Comentário sobre Gênesis 26:29

לא נגענוך WE HAVE NOT TOUCHED THEE when we said to you “Go from us”.

אתה עתה, therefore conclude a pact with us and let us go home, just as we have allowed you to leave our country unmolested.

IF THOU WILT DO US HURT, AS WE HAVE NOT TOUCHED THEE. The king is saying: “If you will do us hurt [and we could do nothing against you], just as we have not touched you because thou art now the blessed of the Eternal and we do not have it in our power to harm you, the time will yet change on account of the violence you will do against us and you will need to return to our land. Then we will requite you accordingly.”
The meaning of the phrase, We have not touched thee, is: “We did not persuade our hearts concerning your wife, causing her to be touched by one of them.” This is similar in expression to the verse, He that toucheth this man or his wife.¹⁸⁷Verse 11 here.
“We have done thee nothing but good, guarding whatever you had, by our commanding the people to beware of you. And we have sent thee away in peace for even when we were jealous of you we took nothing of all the wealth you amassed with us, and we sent you away in peace with all you had.” The reason for their being fearful of him could hardly have been the apprehension of the king of the Philistines lest Isaac come to war against him. Instead, it was because Abraham had promised them a covenant, “to him, to his son, and his son’s son,”¹⁸⁸Above, 21:23. and now they thought, “Since we annulled our covenant with Isaac and sent him away from us, he too will annul his covenant with us, and his children will drive our children from the land.” This was why they made a new covenant with him, excusing themselves by telling him that they did not annul the first covenant, since they have done him nothing but good. And this is the meaning of their saying, Let there now be an oath between us:¹⁸⁹Verse 28 here. “We will now come with you in oath to express a ban upon whoever will transgress the covenant.” This is similar in meaning to the verse, That thou shouldst enter into the covenant of the Lord thy G-d, and into His oath.¹⁹⁰Deuteronomy 29:11.
It is possible that Abraham was very great and mighty in power, having in his household three hundred men¹⁹¹Above, 14:14. that drew sword, and also many confederates; and he also that is valiant, whose heart is as the heart of a lion,¹⁹²II Samuel 17:10. The verse refers to David, but Ramban uses it also in connection with Abraham, since as pointed out he was also mighty in battle. and he chased after four powerful kings and subdued them.¹⁹³Above, 14:14-15. When they saw Abraham’s success which clearly was from G-d, the king of the Philistines was then fearful of him lest he conquer his kingdom, since this would be easier than the war against the four kings. Perhaps the king of the Philistines had also heard the matter of G-d having given the land to Abraham. Hence he made a covenant with him, making him swear that thou wilt not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son’s son,¹⁸⁸Above, 21:23. it being considered an act of falsehood if Abraham were to rebel against the king, and considering it possible that Abraham might live until his grandson will rule, [he also mentioned my sons’s son]. And as the fathers are, so are the sons. Isaac was as great as his father, and the king therefore feared lest Isaac war against him because he had driven him from his land.

אם תעשה עמנו רעה, “that you shall not do any evil to us.” אתה עתה, just as we did not harm you.

אם תעשה עמנו, "if you will do with us, etc." They were careful to include in the wording of the covenant that it was in recognition of favours they had done to Isaac, whereas they referred to the eventuality that Isaac might reciprocate by doing harm to them. This is the reason that the whole verse is worded so unusually, as if it had been interrupted in the middle. The words "if you will do evil with us" should by rights have been part of the previous verse, providing the rationale for Avimelech seeking this agreement.

אם תעשה, they knew that if Yitzchok so intended he was able to harm them, seeing that the people of Beer Sheva would assist him in all that he would ask them to. [Avimelech’s trip to Yitzchok who had labeled him and his cohorts as hating him had been akin to going to the lion’s den. Ed.] For the people around Beer Sheva Yitzchok was a prince of G’d who could do no wrong. He was the personification of his father whom they had greatly admired. This is why Avimelech prefaced with words with the remark: אם תעשה עמנו רעה כאשר לא נגענוך, as if to say: “surely you are not going to repay our kindness with an act of hostility merely because you are now in a position to do so!” The phrase is to be understood as if the word אשר (כאשר) is to mean the same as בעבור, “on account of, in return for.” The word אשר appears in that sense in Kings I 15,13 אשר עשתה מפלצת לאשרה, “on account of the abominable thing she had done.” Another such usage of the word אשר occurs in Deuteronomy 4,40 אשר ייטב לך ולבניך אחריך, “in order that He will do good for you and your children.”

אם תעשה עמנו רעה, “If you will do us any harm, etc.” Nachmanides writes that Avimelech’s concern was not that Yitzchok would invade his country, an unlikely scenario, seeing that he was only a stranger in his country, but he was concerned because of the treaty Avraham had concluded with his father and committing several generations into the future. Now that he had been guilty of expelling a descendant of Avraham, he worried that Avraham’s descendants, in due course, would no longer feel bound by the original non-aggression pact between the Philistines and themselves.

You, also... Rashi inserts the word גם to indicate that the Torah’s word אתה means גם אתה (“You, also, do with us likewise”). This is the prevalent version of Rashi’s text. Accordingly, עתה ברוך ה' is an independent phrase, [not to be read together with the preceding word אתה,] and comes to explain what was stated above: Why are we asking this of you? Because now we have seen that you are the blessed one of Hashem. question: Is not the phrase בינותינו בינינו וביניך redundant? He answers that the phrases in this verse are not written in sequence. It should say תהי אלה בינותינו, נא ביני וביניך. This means, “Let that oath, which already exists between us, continue now.” Rashi adds a ה to אלה, and inserts אשר, because it is recounting what happened to Avraham. And he inserts גם because Avimelech is seeking to make the same covenant with Yitzchok that he made with Avraham. Thus he says גם עתה. It is evident that Rashi, when he says עתה (now), is explaining נא. [Accordingly, נא means “now,” rather than “please.”]

כאשר לא נגענוך וכאשר עשינו עמך רק טוב ונשלחך בשלום וגו', “just as we have not harmed you physically, and we have done you nothing but good, and allowed you to depart unharmed, etc.;” when reading this line our author was reminded of the parable concerning the type of gratitude a lion boasted as having displayed. A lion once had a fishbone stuck in his throat. He announced that anyone who would remove it would be richly rewarded. Upon hearing this, a bird known as Agron which has an exceptionally long neck, succeeded in removing this bone from the lion’s throat. Having done this, he asked the lion for his reward. The lion responded as follows: “is it not enough for you that while you had your head in my mouth I did not kill you? You have a nerve in asking me for an additional reward.” Avimelech acted in a similar manner by boasting that he had done Yitzchok a great favour by allowing him to leave his country without harming him when he had had a chance to do so. He implied that it was his custom and that of his people to take advantage of uninvited visitors.

לא נגענוך, “we have not harmed you bodily;” this was the reply to Yitzchok’s accusation that they had displayed their hatred for him. (verse 27) They used the fact that they had allowed him to leave unharmed as proof that they had not hated him, as they had made no attempt to harm him or his family physically. We may understand the words: לא נגענוך, as well as the words: “we have only done good with you,” as referring to the past as well as to the future. We find a similar formulation in the Scriptures in Psalms 9,19: כי לא לנצח ישכח אביון תקוות עניים תאבד לעד, “not always shall the needy by ignored, nor the hope of the afflicted forever lost.”'

אתה THOU — thou, also, do with us in a like manner.

אתה, you are blessed by the Lord. (verse 31)

וכאשר עשינו עמך רק טוב, the word וכאשר at the beginning of Avimelech’s words must be imagined as having been repeated after the word טוב, as if he had said ובעבור שלא עשינו עמך רק טוב, “and on account of the fact that we have only treated you kindly.” We find a similar construction in Psalms 9,19 ותקות ענוים תאבד לעד,”the hope of the afflicted will not be lost forever;” in that phrase the word “not” appears in the first half of the verse, i.e. כי לא לנצח ישכח אביון, “for the hope of the destitute will not be ignored (forgotten) forever. There are many such constructions throughout Scripture where a word at the beginning of the verse is doing double-duty, i.e. must be assumed to have been written also in the second half of the same verse in order to make it intelligible.

כאשר לא נגענוך, “just as we have not laid a hand on you, etc.” We issued a decree that anyone harming you would be severely punished.

When you keep in mind what we have said, it becomes clear that the words are in their proper place, however. Avimelech and company stressed that just as they had not done any harm to Isaac in the past they now expected him to swear that he in turn would not do something that would harm them in the future. Isaac could not be expected to understand what they meant by the טוב, the good they had done for him, until they explained that the very fact that they let him depart whole in body and assets was in itself an act of kindness. Kings, i.e. governments, sometimes pass legislation to extend financial aid to some of their subjects. They do so for one of two reasons. 1) If the day would come when the government is in need of financial aid they would have wealthy citizens to call upon to provide loans to the government. 2) In order to enhance the economic standing of their countries. A country which contains many wealthy people thereby adds to the glory of its rulers. As a result one could have argued that any favours Avimelech had done for Isaac were not of an altruistic nature but were designed to enhance the king's personal reputation as a ruler over a successful country. Avimelech denied such an interpretation of his motives by saying: "just as we never harmed you," meaning that there were no selfish motives in that part of the טוב they had done for Isaac. The very fact they had let Isaac depart with all his assets intact [and had not imposed an emigration tax Ed.] had made Avimelech's country poorer. According to their reasoning this proved that every kindness they had shown Isaac had been genuine, not self-interest. All of this was alluded to in the words ראו ראינו.

'אתה עתה ברוך ה, “you are now the one blessed by the Lord.” They wanted to forestall Yitzchok saying to them that before making him swear as the son of Avraham to keep the peace, they should first secure such a sworn undertaking from his brother Yishmael. [Yitzchok understood that the word עתה, “now,” reflected their worry about Yitzchok saying this to him. After all, when the Philistines breached the covenant made with Avraham for three generations they had also freed Yishmael from the obligation to observe its terms. Ed.] By using the words 'אתה עתה ברוך ה, they implied that they had reason to be afraid of him, whereas they had no reason to fear that they could not cope with Yishmael. G-d, after all, had not promised their land to Yishmael’s descendants. They were aware that G-d had bestowed the blessing He had given to Avraham, especially his power to bless and cure, to Yitzchok, as soon as Avraham had died. (25,11)

Blessed of the Lord: An example is "Come, blessed of the Lord," that is written with Laban (24:31). And so did Issac do; and they walked away from him in peace.

'אתה עתה ברוך ה, seeing that G’d has made you so successful you are now in a position to do us harm if you so desire. This would not be appropriate seeing that we have throughout treated you in a friendly manner while we had been in a position to inflict harm upon you. Even when we expelled you we did so in a manner that did not make you suffer an indignity. When we told you to leave, this was only on account of the envy your success had aroused among the Philistine man in the street. We wanted to insure that they would not allow their envy of you to provoke them into harming you.

וכאשר עשינו עמך רק טוב, “and seeing that we have only treated you well.” We protected your property against looting, etc., and warned the people not to damage what is yours.

[At this point the author quotes a line he saw in Bereshit Rabbah according to which Avimelech's words are proof that the Philistines did not do Isaac any true favours. He finds this difficult and deals with it. Since I have not found such a line in my edition of Bereshit Rabbah, I have omitted this paragraph. Ed.]

ונשלחך בשלום, “and we let you depart in peace.” Even though all my countrymen had become jealous of your new found wealth, all of which originated in our land, and they would have liked nothing better than to deprive you of it, we did not allow this to happen. In view of all the foregoing, we are entitled to ask you to renew the pact your father made with my father. It is entirely possible that, although, in his time, Avraham was very powerful so that he had defeated the four most powerful kings with an army of only 318 men, Yitzchok may have become even more powerful so that Avimelech had reason to fear him if he would incur his displeasure.

אתה עתה ברוך ה', "you are now the one who is blessed by the Lord." They had come to this realisation when they saw that Isaac continued to prosper in spite of having been expelled from their midst. Seeing that Isaac had not been deprived of any of the favours they used to bestow on him as a result of their having expelled him, he had no reason not to render the oath they requested from him as a quid pro quo.

אתה עתה ברוך ה', “clearly you are now blessed by the Lord.” The word “now” is important here. Avimelech, while acknowledging that Yitzchok at this time is more powerful than he is, hints that times may change, and a time may come when their relative positions will be reversed, so that having a treaty will also be of benefit to him.

The author argues that in spite of the definition of the Rivash that what constitutes an oath which is rendered as a quid pro quo is the favour which is rendered at the time of the oath, the same holds true if the oath was sworn in recognition of favours received previously.

Avimelech also wanted to explain with this statement why they did not invite Isaac to return to Gerar. Seeing that after leaving Gerar Isaac had prospered even more than while he had been there, there was no point to invite him to come back there. Previously it could have been argued that he was the beneficiary of the help of G'd extended by means of intermediaries such as the local government in Gerar, i.e. Avimelech himself. Now that he lived in no-man's land it was clear that his success was due entirely to G'd's direct help.

Avimelech also wanted to deny the argument that they had caused Isaac's good fortune to be interrupted by their expulsion; this could not have been the case seeing that G'd had been its author. The fact that he was still better off today than when he resided amongst them was the proof; עתה ברוך ה', "now that they had already done all that was in their power with the means at their disposal, it was clear that he was blessed by the Lord" since he had found the real source of such blessing. All these arguments were designed to elicit an oath the legality of which would be unassailable under any circumstances. There is a discussion in Gittin 46 why the Jewish people did not make war against the Gibeonites when they found out that the latter had tricked them into a promise to treat them as allies instead of as Canaanites (Joshua 9,18). Rabbi Yehudah holds that since the oath was sworn by the leaders of the Jewish people, Israel could not take action denying the validity of that oath. The other rabbis disagree, claiming that the Israelites' undertaking was never valid as it had been based on the Gibeonites' declaration that they were a people who lived far from the land of Canaan. Clearly, Rabbi Yehudah was concerned with the image of Jewish leaders who by defaulting on an undertaking denigrate the reputation of G'd whom they represent. Rashi explains that Rabbi Yehudah's point is not that the oath was valid, but that the Gentiles must not be allowed to say that Jewish leaders were guilty of perjury. We must remember that Rabbi Yehudah's point is not a legal one, i.e. a Mosaic law, but an act of piety that Jewish leaders have to impose upon themselves. Besides, even according to Rabbi Yehudah, such a consideration is in place only when the oath was as public as that of the Jewish people to the Gibeonites. Oaths between a relatively small group of people such as Isaac and Avimelech's entourage would certainly not fall under that heading.

Furthermore, an additional reason why the other rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Yehudah is that the Gentiles are well aware of the mechanics and the conditions when oaths are subject to annulment. This being so, the question of חלול השם, public desecration of G'd's name which troubled Rabbi Yehudah did not even arise.