, and that is why it says ותלך ותתע — she deliberately went astray. How? She returned to her family’s idolatry. Rashi explained ותתע as idolatry, based on ויהי כאשר התעו אותי (20:13), translated by Onkelos as: “When the nations went astray after idolatry.” (R. Meir Stern)

ואת הילד, “and the boy;” he made sure that she held him by her hand. According to Rashi, Ishmael had been taken ill, so that Hagar had to carry him also. If you were to argue that we have been taught that sickness did not exist until Yaakov was on his deathbed, (Baba Metzia 87) we must assume that the Talmud refers to terminal sickness, but that did not include dying from thirst, etc.

וישלחה, either from his house, or he accompanied her some distance until outside the town limits.

וישלחה, “he sent her off,” into freedom since having been intimate with her he was not allowed to sell her to another owner according to Torah law. (Compare Exodus 21,11)

ותלך ותתע, she did not know the route once she had entered the desert.

ויכלו המים AND THE WATER WAS SPENT, because it is the nature of sick people to drink much (Genesis Rabbah 53:13).

AND SHE CAST THE CHILD. Thirst overtook him and he was unable to walk, and so his mother laid him under the tree, cast away and abandoned. It may be that the word vatashleich (and she cast) is similar in sense to the verses: And He cast them into another land;³³³Deuteronomy 29:27. Cast me not away from Thy presence,³³⁴Psalms 51:13. meaning “sending away.”
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said: “And she cast for she had taken him onto her lap when he was weakened by thirst, [and seeing that he was expiring from thirst, she cast him from her].”
Our Rabbis have said³³⁵Bereshith Rabbah 53:17. that he was sick at the time he sent him away, and therefore he put the child on her shoulder. This is the sense of the word vatashleich (and she cast) him: [until that point she had carried him].
All this occurred to Abraham because he had been commanded to do whatever Sarah said, and she commanded that he send him away immediately, and it was at her command that he did not give them silver and gold, servants, and camels to bear them.

Under one of the bushes: To protect against the burning sun and it adding to [his] thirst.

ויכלו, Hagar’s problems became ever more acute. The reason why the Torah writes all this detail, is to teach that if man is confident that G’d will help him overcome his difficulties in the end, then his troubles do not multiply in order to teach him to appeal to G’d for help. The detail here has also been written in order to show how G’d deals with people who love His name. He appeared to Hagar on two separate occasions rescuing her from acute distress, performing miracles on behalf of her son.

ותשלך את הילד, “She threw away the child.” According to the homiletical approach, she threw Ishmael off her shoulder. According to the plain meaning of the text, she dropped him under a tree, the expression being similar to וישליכם אל ארץ אחרת, “He exiled them to another country. (Deuteronomy 29,27) Ibn Ezra understands the word ותשלך to mean that Hagar moved him down to her lap as a result of becoming tired and exhausted from thirst. As to why Avraham gave Hagar only bread and water and no supply of silver or gold or camels to ride on, this was due to his having been commanded by G’d to obey Sarah’s instructions, and she had objected to this.

And she cast (tashlech): [Casting] is about leaving and abandoning, as [in], "for You have picked me up and cast me (tashlicheni)" (Psalms 102:11). And it explains the casting - "and she went and sat across from him." And after she heard there also the voice of the youth yelling out, she sat even further away across from him.

Because the sick drink a great deal. Rashi deduced this because it should have said, The bread and the water were wused up.” For it said before, “He took bread and a skin pouch of water,” and Avraham assumedly gave them food and drink proportionally, so both should have finished together. Thus Rashi explains that Scripture is telling us that Yishmael drank disproportionately to his eating, as the sick drink a great deal, and that is why it says, “The water was used up,” but not the bread. (R. Meir Stern) But it seems to me that Rashi knows this because it does not say, “And they had no more water to drink.” The expression “the water was used up” implies that it happened unexpectedly, ahead of time. (Nachalas Yaakov)

(15-16) Auffallend ist die verschiedene Form חֵמַת, also von חֵמָה, und hier: חֵמֶת und Raw Hirsch on Genesis 21: 19 חֵמֶת. Auch die etymologische Ableitung ist dunkel. Für חמה findet sich Analogie in חומה, Mauer, auch Ausdruck eines bewahrenden Umschließens. —

ויכלו המים, “the water was used up;” Rashi adds that it is the custom of sick people to drink a lot of water, so that the water was not used up as it had been insufficient for the journey to start with. This interpretation is somewhat puzzling, as we have been told in the Talmud, tractate Baba metzia, folio 87, that prior to the report in the Torah about Yaakov falling sick shortly before his death, sickness as we know it did not exist. We would have to conclude therefore that what the Talmud meant that until Yaakov fell sick, for no visible cause, no one fell sick without visible cause. Yishmael’s “sickness” was not a sickness in the accepted meaning of the word but was the result of Sarah having used the “evil eye” to cause this.

And she cast the child: From [the time] when he fainted from thirst, she began to carry him.

ויכלו המים מן החמת, “the water in the hose ran out,” before they reached an inn. Avraham had provided only enough water for them to reach the nearest settlement of human beings and she lost her way in the desert.

ותשלך את הילד, whom she had been carrying, seeing that she had become too tired to carry on. When she saw that she had been unable to locate any water, she threw him from her lap under a shrub. According to Onkelos שיחים are small trees. [it was doubly frustrating to know that there must have been a source of water nearby, how else could these trees exist? Ed.]

Hagars ganzes Benehmen ist höchst charakteristisch und zeichnet die unveredelte chamitische Natur. Eine jüdische Mutter hätte ihr Kind nicht verlassen, und wäre es auch nur, um dem Kinde zuzureden, und wäre es auch nur, um ihm den millionsten Teil einer Sekunde zu erleichtern. Sich untätig entfernen, weil man den "Schmerz nicht mit ansehen kann", ist nicht Mitgefühl, ist grausamer Egoismus einer noch rohen Menschennatur. Im menschlichen Menschen weiß das Pflichtgefühl die stärksten Empfindungen zu meistern, den eigenen Schmerz vergessen und hülfreiche Assistenz leisten zu lassen, und könnte man auch nichts mehr als die Wohltat der teilnehmenden Gegenwart leisten. Daher so tief bedeutsam: obgleich auch Hagar schrie, nicht קול הגר, sondern את קול הנעור hörte Gott (Raw Hirsch on Genesis 21:17); denn aus Egoismus untätig bleibendes Schreien dringt nicht zu Ihm.

ותשלך את הילד, “she abandoned the child,” (by leaving him among some bushes) she did not do so because she could no longer carry him; she did so because he was about to die from thirst; when he first took sick she had carried him for a while.

Ferner: ותשלך, wirft das Kind fort, תחת אחד השיחים, "unter eines der dort Wachsenden", (שיח ist der allgemeinste Ausdruck für Gewächs, verwandt mit שגה, in die Höhe schießen, und daher auch übertragen auf die geistige, innere Gedankenentwicklung), ganz gleichgültig wohin es fällt, vielleicht gar unter Dornen, wo es noch geritzt werden kann und durch die Unvernunft der Mutter noch zum quälenden Durst den unnötigsten Schmerz erhält. Alles dies zeigt die völlig kopflose Schmerzüberwältigung, wie sie keine abrahamitische Mutter in einem solchen Momente sich hätte zu Schulden kommen lassen. —

כִמְטַחֲוֵי קשת wird gewöhnlich mit Bogenschuß übersetzt, eine Bogenschußweite; es kommt dieses Wort allerdings nicht weiter vor und kann dessen Bedeutung nur aus dem Zusammenhange ermittelt werden. Eigentümlich wäre dabei freilich dieser Ausdruck hier, man dürfte geneigt sein zu glauben, er sei schon aus dem künftigen Schützenleben des Ismael genommen. Betrachten wir jedoch die grammatische Form מְטַחְַוֵי, so spricht sie durchaus gegen die Bedeutung: Schuss, sie ist vielmehr das Partizip. aetiRaw Hirsch on Genesis 21: des Piel und weist daher auf die Bezeichnung einer aktiven Persönlichkeit hin, scheint also nicht den Schuss, sondern die Schießenden zu bedeuten. Die Wurzel טחה wäre dann lautverwandt mit דחה, stoßen, und zwar verstärktes דחה .דחה selbst kommt schon als ein in die Ferne jagen und schleudern vor, so: כמוץ לפני רוח ומלאך ד׳ דוחה (Ps. 35), also noch schneller als der Wind. Ebenso: נדחי ישראל. Somit kann טחה füglich: schleudern, schießen heißen. Nun wird freilich nicht der Bogen, sondern vermittelst des Bogens geschossen; allein ganz analog heißt es: רוֹמֵי קשת Bogen- werfer statt Pfeilwerfer. Wir wagen daher zu glauben: הרחק כמטחוי קשת heiße: sie entfernte sich wie Bogenschützen, d. h. wie ein Bogenschütze rückwärts von seinem Ziele bis zu dem äußersten Punkte zurückgeht, von wo aus er es nur noch im Auge behalten kann, so ging Hagar rückwärts von Ismael so weit als möglich fort, um seine Qual nicht zu sehen, und doch nur so weit, dass sie ihn noch im Auge behielt. Es entspricht dies ganz den Gefühlen, die in ihr stritten, wobei der Anhänglichkeit an ihr Kind nur so viel Rechnung getragen wird, als die Rücksicht für das eigene Schmerzgefühl, dieses falsche, täuschende, rohe Mitgefühl noch Raum lässt.

מנגד means some distance away.

ותלך, after she had thrown Ishmael under one of the small trees, she went away a distance and sat down.

And she went to sit across from him: A second time, to indicate that she distanced herself more than a bowshot, since she wanted to cry out loud. But she did not want the child to hear her crying; as this is hard for a sick person - whether he will recover or whether he will die. Hence she distanced herself further and she raised her voice and cried.

From afar. Here, נגד does not follow its simple meaning (“in front of”) for if so, why would Scripture need to tell us this? But it is understandable if it means “from afar,” because the verse goes on to give a reason: “She said, ‘Let me not see the lad die.’” We find נגד meaning “in front of,” as in (Tehillim 16:8): “I have placed Hashem in front of me (לנגדי) constantly,” where it has the connotation of closeness. Yet in our verse, following נגד comes the word הרחק, meaning “distant,” one term contradicting the other. Therefore, Rashi explains that מִנגד means the opposite of נגד. It is like saying מִן נגד, the prefix מִ is like מִן. It conveys that she did not sit close, in front of the child. She sat from afar, about two bow-shots away.

כמטחוי קשת AS IT WERE A BOWSHOT — about two bowshots (since the first word is really plural) (Genesis Rabbah 53:13). The word signifies shooting an arrow — we find it so used in the Mishna (Sanhedrin 46a). If you say that it should have been written כמטחי קשת (since the root is טחה) then I say that it is quite regular for a ו to be inserted in these forms as (Song 2:14) “in the clefts (בחנוי) of the rock”, where בחנוי is of the same derivation as חנא in (Isaiah 19:17) “And the land of Judah shall become a breach (לחנא) to Egypt” and of the same derivation as יחונו in (Psalms 107:27) “They reeled (וחונו) to and fro and staggered like a drunken man”. Similar, also, is (Psalms 65:6) “The ends of (קצוי) the earth” which is of the same derivation as ,קצה, end.

הרחק, the word is in the infinitive instead of in the past tense, the reason being that while she did distance herself she wanted not to be so far away that she would be totally unaware of what happened to Ishmael.

ותשב מנגד SHE SAT AT A DISTANCE — (this is the second time that it is so said) — now that he came nearer to death she moved further away from him.

כמטחוי קשת, the root of the word is טחוה, the construction being a combination participle and something especially emphasised, such as by means of a dagesh. The meaning is the distance a bow can be tensed for the arrow to be shot to the furthest point of its range. Possibly, the word כמטחוי is a noun.

את קול הנער THE VOICE OF THE LAD — From this we may infer that the prayer of a sick person is more effective than the prayer offered by others for him and that it is more readily accepted (Genesis Rabbah 53:14).

באשר הוא שם, seeing she could not see him from the place where she had sat down, the angel had to use this manner of referring to Ishmael. He would be provided with water at that location.

WHERE HE IS. He shall be judged according to his present deeds, and not according to those actions which he may do in the future. This was because the ministering angels laid charges, etc. Thus the words of Rashi quoting from the teachings of our Rabbis.³³⁶Ibid., 19.
The correct interpretation, in line with the simple meaning of Scripture, appears to me to be that the verse is stating that G-d heard the voice of the lad in the place in which he was. He informed her that she will not need to go from there to a fountain or well for in that very place he will quench his thirst immediately. He thus said to her, “Arise, lift up the lad³³⁷Verse 18 here. after you will have given him to drink, for I will make him a great nation.³³⁷Verse 18 here. Similarly, the word sham (there) in verses, Where he sunk, there he fell down dead;³³⁸Judges 5:27. Meaning, “‘in the place’ where he fell.” And where the slain are, there is she,³³⁹Job 39:30. Meaning “And ‘in the place’ where the slain are.” alludes to the place.

וישמע אלוקים את קול הנער, he too had raised his voice and was crying.

There where he is: Also before he drank and he was in danger from thirst, God heard. So He brought him out of his sickness.

וישמע אלוקים אל קול הנער, “G’d listened to the voice (cries) of the lad.” Rashi derives from this wording that the prayer of the sick person himself concerning his recovery is more likely to be heard than all the prayers of other people on his behalf. This is so although we have a principle according to which a person whose hands and feet have been tied is unable to free himself, i.e. the stricken need outside assistance. We know that Chizkiyah whose sickness had been declared by the prophet to be terminal, was healed after he personally appealed to G’d on behalf of himself.

כי שמע אלוקים אל קול הנער באשר הוא שם, ”for G’d has heeded the cry of the lad in his present state.” This means that “I” will give him water and he will drink it before leaving this site. Our sages in Rosh Hashanah 16 learn from here that a person is not judged or convicted for sins which G’d foresees that he will commit in the future. He is judged merely on the basis of his present state of guilt or innocence. This is the meaning of the otherwise redundant words באשר הוא שם.

And He heard: This is [along the lines of], "Though my father and mother have abandoned me, the Lord will take me in" (Psalms 27:10). "As God has heard the voice of the youth (meaning that He accepted his prayer, as that is the definition of listening which is followed by [the word,] God) there where he is" - meaning to say that in the place in which the youth was, a well of water was found there. And it can also be explained that it means to say [that] since God was found there, He was looking over him him and available to save him.

The prayer of the sick person is more effective than the prayers of others... Rashi is answering the question: Hagar also cried, as it is written (v. 16), “She wept in a loud voice.” Why did Hashem not hear her voice? [You might object:] The Gemara asks in Berachos 5b, “Why was R. Yochanan unable to heal himself [through prayer]?” and answers, “A prisoner cannot free himself from jail.” The reason must be that R. Yochanan was not able to concentrate [in prayer]. But if he were able to do so, his own prayer would be better. (Re’m)

Gott hat schon dein Kind erhört, da, wo es jetzt ringt. Hättest du Vertrauen auf Gott gehabt, hättest dein Kind dorthin nicht geworfen, sondern gelegt, hättest du dich nicht entfernt, sondern wärst bei ihm geblieben, wie es einer Mutter ziemt, du hättest da, wo es sich jetzt befindet, den rettenden Brunnen schon gesehen.

An angel of God from heaven: Angels that appear to people on the earth are in the image of people; it is not known that they are angels, as it is not the way of the Holy One, blessed be He, to reveal [them]. But it is known that the one that is speaking from the heaven is an angel [and not God], since he said, "because God has heard the voice of the youth"; and he did not say, "I heard."

את קול הנער, “the voice of the lad;” Rashi uses this line to state that the prayer of a sick person on his own behalf reaches heaven faster than the prayers of others on his behalf. If you were to counter that the Talmud in B’rachot 5 teaches that a prisoner cannot liberate himself from jail, [that he needs outsiders to do that for him, Ed,] what is meant is that the state of mind of the average sick person is such that he cannot pray with the required devotion. If he could, G-d will respond to him first. (Rabbeinu Ovadiah mibartenura)

באשר הוא שם WHERE HE IS — According to the actions he is now doing shall he be judged and not according to what he may do in future. Because the ministering angels laid information against him, saying, “Master of the Universe, for him whose descendants will at one time kill your children with thirst will You provide a well?” He asked them, “What is he now, righteous or wicked?” They replied to him, “Righteous.” He said to them, “According to his present deeds will I judge him.” This is the meaning of what is written: “[For God hath heard the voice of the lad ] באשר הוא שם in that condition in which he now is” (Genesis Rabbah 53:14). Where did he (Ishmael) kill Israel with thirst? When Nebuchadnezzar carried them into exile — as it is said, (Isaiah 21:13, 14) “The burden upon Arabia … O ye caravans of Dedanites, unto him that is thirsty bring ye water! etc.” When they were bringing them near the Arabians the Israelites said to their captors, “We beg of you bring us to the children of our uncle, Ishmael, who will certainly show pity to us”, as it is said, “O ye caravans of the Dedanites (דדנים)”; read not דדנים but דודים, kinsmen. — These indeed came to them bringing them salted meat and fish and water-skins inflated with air. The Israelites believed that these were full of water and when they placed them in their mouths, after having opened them, the air entered their bodies and they died (Eichah Rabbah 2:4).

מן השמים, she heard his voice without seeing the source of the voice as opposed to the first encounter she had with an angel in 16,13. At the beginning of the verse the Torah uses the proposition את, whereas at the end of the verse it switches to the preposition אל. The letters ת and ל are used interchangeably here without the meaning of the preposition undergoing any change.

באשר הוא שם, “considering his present state of relative innocence.” When G’d asked the angels if Ishmael was guilty or innocent in their opinion at that time, they replied that he was innocent. This was in spite of the fact that he had previously been described (מצחק) as having displayed heretical behaviour. Nonetheless, concerning the matter which they (the angels) had accused him of, (harm he would cause to the Jewish people in the future) he was as yet not guilty. This is especially interesting seeing that a בן סורר ומורה, a 13 year old who steals a little meat and wine from his parents and who displays tendencies of becoming a delinquent, is executed at such a tender age. (Deuteronomy 21,21) The reason offered by our sages for what seems such a harsh way of dealing with a young boy is psychological. The Torah prefers to have him executed before he will become guilty of far worse crimes, and to thereby preserve his share in the world to come. Nonetheless, there is a difference between applying retribution for crimes decreed in heaven and those decreed on earth on the basis of the Torah. Human beings are not held accountable in heaven until they have completed 20 years on earth. Pre-emptive retribution does not exist in the vocabulary of Divine justice when it is meted out by heavenly tribunal, as opposed to justice handed out by human tribunal. The juvenile delinquent, בן סורר ומורה, although not yet guilty of the death penalty, has already begun a career of criminal acts and it is an act of love by his parents which brings about his “premature” violent death so that his eternal life may be preserved. Ishmael had not been guilty of any crime while he was in Avraham’s household for which he would have had to face a tribunal. Only his descendants would become guilty of such crimes. According to the plain meaning of the text, the words באשר הוא שם, mean that G’d listened to the prayer Ishmael offered up at the location he found himself in, in that the well which was to save his life suddenly caught his eye. He did not even need to have water brought to him from a more distant location.

He is judged according to his present deeds... The question this raises on בן סורר ומורה, who is killed for his future sins (Sanhedrin 71b), will be answered in Parshas Ki Teitzei (Devarim 21:18). Re’m asks: Why did the angels not condemn him for the sins he already did, rather than for those of the future which will be done not by him but by his descendants? He answers: Perhaps this Aggadah is according to R. Shimon, who differs with R. Akiva and all those who interpret מצחק (v. 9) as speaking of [Yishmael’s] misdeeds. But to answer that the Aggados are in disagreement seems to me forced, unless we see clearly that it is so. Thus it seems the answer is: The angels could not condemn Yishmael for his present deeds because the Heavenly Court punishes only from the age of twenty, and Yishmael was just seventeen. [You might ask:] Why did they not condemn him for his present deeds, but in terms of the future [when he will be of punishable age]? The answer is: At the end of his life he repented for his present deeds, as Rashi explains on (25:9): “His sons Yitzchok and Yishmael buried him [Avraham].”

באשר הוא שם, “due to the condition he found himself in;” according to Rashi the “condition” referred to is his legal/moral condition. He had not been wicked enough as yet to deserve to die on account of that. If you were to ask that the Talmud in Sanhedrin,72 when stating that a 13 year boy who has committed a far lesser offense is to be stoned to death to prevent him from becoming a far more guilty person, (the rebellious son) the difference there is that that son had already begun his career as a teenager by committing criminal deeds, whereas at that age Ishmael had voluntarily submitted to circumcision, something for which he deserved a great deal of credit. [I have departed from the author’s text somewhat by pointing to a great merit acquired by Ishmael. Ed.] He had not exhausted that merit at this stage. באשר הוא שם, seeing he was “there,” as opposed to “here;” Hagar had distanced herself from her dying son to avoid having to watch his death throes. A totally different interpretation: “even though He was in a desert with no chance of obtaining water.” [The emphasis is on the word הוא, a reference to G-d Who can provide everywhere.]

באשר הוא שם, at the very site where Hagar had thrown the boy. The message to Hagar was that at the very site where she thought that her so was going to die, there G’d heard his voice, his prayer. Our sages (Rosh Hashanah 16) derive from this wording that human beings are not judged by the Heavenly Court on the basis of what they might become guilty of in the future, but their judgment is based on their status at the time judgment is in progress. If someone is wicked at the time the Heavenly Court is in session, the fact that G’d foresees that he will (would) become righteous at some point in the future is not taken into consideration. Equally, if someone at the time when the Court is in session is deemed innocent, the fact that G’d foresees that he will become a great sinner is not used to influence his judgment at that time. There is an interesting aggadah, according to which the angels remonstrated with G’d at this time, challenging G’d’s mercy on the basis of the untold harm Ishmael’s descendants would visit upon G’d’s people, the Jews in the future. The angels referred specifically to the Ishmaelites denying Jews on the march into exile water to quench their thirst. (a reference to Isaiah 21,13-14) G’d silenced them by asking whether at this particular point in time Ishmael deserved to die. They had to admit that he did not. Hence G’d felt free to exercise His mercy and to let him live.

One whose descendants will eventually kill Your children with thirst, You will provide for him a well? You might ask: Is it not written (Devarim 24:16), “Fathers shall not be put to death because of sons”? The answer is: Hashem asked the angels if Yishmael had sinned through water. Regarding water, was he righteous or wicked? They answered he was righteous regarding water but was otherwise wicked, and moreover, “His descendants will kill Your children with thirst. Will You then provide him a well?” Hashem answered: “Since now he is righteous regarding water, I will provide him the well.” (Maharshal)

And grasp him with your hand: She would not need to carry him much at all, but he would rather walk with his feet; but you should still grasp him with your hand. And included in [this phrase] is that he would be strengthened from her until she would be strengthened from him. And He further stated about this, for a great nation, etc..

קומי...והחזיקי את ידך, do not let your hand go of him, (do not abandon him) for he will not die by thirst, for I will still make him into a great nation.

Get up: Hence, "Get up and lift the youth," while he is still sick. And afterwards, "grasp him with your hand," and he shall be 'a staff in hand and a hoe for burial' (a source of support in her old age).

Erst stehe auf und nimm wieder den Knaben als starke, nimmer verzweifelnde Mutter; denn nur so bist du der Hülfe Gottes würdig; dann tränke ihn. החזיקי ידך בו, nicht החזיקי בידו was festhalten hieße, sondern: lass deine Hand sich kräftig an ihm bewähren, werde ihm kräftige Stütze und Leiterin, denn ich habe ihm eine große Zukunft bestimmt.

ויפקח אלוקים את עיניה, He granted her the instinct to look for water in the place where she would find it. She had not been blind previously so that her eyes had to be “opened.”

ויפקח אלוקים את עיניה, perhaps the well had been there all the time but its top had been covered with some material which made no one assume that a well hid underneath such a covering. Alternatively, it was some distance away.

And He opened: For even though He healed the child from the sickness of thirst, would he not nevertheless need to drink regularly?

And He opened (Vayifkach): The definition of the verb, pakach is revealing knowledge that one did not know previously, like the Rambam writes in the Guide [for the Perplexed]. As the well was also there at the beginning; it is just that she had not paid attention to see it. But now she saw it.

ותלך ותמלא את החמת, G’d expanded her range of vision so that she now saw the contours of a well she had not previously been able to see. Perhaps that well had not existed and G’d had provided it at this time on a temporary basis to keep Ishmael alive. The matter may have been similar to an experience Shimshon had in Judges 15,19 when G’d split the depression in the jawbone and produced sufficient water to quench Shimshon’s thirst.

ותשק את הנער, the sequence sounds misleading, as she had drunk herself when she saw the well, then she had filled the hose and brought it to her son to drink, after which she had filled the hose again to continue on her way. The positioning of the letters ו such as ותלך, ותמלא.ותשק is not at all unusual. Examples of such constructions may be found in Isaiah 64,4; Exodus 14,21; Exodus 15,20, et al. An alternative meaning could be that she drew water from the well with the hose being used as a pail, and carried it to where Ishmael was lying, giving him to drink there.

רבה קשת AN ARCHER — One who shoots arrows by a bow.

ROVEH KASHOTH (AN ARCHER). Since kashoth is an adjective, they³⁴⁰Ibn Ezra and R’dak. Their point is as follows: Since kashoth is an adjective, or more precisely, a shem hatoar, (a noun-adjective), as is also roveh, how could two adjectives appear without a noun? Therefore they said that the two words, roveh kashoth, are not in construct with one another, but they are interpreted as roveh vekashoth (a shooter of arrows and maker of bows) with the companion noun of each adjective being tacitly understood. Ramban’s opinion, however, is that since roveh may mean either “a shooter of arrows” or “a thrower of stones,” the word kashoth is used in order to explain that he was a shooter with the bow, meaning, a shooter of arrows and not a thrower of stones. have said that roveh is one who shoots arrows, the word being derived from the expressions: His archers compass me round about;³⁴¹Job 16:13. The archers have dealt bitterly with him,³⁴²Further, 49:23. — and kashoth is one who makes arrows.
A more correct interpretation is that roveh is a shooter, and it can refer to one who shoots arrows or throws stones or other objects, even as it is said, Behold this heap… which I have thrown up between me and thee.³⁴³Ibid., 31:51. Therefore, the verse describes him further by saying that he was a shooter with the bow. In a similar sense is the verse, And the shooters of arrows by the bow overtook him.³⁴⁴I Samuel 31:3.

רובה קשת. Pulling the string of a bow. We are dealing with two successive forms of an activity, as in Genesis 49,23 וימררוהו ורבו, “they shot at him and harried him.” [I am choosing this translation of the JPS seeing that in both verse 23 and 24 where the “bow” and the “arrows” are mentioned. Ed.] The expressionרובה as a variation of רבב is found in Job 16,13 as it is in Psalms 48,13, where it is derived from the root סבב. A construction שומו as a derivative of שמם is found in Jeremiah 2,12, just as the construction דומו derived from דמם is found in Isaiah 23,2. Also, the expression דממה דקה, a very low voice, in Kings I 19,12 is a similar construction. The common feature in all these constructions is that the last root letter appears twice in succession. Our example of רובה is different, seeing that there is no such repetition of the last root letter. Therefore its root is רבה, and the construction is similar to עושה from עשה, or בונה from בנה, or קונה from קנה.

ויהי אלוקים את הנער, He ensured Ishmael’s success in his undertakings.

And he became an archer, a bowman (kashat): The vocalization of kashat teaches us that it is not the name of a tool that he shoots (keshet, being a bow). Rather it is a verbal noun. It is a craftsman, like a gamal [and] a chamar, the meaning of which is a driver of camels (gamalim) [and] a driver of donkeys (chamorim). As Yishmael was a craftsmen with this like someone accustomed and trained, even though he did not have anyone who taught him. Rather it was with the help of the Heavens.

And God was with: He had God's providence over him, so that he would grow, and He saved him from the danger of the wilderness and from bad animals. "And he dwelled in the wilderness," fulfilling that which was written (Genesis 16:12), "And he will be a wild man," as he was a man of the wilderness. "And he was an archer" - so that which was written, "and his hand will be against all," was fulfilled. "He dwelt in the Wilderness of Paran" (Genesis 21:21) - so that which was written, "and in the presence of all his brothers shall he reside," was fulfilled; as he would wander from one wilderness to another wilderness. And the nature of [this] root was implanted afterwards in his children. And his mother took for him a wife from the land of Egypt: 'Every raven [sticks] to its type.'

נקם ינקם, the reason the Torah employed the term “revenge” in this context [instead of speaking of judicial execution, Ed.] is that it is clear that the master had intended to kill the slave when hitting him. He had arranged to do it in such a sly way that it would be considered as a blow out of a feeling of revenge but not one intended to be lethal. The Torah characterises the master’s execution as an act of “avenging the servant” so that everyone will be aware that he had intended to kill deliberately and the execution is the avenging of an uncalled for murder. If the killing of the master was not judicial execution, he himself will also be avenged.

רבו קשת. Wir haben schon oben bei פרו ורבו (Kap.1, 28) erläutert, wie in רבה die geistige Erziehung liegt, indem nur dann sich die Eltern in den Kindern wiederholen, wenn sie ihre Kinder zu ihren geistigen Abdrücken machen. Daher auch -nicht Magister, der den Schüler "Über :רבי Zucht, ja תרבות wirklich erziehen, so רבה ragende", sondern der sich in dem Schüler Wiederholende. — קַשָת die Form des Gewerbes, wie חָרָש ,רַיָן und rabb. גַמָל ,חַמָר, also: Bogenschütze; ר֗בֶה קַשָת: Einer, der Bogenschützen heranbildet, und zwar nicht רבֵה קשת ein Schützenmeister, der immerhin noch sonstige andere Beschäftigungen haben kann, ja, dessen Hauptbeschäftigung gar nicht darin bestanden haben mag, sondern רבֶה קשת, einer, dessen stete Beschäftigung dies gewesen.

רובה קשת, “an archer.” He was hunting by shooting arrows at his prospective victims. The word רובה is used here in the same sense as Genesis 49,23, where Yaakov uses it in his blessing for Joseph, i.e. ורובו, implying that his brothers, or Potiphar and his wife, had hunted him. Some commentators understand the word as a Hebrew alternative for the Aramaic word: רביא, translation of Isaiah 9,5: כי ילד יולד, “for a child has been born;” We find in the Talmud, tractate Chulin folio 20, the expression: יקבלו הרובים את תשובתן, “let the children (of Rabbi Chiyah) receive their reply.”

Archer (lit., One who draws [roveh] the bow): One who draws is one who pulls. It is as [in], "They made him bitter and they shot (robu)" (Genesis 49:23); and as [in], "His archers (rabav) surrounded me." A bow: [This means] with a bow. And some say roveh is like, a youth. It is like, "The youths rovim will get their answer" (Chullin 20a); and like "the youth," is ravia in the Targum (Aramaic translation of the Bible). Meaning, a youth that is a master of the bow.

וישב במדבר, “he settled in the desert.” This is why he had been described as פרא אדם, (Genesis 16,12, where the angel predicted his birth) He was a loner, shunning civilized society.

(This is the explanation of רבה קַשָּׁת he is so designated after his occupation, that of a bow-man — just as חַמָּר denotes one who is an ass driver, גַּמָּל a camel driver, צַיָּד a huntsman; consequently the ש has a Dagesh (which distinguishes all these forms). — He used to live in the wilderness and rob travelers. It is to this the statement refers, (15:12) ידו בכל “his hand shall be against everyone, etc.”

ויגדל, he amassed wealth. We encounter a similar meaning of the word ויגדל in Genesis 26,13 describing Yitzchok’s economic success in the land of the Philistines.

ויהי רבה קשת, “he became a professional hunter with bow and arrow.”

וישב במדבר, first he settled in the desert nearby, moving further afield to the desert of Paran later on.

ויהי רובה קשת, the word רבה may be understood as נער, lad. Onkelos translates it as רביא. The word קשת is an adjective mode of the word keshet, bow. The mode is similar to that of ganav, someone practicing thievery, or salach, someone apt to forgive. An alternative way of understanding the word רובה is that it means the same as יורה, someone shooting. He developed the technique of shooting arrows by means of a bow. [a far less dangerous mode of hunting than bodily facing the adversary. At this point Kimchi draws on the points made already by Rash’bam on our verse. Ed.] He adds that the ability to hit distant targets enables archers to practice what the Torah called ידו בכל, attacking all and sundry, even distant targets. He quotes examples of ancient peoples who became known for this skill, apparently distant descendants of Ishmael, especially the בני קדר. Reference is made to these people, (in that capacity?) in Isaiah 21,17 Our sages suggest that it is appropriate for the sons to perfect themselves in the trade, vocation or skills in which their father excels. (Erchin 16) They also base this on Kings I 7,14 where Chirom is described as having mastered the art of being a coppersmith just like his father. Yaakov’s sons, when presented to Pharaoh in Genesis 47,3, also were described as continuing the tradition of their father as shepherds.

מארץ מצרים FROM THE LAND OF EGYPT — from the place where she was brought up — as it is said (16:1) “And she (Sarah) had an Egyptian handmaid [whose name was Hagar]”. That is what the popular proverb says: “Throw a stick into the air and it will fall back to (literally, stand on) its element” (Genesis Rabbah 53:15).

במדבר פארן, as predicted in 16,12 והוא יהיה פרא אדם.

וישב...ותקח לו אמו, she took a wife for him from her own family, seeing that he had become separated from his father’s family. It is proper for people to marry into members of their family (not too close) as a stronger bond of mutual love is liable to be forged between men and women of similar backgrounds, such as both being members of the same clan

Wir haben schon oben am Schlusse des Kapitels 16 darauf hingedeutet, wie und in welcher Schärfe sich in dem ismaelitischen Arabervolke der — allerdings einseitige — Anteil am Geiste Abrahams ausgeprägt. Bedenken wir nun, wie bereits zu siebzehn Jahren Ismael dem Einfluß Abrahams entzogen, und der mütterliche, chamitische Einfluss noch fortan durch die chamitische Frau, die künftige Stammmutter des arabischen Volkes, verstärkt erscheint: so müssen uns die im Arabervolke so ausgeprägten abrahamitischen Spuren zur Bewunderung der nachhaltigen, unverwüstlichen Kraft hinreißen, die einer echten abrahamitischen Erziehung innewohnt.

ותקח לו אמו אשה מארץ מצרים, “His mother took an Egyptian woman to become his wife.” the place where she grew up and where her family still live. Ishmael first married a Moabite woman but she was not a proper wife for him. He divorced her after his father Abraham sent a message to who had been his wife (Hagar) that this woman was bereft of all virtues. Then his mother took a woman from Egypt for his wife, According to Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer, chapter 30, Yishmael first married a Moabite woman, and when that marriage did not work out, his mother intervened and chose a second wife for him. This is why the Torah had to report that his mother took a wife for him. His Moabite wife had lacked the Abrahamitic virtue of offering hospitality (even to his father).

אלהים עמך GOD IS WITH THEE — They said this because they saw that he had left the locality of Sodom safely, that he had fought against the kings and that they had fallen into his hand, and that his wife had been remembered in his old age (Genesis Rabbah 54:2).

ויהי בעת ההיא, at the time when Yitzchok was born by Sarah and Avimelech had become a first-hand witness to the miracles G’d had performed for Avraham. This is why he and his chief general were now interested in concluding an alliance with Avraham. Every time the expression בעת ההיא occurs it must be understood in terms of happenings immediately preceding the ones to which the next paragraph is linked.

אלוקים עמך, seeing that G’d clearly is on your side I am afraid of you. I am not afraid of your personal strength, but of that of your G’d. This is why I ask you to swear to me. [so that you cannot appeal to G’d’s assistance in any grievance you would have against me. Ed.]

ויהי בעת ההיא, at the time Yitzchok was born, or at the time he was weaned. At any rate, Avraham was still in the land of the Philistines. This is why the Torah now reports Avimelech saying that he was interested in receiving assurances from Avraham. Had Avraham already left the land of the Philistines prior to this, the Torah would have had to report that Avimelech traveled to Avraham in order to suggest the treaty he wanted to conclude. When he had seen that a son had been born to Avraham, in his old age, and they saw that Sarah was the one who had given birth to him, they began to take seriously the promises made by G’d to Avraham concerning the future of his descendants. The reason that Phicol the head of Avimelech’s army was mentioned, was to underline that the words Avimelech addressed to Avraham had been what his army chief had proposed.

Es war in dieser Zeit, in welcher Abraham seinen ältesten Sohn fortgeschickt hatte, und die ganze Zukunft seines Hauses auf dem eben entwöhnten, kleinen Jizchak ruhte — da kam Abimelech, der König des Landes, und sein oberster Staatsdiener zu Abraham, und diese bitten, er möge schwören, dass er weder ihm, dem Könige, noch seinem zweiten und dritten Geschlechte untreu werden, ja, dass er ihm und seinem Lande die Freundschaft gedenken und vergelten wolle, die er bei ihnen gefunden! Offenbar spricht hier Abimelech mit Abraham nicht wie mit einem Privatmann, dessen Bedeutung mit seinem Leben endet, und der als solcher nie in der Lage ist, einem Lande wohl oder weh zu thun. Offenbar schwebt ihm eine Zukunft von Abrahams Nachkommen vor, in welcher diese als Volk seinem Volke freundlich oder feindlich gegenüber stehen können — kurz, es lässt sich dies alles gar nicht anders denken, als unter der Voraussetzung, Abimelech habe eine Kunde von den abrahamitischen Verheißungen und Erwartungen gehabt, und wollte für diese Zukunft auf Grund der Verpflichtung, die der Stammater gegen ihn hatte, sich und seinem Lande die Gunst dieses einstigen Volkes sichern. —

אלוקים עמך, “G–d is on your side.” Originally, they had thought that if Avraham was such a righteous individual he would not have expelled his firstborn son. After observing Avraham’s lifestyle, his success, and good deeds, they had come to the conclusion that his G–d had approved all of what he had done.

ויהי בעת ההיא, “It was around that time;” the “time” described was when Sarah had given birth and the various kings in the region were now convinced and afraid that G-d would keep His promise to Avraham to give the entire region to the descendants of Avraham. As a result, Avimelech was prompted to seek an alliance with Avraham that would put off such an event for several generations, at least. He did not dare ask for a longer period as G-d had assured Avraham that the fourth generation of his descendants at the latest would see fulfillment of His promise. This is also why when the second Avimelech in Yitzchok’s time, asked for this alliance to be confirmed. He made no mention of a future generation. (Genesis 26,28)

Aus diesem Gesichtspunkte gewinnt dieser, בעת ההיא, gerade nach der Entsendung Ismaels, dem Abraham werdende Antrag des Landesfürsten im Zusammenhange mit der dann folgenden, das Leben Abrahams krönenden Erzählung eine ganz besondere Wichtigkeit. Ismael ist fort, Abraham ein Greis, der jeden Augenblick abgerufen werden kann, die ganze Zukunft beruht auf dem kaum der Brust entnommenen Knaben, das künftige Volk wird noch in der Wiege geschaukelt, und schon sieht Abraham eine Verwirklichung der Verheißung. An Jizchaks Wiege schon war der Landesfürst herangetreten, um in Erwartung der künftigen Volkesgröße ein Bündnis für die spätere Zukunft zu erlangen — da tritt Gott an Abraham hinan und spricht: קח נא את בנך וגו׳ opfere mir diesen einzigen Sohn und mit ihm die ganze Zukunft. —

Andererseits zeigt sich hier wieder, welch׳ ein großes Zutrauen der Erziehung Abrahams geschenkt worden, dass Kinder und Enkel das Wort des Ahns respektieren werden. Charakteristisch ist es, dass Abimelech von Abraham einen solchen Eid fordert, selbst aber nicht für seine Nachkommen einzustehen wagt, ihm genügt die — wie es scheint — selten gewesene Aufenthaltsgestattung, die er Abraham gewährt hatte, um dagegen ein solches Versprechen für die Folgegeschlechter anzusprechen. Auch Abraham scheint es nicht der Mühe wert gehalten zu haben, einen solchen Gegeneid von Abimelech für dessen Nachfolger zu fordern. Mochte er doch wissen, wie wenig solche politische EidesVerträge außer der abrahamitischen Welt bedeuten mögen. Abrahams Nachkommen spielen selbst als Staat und Nation nie mit eingegangenen Verträgen und Bündnissen, und noch während des zweiten Tempels, wo wir noch die Ehre hatten, ein Staat unter Staaten zu sein, war der jüdische Staat wegen seiner dem gegebenen Worte bewahrten Treue berühmt.

ולניני ולנכדי NOR WITH MY SON NOR WITH MY SON’S SON — thus far extends a man’s pity for his descendants (Genesis Rabbah 54:2).

NOW THEREFORE SWEAR UNTO ME HERE BY G-D ‘IM’ (IF) YOU WILL BE FALSE TO ME. The word im always expresses doubt — do not think of it in any other way³⁴⁵Ramban’s intent is to differ with Rashi, who, in Leviticus 2:14, explains im to mean “that.” See Ramban there, where he explains it in a manner consistent with his teaching here. — and it appears in most places in connection with an oath: If you will be false to me;³⁴⁶In the present verse. And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli ‘im’ (if) the iniquity of Eli’s house shall be expiated;³⁴⁷I Samuel 3:14. Once I have sworn by My holiness ‘im’ (if) I will be false unto David;³⁴⁸Psalms 89:36. ‘im’ (if) they should enter into My rest;³⁴⁹Ibid., 95:11. And he was wroth, and swore, saying, ‘im’ (if) one of these men will see.³⁵⁰Deuteronomy 1:34-35.
The purport of this is that since oaths are given with imprecation, Abimelech is stating, “Swear to me, saying, G-d do so to me, and more also³⁵¹II Samuel 3:35. if you will be false to me.” Likewise it is said, Let there now be an oath between us.³⁵²Further, 26:28. And in the matter of a Divine oath: I have sworn by My holiness if I will be false to David;³⁴⁸Psalms 89:36. if the iniquity of Eli’s house shall be expiated,³⁴⁷I Samuel 3:14. meaning “If that will be so, then My word is not true,” and in similar cases, since it does not want to expressly state the condition.³⁵³Namely, that “if that be so, My word is not true.” Scripture modifies and shortens these expressions. A similar case of a shortened condition is the verse, And Jabez called on the G-d of Israel, saying: Oh that Thou wouldest bless me indeed, and enlarge my border, etc., and that Thou wouldest work deliverance from evil that it may not pain me. And G-d granted him that which he requested.³⁵⁴I Chronicles 4:10. Here the entire condition³⁵⁵Namely, his vow of offering to G-d. is missing. A similar example is the verse, If they will see the land,³⁵⁶Numbers 14:23. referring back to the first verse, As I live, and all shall be filled with the glory of the Eternal,³⁵⁷Ibid., Verse 21. and Scripture shortens the Divine oath.
The expression, false to me, is because Abimelech was a king, and Abraham dwelt in his land. [Thus, if Abraham were to do him evil, it would be an act of disloyalty towards him in his royal capacity], or it would be a betrayal of Abimelech’s love for him, as he [Abimelech] was his trustworthy friend, honoring him and doing his will. For you see that Abraham found no fault with him except the well of water, which Abimelech’s servants had violently taken away,³⁵⁸Verse 25 here. and the king said to him, According to the kindness that I have done unto thee.³⁵⁹Verse 23 here.

ולנכדי, to my grandson.

כחסד אשר עשיתי עמך תעשה עמדי, do me the favour to include your children in the oath you swear to me.

ועתה..אם תשקור לי, perhaps the subject here is the immediate future, i.e. ועתה. Avimelech is concerned that within the next or subsequent generation the friendly relations between Avraham and himself might sour. Therefore he suggests a treaty reinforced by an oath as he is sure that Avraham would not renege on an undertaking confirmed by an oath. He is trying to commit the next 3 generations to this undertaking he asks from Avraham.

With my son (nin). Nin signifies a royal heir. Avimelech’s primary concern was the safety of his kingdom.

השבעה לי, “swear it to me!” He meant that Avraham should swear that if his offspring would dishonour this oath (the covenant of a non-aggression pact), he himself would be considered as having perjured himself. He was to call down curses upon himself should such a thing occur in the future.

— השבע אם, die in unserer Sprache charakteristische Erscheinung, dass in Verbindung mit השבע der mit אם angefügte Objektsatz verneint und mit — אם לא bejaht, erklärt sich aus der Grundbedeutung des הִשָבֵעַ. Das Wort scheint nämlich von sieben, gebildet zu sein und in seiner reflexiven Form wörtlich: "sich der Sieben ,שבע hingeben" zu bedeuten. Wie nämlich in sechs Tagen die sichtbare Weltschöpfung abgeschlossen und der siebente Tag das Denkmal und Zeichen für den unsichtbaren, mit der sichtbaren Welt als Schöpfer und Herr in Verbindung stehenden Alleinen geworden, so blieb sieben überhaupt ein Merkzeichen, das auf diesen unsichtbaren Herrn der Welt hindeutet. Schwören heißt nun: sich und seine ganze sinnliche Welt dem un- sichtbaren Einen, d. h. seinem Strafgerichte unterstellen, wenn usw.; man schwört damit also, dass etc. etc. nicht sei; oder: wenn nicht usw. und damit beschwört man natürlich, dass etc. etc. ja sei. השבע heißt somit: sich Gott preisgeben. wenn der Inhalt eines Wortes unwahr ist. Insofern ist das Wort mit שבה: gefangen nehmen verwandt, und הִשָבֵעַ אם heißt ganz füglich: sich gefangen geben für den Fall, dass etc. etc.. Analog ist אלה, das ohne weiteres von dem Gottesnamen gebildet ist. Bei einem promissorischen Eide wie hier, wird mit dem Ausdruck השבע Gott ohne weiteres als Garant und Rächer des getäuschten Vertrauens eingesetzt. —

כחסד אשר עשיתי עמך, “corresponding to the kindness with which I have treated you.” Avimelech, referring to the present situation with Avraham as the stranger and himself as the owner and King of the region, asks Avraham to return the favour both to him and to his people when I am a stranger and you are the owner of the land.

כחסד אשר עשיתי עמך תעשה עמדי ACCORDING TO THE KINDNESS THAT I HAVE DONE UNTO THEE THOU SHALT DO UNTO ME — viz., that I said to you. (Genesis 20:15) “Behold my land is before thee”.

The words לי ולניני ולנכדי comprise three generations. The word נין refers to the son, whereas the word נכד refers to the son’s son. The same words appear in the same sense in Isaiah 14,22 והכרתי לבבל שם ושאר נין ונכד, “I will wipe out from Babylon name and remnant, son and grandson, etc.”

Dunkel ist hier das הֵנָה. Mit עד ist ein AdRaw Hirsch on Genesis 21: der Zeit: bis jetzt. Ohne עד, wie hier, ist es ein AdRaw Hirsch on Genesis 21: des Ortes: hierher, ישובו הנה. "Schwöre mir hierher", auf diesen Ort. Es ist dies eben so dunkel wie das: 1) השבעה לי כיום. B. M. 25, 33) "schwöre mir wie heute". Fast dürfte man glauben, diese Ausdrücke sollten dem Eide, der in jedem Falle eine Apellation an den Unsichtbaren ist, dessen Einschreiten sich zugleich erst in einer noch nicht gegenwärtigen Zeit bewähren soll, also ein Preis- geben der Zukunft an die unsichtbare Macht bedeutet, den Hinweis auf einen lonkreten sichtbaren Gegenstand, oder auf eine gegenwärtige Zeit beifügen, und damit gleichsam sagen: das Dasein dieser unsichtbaren Macht ist dir so gewiss wie dieses sichtbare Konkrete, und diese Zukunft so sicher wie der gegen- wärtige Augenblick. Es dürfte diesen Ausdrücken eine ähnliche Anschauung zu Grunde liegen, wie dem נקיטת חפץ bei der späteren שבועה דאורי׳ wo jedoch das konkrete Objekt zugleich ein die Gesetzoffenbarung dieses Unsichtbaren bekundendes sein soll. —

כחסד אשר עשיתי עמך תעשה עמדי, I allowed you to settle in any part of my country that you chose to settle in, and I respected you.

תשִקרֺ, sonst immer im פִעֵל, hier im קל: dass du nicht zur Lüge wirst. שקר verwandt mit שכר שיר ,שגר, alle vier sind Produktion nicht vorhandener Wesen, nur in sehr verschiedenen Modifikationen. שגר physisch: die tierische Geburt, das Hinaussetzen in die Wirklichkeit. שיר geistig: das dem Sichtbaren zu Grunde liegende Unsichtbare zur geistigen Anschauung bringen; daher vorzugsweise in תנ"ך ein Besingen Gottes in den Ereignissen. שכר, willenlos in der Phantasie: jener Zustand, in welchem man nicht vorhandene Dinge als vorhanden ansieht: Rausch. שקר: absicht- liches Äußern der Wirklichkeit nicht entsprechender Dinge (vergl. zu Kap.9, Raw Hirsch on Genesis 21: 21). Es giebt nun eine logische und eine sittliche Unwahrheit. Erstere, wenn das Wort der Wirklichkeit nicht entspricht. Letztere, wenn das Benehmen nicht der Wirklichkeit gerecht wird. Wer sich den Verhältnissen entsprechend benimmt, ist ein איש אמת. Hier: Schwöre mir, dass du dich entsprechend benehmen werdest, mir und meinen Nachkommen gegenüber, wie wir es durch unser Benehmen gegen dich ver- dient haben. — נין siehe zu תנינם (Kap.1, 21). — נכד verwandt mit נגד, fern und doch in der Richtung zu dem andern. Das fernere Geschlecht, das doch noch physisch und geistig zum Großvater gehört. כחסר אשר עשיתי usw. Abimelech hat hier unzweifelhaft eine Zukunft im Auge, in welcher seine Nachkommen so zu den Abra- hamiden stehen werden, wie Abraham zu ihm gestanden.

Do to me. When you inherit the land do not drive us out, but treat us with amity, just as we treated you.

ועם הארץ אשר גרת בה, I expect you also to act in a friendly manner with all the inhabitants of this country who will survive me, both you and your children and grandchildren after you, seeing that you have been treated well in this country by its people.

אנכי אשבע, I will do you the favour to swear such an oath; however, you have not done me any favours as you claim to have done.

ויאמר אברהם אנכי אשבע. Abraham said: "I will swear." Abraham implied that he could counter Avimelech's arguments but had decided instead to swear as Avimelech requested.

ויאמר אברהם אנכי אשבע, implying that Avimelech on his part has to swear also. The word אשבע is spelled with the vowel chirik under the letter א, Generally, when a verb in the first person is in the passive mode, it has the vowel segol so that the combination of aleph-chirik should not be misunderstood as if it had been spelled אי.

Swear to me here by Elokim. Avimelech was confident that once Avraham swore, Hashem would never command him to violate his oath.

אנכי אשבע, “I am ready to swear to this.” Avraham does not acknowledge that Avimelech had done him any favours, seeing that his servants had repeatedly stolen the wells he had dug and he had done nothing about it (Compare verse 25).

In consideration of Abraham's intention to rebuke Avimelech (verse 25), he thought that if he did this immediately Avimelech would interpret Abraham's attitude as a denial of the favours the king claimed to have done for him. He decided therefore to state first of all that he was willing to swear the oath in question.

Another way of looking at the verse is that Abraham accepted the oath only for himself, i.e. אנכי; he was not prepared to commit his son or grandson as had been requested by Avimelech.

והוכח AND [ABRAHAM] REPROVED — it means he argued with him about it.

אשר גזלו עבדי אבימלך, he criticised him precisely in his position of king, seeing that robbery had been tolerated in his country and there was no one to protest this. He also criticised him for the evildoers in his own entourage. He did not act according to the norms of righteous people. Psalms 101,7 suggests that righteous people have no business dwelling in the proximity of people who practice deception.

והוכיח אברהם, seeing that they had both agreed to a pact and had confirmed it by a mutual oath, Avraham now complained about the servants of Avimelech having stolen his wells, especially the well he had dug in Beer Sheva. Beer Sheva was on the border between the land of Canaan and the land of the Philistines, and Avimelech’s servants had argued that Avraham had dug the well on land belonging to the Philistines. In response to Avraham’s complaint both Avimelech and Avraham went from Gerar to Beer Sheva to inspect the area and find out who had been wronged. Seeing that they saw that Avraham’s shepherds were grazing their cattle in that region it was natural that they had dug for water there in order to provide water for their livestock. Even though the Torah did not spell out precisely what occurred, it is reasonable to accept the scenario which I have described.

Avimelech’s servants. His ministers and officials. Had taken by force. Avraham was concerned not about the injustice done to him but about the lack of fear of Heaven on the part of Avimelech’s men and presumably Avimelech himself. How could he propose swearing in Hashem’s Name if he had no fear of Him?

והוכח, nicht ויכח. Es scheint, Abraham hatte bereits früher dem Abimelech darüber Vorstellung gemacht, dass man ihm einen Brunnen geraubt, ohne, aus Bescheidenheit, ihm zu sagen, dass es seine eigenen Diener getan. Abimelech hatte die Vorstellung unbeachtet gelassen. Abraham erinnert ihn daran, und sagt ihm, wer es getan. Abimelech entschuldigt sich damit, er habe deshalb nichts weiter darin getan, weil er nicht gewußt habe, wer es gethan.

לא ידעתי מי עשה, even now that you have informed me by means of my servants that you have been unjustly victimised, I still do not know who are the ones who could have done this. Not a single one among the people concerned seems suspect to me. Had I suspected any one of my servants of such conduct he would not have been tolerated in my entourage.

ויאמר אבימלך…וגם אנכי, Avimelech said: "Also I have not heard, etc." The words: "also I," need clarification; so do the words: "who has done it." All Avimelech needed to say was "I did not know."

ויאמר...וגם אנכי לא שמעתי, seeing that neither you nor anyone else has told me about this I cannot be held responsible for this.

וגם אתה לא הגדת לי וגם אנכי לא שמעתי, what you have accused me of, that while in my position as king I had condoned violence. A king does interfere such matters only if one of two conditions exist 1) If the party that has suffered robbery complains loudly; 2) if neutral people aware of the robbery raise their voices in protest. In the case of Avraham, neither of such conditions existed until now.

Apparently, Avimelech had been aware that someone had robbed Abraham of his wells but he did not know the identity of the robbers. Abraham therefore told Avimelech that he should have made it his business to find out who the culprits were. To this argument Avimelech replied that Abraham himself was also at fault because he had not informed him previously. He, Avimelech, had waited for Abraham's complaint; he would have taken action as soon as he would have received an official complaint from Abraham. Seeing Abraham had not informed him, he had remained unaware. This is the meaning of: "also I did not hear until this day." He meant that he made no effort to inform himself of the situation and was apprised of it only today when Abraham spoke up.

ויקח, apparently Avraham had taken some sheep and cattle and given it to Avimelech to keep the covenant. These animals were used to confirm the treaty which had been agreed to between Avimelech and Avraham and their respective children.

Eigentümlich erscheint hier bei dem Schließen eines Bundes, der doch in der Regel ein gegenseitiges Verhältnis begründet, Abraham allein als der Gebende. Dieses Geben überhaupt bei dem Abschluß eines Vertrages scheint dem späteren קנין סודר zu entsprechen, und wenn, nach der als Halacha rezipierten Weise, das Kinjan mit dem Gute des Erwerbenden geschieht, so scheint doch Abimelech dem Abraham, für seine Person wenigstens und seine Lebenszeit, eine Zusicherung gegeben zu haben. Abimelech dürfte vielleicht der symbolischen Hingebung zum Erwerbe des von Abraham zu Erlangenden nicht bedurft haben, weil Abraham fortwährend der faktisch seine Güte Genießende war. Oder es fand abseiten Abimelechs deshalb keine Übergabe statt, weil Abraham noch gar kein konkretes Objekt ihm zu gewähren, sondern nur eine Eidesversicherung für die Zukunft seiner Nachkommen zu erteilen hatte.

ויצב, Avraham selected from amongst these animals seven sheep to be placed aside from the others. He took 7 seeing that the number seven, שבעה, and the word for oath שבועה are practically identical. The location was now named Beer Sheva to reflect symbolically both the seven sheep set aside here as visible sign of the covenant and the fact that this covenant had been confirmed by an oath of either party to the treaty.

שבע כבשות, “seven ewes.” The number seven symbolized the word שבועה.

(28-31) Abraham sondert aus dem allgemeinen Bundesvertragszeichen sieben Mutterschafe zur speziellen Sanktionierung seines rechtlichen Brunnenbesitzes aus. Weder die Tiergattung und Art, noch die Zahl dürfte zufällig sein. Die Bedeutung der Zahl sieben für den Eid haben wir zu Raw Hirsch on Genesis 21: 23 angedeutet. Raw Hirsch on Genesis 21: 31 sehen wir auch beides in Wort und Namen ineinander spielen. Es handelt sich um einen Brunnen, die wesentlichste Grundbedingung des Herdenbesitzes. Mutterschafe, כבשות, nicht כבשים, sind aber diejenigen Tiere, von denen die ganze Zukunft der Herde abhängt, also sehr wohl geeignet, die ganze Herde überhaupt zu repräsentieren. Wenn aber הְשָבֵעַ nichts anders heißt, als sich mit seiner ganzen "sechs" d. h. mit seiner ganzen materiellen Habe, der "sieben", d. h. der über das Sichtbare gebietenden unsichtbaren Macht unterstellen, gleichsam das Zeichen "7" seinem Besitze aufprägen, welches der Unredliche nicht verträgt: so drückte "Mutterschafe in der Zahl sieben hinstellen" nichts anderes aus, als: seine ganze Herde der das Unrecht rächenden Gottesmacht unterstellen, wenn der Brunnen, aus dem sie trinken, nicht rechtlich sein wäre. Es wäre dies ein Reinigungseid für die Rechtlichkeit des Besitzes, נשבע ונפטר — (dass das spätere jüdische Gesetz keinen Eid in Beziehung auf קרקעות statuiert, liegt tief in dem Begriff שבועה begründet, wie s.G.w. zur betreffenden Stelle zu erläutern sein wird. Siehe Kap.23, 4 und 2. B. M. 22, 8) — und indem Abimelech die sieben Mutterschafe aus Abrahams Händen hinnimmt, erkennt er ihm den rechtlichen Besitz des seine Herden tränkenden Brunnens zu. Die Hinnahme dieser Schafe wird eine עדה, ein Zeugnis und Denkmal für die Rechtlichkeit dieses Besitzes. —

'את שבע וגו, “the seven sheep, etc;” the Hebrew word שבע, is also the basis of the Hebrew word שבועה, “oath.”(Compare verse 25)

עדה von עוד dauern (verwandt mit עות, wovon עת Zeit, לעות את יעף (Jes. 50. 4), obgleich der Plur. עִתת und die Suff. בעִתו von עתת zu sein scheinen). הָעִיר: Dauer geben, machen, dass das sonst dem Bewusstsein Entschwindende Dauer gewinne, d. i. gegenwärtig werde. Dies ist aber das Geschäft des Zeugen. Daher auch: Denkmal. העִיר־, auch: warnen, d. h. jemandem die seinem Bewusstsein entschwundene Pflicht und die Folgen der verletzten vergegenwärtigen.

בעבור (supply the word זאת) — IN ORDER THAT this (where this, a feminine form in a neuter sense, as is usual in Hebrew, refers to the incident just recorded).

כי את שבע כבשות תקח מידי, this is similar to the procedure described in Ruth 4,7 known as חליצה, in which the widow of the deceased brother who has been refused levirate marriage by her brother-in-law removed a shoe from her brother-in-law. This transaction signaled mutual agreement. In the case of חליצה it signaled that the widow was now free to marry someone of her choice instead of being beholden to a surviving brother-in-law.

ויאמר...תהיה לי לעדה, “this gift that I am giving you shall serve as proof for me.”

The feminine form for “witness”... Rashi is explaining that לעדה means “witness” (עדות), not “congregation” (עדה). And it is written לעדה rather than לעד because עדה is the feminine form of עד.

כי את שבע כבשות תקח מידי, ”for the seven sheep accept from me;” because Avraham made this gift to Avimelech, G-d said to him: “because you have given him seven sheep, I will let your descendants wait seven generations during which his descendants will ruin seven locations in which the Jewish people will have their abode. They are: the Tabernacle in Gilgal, Shiloh, Nov, Giveon, and two permanent Temples. Furthermore the Holy Ark was exiled in the territory of the Philistine for a period of seven months during the period beginning with the death of the High Priest Eli. (Samuel I 6,1.) All of this is referred to in the Book of Psalms 38,20: ואויבי חיים עצמו; David meant to say: the three generations that Avraham gave away to Avimelech had to be paid for by his descendants with seven generations. There were seven generations between Avraham and Moses, and Pharaoh, a descendant of Avimelech was still alive. [The seven generations comprise Avraham, Yitzchok, Yaakov, Levi, Kehat, Amram, Moses.]

תהיה לי לעדה MAY BE UNTO ME AS A WITNESS The word עדה means witness in reference to a previous feminine form (in this case to זאת, this, which word Rashi supplied), just as (31:52) “And the pillar is a witness” (עדה the feminine form to correspond with the feminine noun מצבה, whereas the preceding words are עד הגל הזה “this heap is a witness” where עד is masc to agree with Gal.

In this instance, acceptance of the gift meant that Avraham had dug the well, owned it, as well as the land it was on.

They agreed among themselves that whoever appears at the well... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, how did Avraham prove it [that he dug the well]? It could not have been through actual witnesses, for if Avraham’s servants had actual witnesses, why did they not make a legal claim before Avimelech?

כי חפרתי את הבאר THAT I HAVE DIGGED THIS WELL —Abimelech’s herdsmen quarrelled about it, saying, “We have dug it”. They arranged amongst themselves that the well should belong to him who would show himself at the well together with his sheep and at whose approach the waters would rise, and they rose at the approach of Abraham and his sheep (Genesis Rabbah 54:5).

על כן...כי שם נשבעו, the word כי lacks the conjunctive letter ו in front. We find similar constructions with the missing conjunctive letter ו in Chabakuk 2,11 שמש ירח, instead of שמש וירח. Another such example is found in Exodus 1,2 ראובן שמעון instead of ראובן ושמעון. Had the letter ו not been missing, we would have clearly understood at first glance that both the oath and the seven sheep are referred to as a “package deal.” Naming a location was a very important step in laying claim to a region as one’s inalienable property.

שניהם, der künftige und der gegenwärtige Beherrscher reichten sich da die Hand und war dieses ganze Ereignis — die erste huldigende Anerkennung des künftigen abrahamitischen Volkes — wichtig genug, durch den Namen des Ortes den Nachkommen verewigt zu werden, zumal denselben dadurch zugleich der sie mit verpflichtende Eid des Ahns im Gedächtnis blieb.

על כן קרא למקום ההוא באר שבע, “this is why he called that place Beer Sheva.” The site had been known as such but now the town that would develop from that site bore the same name also, commencing in the time of Yitzchok. To the question how Avraham could possibly have made such a concession to Avimelech, our sages comment that we learn from here that one must not enter into a business partnership with a pagan, as eventually one will be forced to swear an oath involving uttering the deity believed in by one’s partner.

AND THEY RETURNED TO THE LAND OF THE PHILISTINES. The sense of the verse is that they returned to their city which was in the land of the Philistines for they lived in the land of the Philistines. However, they abode in Gerar,³⁶⁰Above, 20:1. which was the royal capital, while Abraham dwelled in Beer-sheba, which is in the land of the Philistines, in the valley of Gerar.³⁶¹Further, 26:17.

וישובו אל ארץ פלשתים, they returned from Beer Sheva, i.e. proof that Beer Sheva was not part of the land of the Philistines. They had gone there only to speak with Avraham who had gone there to see how his livestock was faring. This is where he tendered the gift to confirm the covenant they had made.

ויכרתו...ויקם אבימלך, Avraham remained at Beer Sheva with his flocks for a day or two longer before returning to the land of the Philistines to his house in Gerar.

וישובו אל ארץ פלשתים, “they returned to the land of the Philistines.” This means that they returned to the capital of the land of the Philistines, seeing that they had never left the land of the Philistines, the covenant having been concluded on land which was theirs.

אשל [AND ABRAHAM PLANTED AN] אשל — Rab and Samuel differ as to what this was. One said it was an orchard from which to supply fruit for the guests at their meal. The other said it was an inn for lodging in which were all kinds of fruit (Sotah 10a). And we can speak of planting an inn for we find the expression planting used of tents, as it is said, (Daniel 11:45) “And he shall plant the tents of his palace”.

AND HE CALLED THERE IN THE NAME OF THE ETERNAL, ‘E-IL OLAM’ (THE EVERLASTING G-D). Scripture explains that Abraham called by the name Eternal He Who in His might directs the time.
It may be that heaven and earth are here being called olam (world) [so that the sense of the verse is, “he called by the name Eternal the G-d of the world”], as is a customary expression in the words of our Rabbis. Thus Scripture informs us by this that Abraham called out and informed people of the secret of the leadership of the entire world, namely, that it is in the name of the Eternal, the Mighty One in strength, Supreme in power over all.
Now the Rabbi³⁶²Rambam. See Seder Bereshith, Note 139. said in the Moreh Nebuchim³⁶³II, 13. See also III, 29. that this alludes to the principle of the pre-existence of G-d since Abraham let it be known that G-d existed before the creation of time. Onkelos, however, said of the word vayikra (and he called), that it refers to prayer.

ויטע אשל, an orchard. The presence of such an orchard should encourage people to pray to G’d there.

ויקרא שם בשם ה' א-ל עולם, he used the occasion to proclaim the eternal nature of G’d, as opposed to any other deities, which, even if on occasion appearing to have demonstrated some power to protect those worshipping them, could at best enjoy a brief period of effectiveness.

ויטע אשל, he planted some saplings there to serve as proof that the well nearby was now his undisputed property. The word אשל describes certain plants (fruit-bearing) as In Samuel I 22,6 תחת האשל ברמה, “under the eshel in Ramah). According to our sages in Beytzah 27 the reference is to tall trees which are difficult to uproot. Our sages in Midrash Tehillim 106 understand the word אשל as an acronym for אכילה, שתיה, לינה, “eating, drinking, staying overnight.” In other words, Avraham established a hotel there to serve people passing that region. He taught the people around Beer Sheva to practice the art (virtue) of hosting strangers. In order to fulfill that virtue one must provide the three ingredients represented by the three letters in the word אשל.

אֵשֶל kommt nur noch bei Saul vor (1. Sam. 22, 6). "Saul saß auf einem Hügel (oder in Gibea) unter einem אשל in der Höhe und sein Speer in der Hand"; also wohl unzweifelhaft ein Baum, wie ja auch das rabbinische אשלי רברבי große Bäume bedeutet. Lautverwandt mit אצל, ursprünglich abteilen, bei Seite legen, daher auch mitteilen. Daher שלn vielleicht: sich organisch allseitig entwickeln, also vom Baume: nach allen Seiten hin seine Äste, vielleicht auch seine Früchte darbieten. Die Weisen erblicken darin entweder einen Obstgarten, oder eine Karawanserei, die, den Buchstaben des Wortes אשל entsprechend, alles gewährte: אכילה ,שתיה ,לינה. Vielleicht fällt beides zusammen, und bezeichnet אשל (der oben angedeuteten Etymologie nach, allseitig sich entwickelnd, vielleicht auch allseitig spendend, אצל heißt doch auch: von dem Seinigen mitteilen,) einen Baum, der durch seine Früchte אכילה und שתיה und durch sein reiches Laub, Schatten und Schutz, לינה, gewährt. Jedenfalls liegt es nahe, dass, wie die Weisen erklären, Abraham durch Ausübung menschenfreundlicher Bewirtung der Wanderer Gelegenheit nahm, sie von der Dankbarkeit gegen Menschen zur Dank- barkeit gegen Gott zu führen, ja sie in der Ausübung dieser allweiten Menschenliebe die beglückende Wirkung der Verehrung eines einzigen Gottes in der praktischsten Weise kennen zu lehren.

'ויקרא שם וגו AND HE CALLED THERE etc. — Through this Eshel the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, was called “God of the entire Universe”. For after they had eaten and drunk he said to them, “Bless Him of whose possessions you have eaten! Do you think that you have eaten of what is mine? You have eaten of that which belongs to Him Who spake and the Universe came into existence” (Sotah 10a).

ויקרא שם, Avraham used the opportunity of assembling the local people and describing his and Sarah’s experiences to them in order to give them first-hand evidence of how G’d had looked after him against all odds. He contrasted this with the local deities being worshipped who could not protect those who sacrificed to them.
א-ל עולם, he pointed out that his G’d was not only powerful locally, but was a G’d Who was equally powerful allover the globe, seeing the globe is His, He being the One Who had created it.

Überlegt müsste nur noch werden, was Abraham bewogen haben dürfte, eben in באר שבע, vielleicht an den Brunnen einen solchen אשל zu pflanzen und bei ihm "die Menschen im Namen Gottes, des א׳ עולם, zusammenzurufen", während er bei seinen bisherigen Gottesverkündnngen einen מזבח baute und auch dieser Gottesname hier im Munde Abrahams zuerst, und sonst nie wieder in תנ"ך vorkommt — nur einmal heißt es (Jesaias 40. 28) אלקי עולם ד׳ וגו׳. —

Bisher lehrte Abraham Gott als den א׳ עליון קונה שמים וארץ, als den lebendigen Gott der Gegenwart, der nicht nur einmal vor Jahrtausenden die Welt ins Dasein gerufen, sondern der "nie schläft und schlummert", nicht — wie man blasphemierend gedacht und gesprochen, — seit Jahrtausenden ausruht von der "schweren" Arbeit der Weltschöpfung, sondern קוֹנֶה der noch jetzt Träger und Eigner und Herr ist des Himmels und der Erde, der sich kein Keimchen entgehen lässt, der lebendigste, gegenwärtigste Gott ist aller gegenwärtigen Wesen und Erscheinungen im Himmel und auf Erden: hier nun mit einem Male, bei diesem אשל, lehrt Abraham einen Namen, der augenscheinlich über den sichtbaren Horizont der Gegenwart hinausweist, und Gott, als den Gott der dem Menschenblick verhüllten Zeit verkündet. Denn das heißt ja עולם, von עלם, ver- borgen sein, verwandt mit אלם: mechanisch oder organisch gebunden sein. In תנ"ך heißt עולם nie Welt, sondern die verhüllte Zeit, somit in der Regel die ganze dem Menschenblick verhüllte Zukunft, mitunter auch ebenso die sich unserem Blicke entziehende ferne Vergangenheit.

ויקרא שם בשם ה', “he preached there in the name of the Lord.” The expression used here by the Torah refers to both “calling on,” and “proclaiming.” We have the expression קרא in Proverbs 20, 6 רב אדם יקרא איש חסדו, “He calls most people true friend.” We also encounter this word in Deut. 32,3 where Moses says כי שם ה' אקרא, and the meaning is: “I shall proclaim the name of the Lord.” In our verse the meaning of these words is that Avraham was proclaiming that G’d had created the world, that it had not preceded Him, that there is a “Director” of the fate of mankind who has always existed. When the Torah adds the words בשם ה' “in the name (singular) of the Lord,” it alerts us to the fact that Avraham was at pains to emphasise the Oneness and uniqueness of the Lord, something that would not be suspected if the Torah had used the word אלו-הים which has a plural ending. The words א-ל עולם, mean that G’d was eternal, not preceded by any physical phenomenon. Another way of interpreting the word ויקרא could be in accordance with Onkelos who views the word as reflecting prayer. It would be analogous to Psalms 30,9 אליך ה' אקרא, “I call upon You O G’d (in prayer).”

Abraham scheint hierzu eben durch das erlebte Ereignis veranlasst worden zu sein, das diesem Orte den Namen באר שבע verliehen. Der wichtigste Repräsentant der konkretesten Gegenwart, der Landesfürst, war eben zu ihm, dem in dieser Gegenwart isoliertesten, berechtigungslosesten Familienvater gekommen, weil ihm, diesem Familienvater, ein zweijähriges Kind in der Wiege schlummerte, von welchem er, der Fürst wusste oder ahnte, dass aus ihm ein mächtiges Volk hervorgehen sollte, und hatte, als vorsichtiger Politiker, sich um ein Bündnis mit dem Vater dieses Knaben beworben, damit die Nach- kommen dieses Knaben es noch wissen sollten, wie er und sein Land sich ihrem Ahn gegenüber benommen, und dieses Benehmen dankbar vergelten möchten. Abraham sah hierin bereits einen Anfang der Erfüllung jener Zukunft, die ihm bisher nur eine verheißene gewesen. Ohne göttliche Fügung hätte wahrlich nicht der Landesfürst und sein Heerführer zu einem solchen Bündnis einen hundertjährigen Greis und sein zweijähriges Kind aufgesucht, deren politische Hoffnungen ja nur als "lächerlichste" Prätentionen erscheinen mußten. An dem Orte, der mit seinem Namen באר שבע, diesen ganzen gottgefügten Gegensatz verewigt: באר, der Brunnen, die tatsächliche Winzigkeit einer unberechtigten, menschlich preisgegebenen Gegenwart, die den ruhigen Besitz eines "selbstgegrabenen" Brunnens als "fürstliche Gnade" erkennen muss, und שבע: der Bundeseid mit dem Landesfürsten, der nur von einer Ahnung der künftigen gottverheißenen Volkes- größe eingegeben sein konnte, — an dem Orte pflanzte Abraham einen in segensreicher Entwickelung menschenbeglückenden Baum, und verkündet dort — nicht den קונה שמים וארץ den in dem Ordnungsgange der Natur sich offenbarenden, sondern א׳ עולם, den: die Zukunft mit unsichtbaren Keimen in die Gegenwart Säenden Alleinen!

Es war die erste Spur von der die Menschheit bauenden Gotteswaltung in der Geschichte, die Abraham zu begrüßen hatte, und er feierte den Moment, indem er ihn durch Pflanzung eines Baumes verewigte, in welchem er — vielleicht — seine Ahnung von dieser Zukunft niederlegte. Aus unscheinbaren Anfängen, wie der Baum, und ebenso weithin Segen spendend in ihrer Vollendung, keimt die Zukunft auf, der er angehört, und es ist Gott, der also den Segensbaum der Zukunstentwickelung pflanzt und pflegt. Wie hier eine gottgesandte Ahnung den Abimelech zu Abraham hintrieb, und damit der erste Respekt in die philistäischen Gemüter gestreut ward, der später zu dem "Schreckensbann" anwuchs, der "die Bewohner Philistäas in Untätigkeit lähmte, als Gott das Abrahamvolk in sein verheißenes Erbe führte": so fallen oft — den Ereignissen längst voraus — solche Ideen vom Himmel herab, packen die Gemüter, gestalten die konkrete Wirklichkeit um — und nachher finden die Leute es ganz "natürlich", dass alles sich also begeben. —

Diesen mit עולם gepaarten Gottesnamen, dem wir in תנ"ך, wie bemerkt, nur zweimal begegnen, haben aber die Weisen unseres Volkes, wie keinen andern sonst, zur steten Gegenwart uns in den Mund gepflanzt, nachdem gleichzeitig das Wort עולם in ihrem Munde zum Ausdruck des Gedankens "Welt", also der konkretesten, wirklichsten Gegenwart erwachsen war, und sie haben uns mit beidem Unschätzbares geleistet.

Überall sonst ist man gewöhnt, im Unglück den Gedanken auf die Zukunft zu richten, und im Blick auf die Zukunft Trost für eine trostlose Gegenwart zu suchen. Die Weisen verfuhren umgekehrt. Gerade als unsere Gegenwart zum Gelächter der Welt wurde, lehrten sie uns, jede Gegenwart schon als Moment der Zukunft zu betrachten. Überall, wenn Donner rollen, Blitze leuchten, Blumen blühen, Speisen nähren, Geschicke reifen etc. etc., lehren sie uns die Gegenwart schon mit als Teil der Ewigkeit, und Gott als מלך העולם, als Lenker dieser in der Zeit sich vollziehenden Ewigkeit beherzigen. Ist ja jeder Augenblick, wahrhaft erlebt, schon mitteninne jener Ewigkeit, der wir alle nicht nur teilhaftig werden, sondern teilhaftig sind, wenn wir sind, was wir sein sollen. —

Ja, es dürfte hier vielleicht noch eine tiefere Weisheit liegen. In תנ"ך scheint עולם nicht bloß die verhüllte Vergangenheit und Zukunft zu bedeuten, sondern überhaupt: das unseren Augen Verborgene, Unsichtbare. Ist es ja Anmaßung, zu behaupten, nur Vergangenheit und Zukunft seien uns verborgen. Auch die konkreteste Gegenwart ist in wahrem Grunde ein עולם. Alles Konkrete wurzelt in letzter Faser in dem נעלם, das eigentlich das allein die höchste Wirklichkeit Habende ist. Gestalten, Formen wechseln, die Kraft, das allem Sichtbaren zu Grunde liegende Unsichtbare, Abstrakte, das נעלם, ist bleibend, ja, ist das einzige wirklich Daseiende, auf das man bauen kann. So heißt es in Kohelet 3, 11: את הכל עשה יפה בעתו גם את העלם נתן בלבם מבלי אשר לא ימצא הארם את המעשה אשר עשה האלקי׳ מראש ועד סוף. ,Alles hat Gott schön im Zu"- sammenhange mit allem gleichzeitig Seienden gemacht, aber auch von dem Unsichtbaren, Übersinnlichen hat er dem Menschen eine Ahnung ins Herz gelegt, ohne welche der Mensch nie dahin käme, auch nur die geringste der Erscheinungen zu begreifen". Vielleicht hat diese Anschauung den Begriff Welt mit עולם wiedergegeben, da die eigentliche Welt in der Tat das עולם ist, und wollte uns gewöhnen, bei jeder Erscheinung über das in ihr Sichtbare hinaus auf das ihr zu Grunde liegende Unsichtbare hin, und auf Gott hinzuschauen, מלך העולם, den Lenker und Regierer aller unsicht- baren Kräfte, zu dessen Reich alles gehört, was in dieser "Welt voller Rätsel" uns umgibt, der auch אלקינו ist, dem auch wir mit allen Kräften unseres Lebens nach Dasein und Bestimmung angehören, und dem auch wir — ברוך — mit allen unseren Kräften uns hingeben sollen, seinen Willen zu erfüllen, das Reich seines Wohlgefallens zu mehren.

ימים רבים MANY DAYS (or, MORE DAYS) — More than those he sojourned in Hebron: in Hebron ho had stayed 25 years and here 26. For he was 75 years old when he left Haran (Genesis 12:4), and of that same year it is said (Genesis 13:18) “And he came and dwelt by the terebinths of Mamre [which are in Hebron]” — for we do not find that he had settled down anywhere prior to settling there (at Hebron), since in every place where he went he was only like a traveller who pitches his camp and then goes on journeying, as it is said, (Genesis 13:12:6) “And Abraham passed on”; (Genesis 12:8) “And Abraham removed from thence”; (Genesis 12:10) “And there was a famine in the land and Abraham went down to Egypt”. In Egypt, too, he stayed only three months, for Pharaoh sent him away (Genesis 12:20). Immediately (Genesis 13:3) “He went on his journeys” until (Genesis 13:18) “He came and dwelt by the terebinths of Mamre which are in Hebron”. There he resided until Sodom was overthrown, and immediately afterwards (Genesis 20:1) “Abraham journeyed from thence” on account of the shame he felt at Lot’s doings and came to the land of the Philistines. He was then 99 years old, because it was on the third day of his circumcision that the angels came to him. Consequently you have 25 years from the time he settled in Hebron (the year he left his father’s house) until he came to the land of the Philistines. Now, here it is written that he sojourned in the land of the Philistines ימים רבים more days, which means more than the preceding days in Hebron. Scripture does not intend by these words to leave the number indefinite, but to state it explicitly, for if the “more days” exceeded the former period in Hebron by two years or more, it would have said so plainly, so that you must admit that the excess was only one year — that gives 26 years in the land of the Philistines. He immediately left there and returned to Hebron, and that year was 12 years before the Binding of Isaac. All this is explained in Seder Olam (See Note on Genesis 10:25).

That year preceded the binding of Yitzchok by twelve years. Rashi was brought to explain this due to the following verse, “After (אחר) these events,” which [ostensibly] means right after, since אחר always implies right after—as Rashi commented earlier on 15:1. Yet the binding of Yitzchok was 12 years later, so why does it say אחר? Thus Rashi explains (on the following verse) that it means “After the words of Satan,” not after the just-mentioned events of Avraham and Avimelech.