Comentário sobre Gênesis 36:12

ותמנע היתה פילגש AND TIMNA WAS CONCUBINE — This is stated to tell you in what importance Abraham was held — how eager people were to attach themselves to his descendants. This Timna was a descendant of chieftains, as it is said (v. 22) “And Lotan’s sister was Timna”, and Lotan was one of the chieftains inhabiting Seir — he was one of the Horites who had dwelt there from ancient times. She said to Eliphaz, “If I am unworthy to become your wife would that I might become your concubine!” In Chronicles (1 Chronicles 1:36) Scripture enumerates her amongst the children of Eliphaz, thus intimating that he took Seir’s wife and from the two of them Timna was born. When she grew up she became his concubine. This is why it is stated, “and Lotan’s sister was Timna”, and why Scripture does not enumerate her amongst Seir’s children, merely stating that she was sister to Lotan, Seir’s son, (see 5:20) because she was his sister from one mother and not from one father (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 1).

AND TIMNA WAS CONCUBINE TO ELIPHAZ ESAU’s SON. Because Scripture was not particular to tell us the names of the mothers of all the others, our Rabbis have interpreted that this was to tell us of the esteem in which Abraham our father was held, i.e., how eager people were to attach themselves to his descendants. This Timna was a descendant of chieftains, as it is said, And Lotan’s sister was Timna,²⁶³Verse 22 here. [and Lotan was one of the chieftains of Se’ir]. She said to Eliphaz, “If I am unworthy to become your wife, would that I might become your concubine,” as Rashi has written.
It is possible that the five sons of Eliphaz, mentioned in the preceding verse, were generally known as his children since he had begotten them from his wives. But Amalek, [born of Timna, the concubine of Eliphaz], was not known among his brothers, [who were the recognized children of Eliphaz], and he might have been included among Esau’s children because he was his descendant. Therefore, Scripture found it necessary to say that his mother so-and-so, to whom Amalek was known to have belonged, bore him to Eliphaz, but he is not listed among the descendants of Esau and did not dwell with them on mount Se’ir. Only the sons of the mistresses, and not the son of a concubine, are called Esau’s seed, since the son of the handmaid will not be heir with his sons, in keeping with the practice of his father’s father.²⁶⁴Above, 21:10.
Now concerning the descendants of Esau, we have been commanded not to abhor them²⁶⁵Deuteronomy 23:8. or take their land.²⁶⁶Ibid., 2:5. This refers to all his known sons who dwell in Se’ir, as they are called Edomites by his name, but the son of the concubine is not part of the descendants of Esau, and he did not inherit together with them in their land, and in fact with respect to him we have been commanded to the contrary, i.e., to abhor him and blot out his name.²⁶⁷Ibid., 25:19.
Now Rashi wrote further: “In the book of Chronicles²⁶⁸I Chronicles 1:36. Scripture enumerates Timna among the children of Eliphaz! This implies that he lived with Se’ir the Horite’s wife and from this union Timna was born. When she grew up she became his concubine. And this is why Scripture says, And Lotan’s sister was Timna,²⁶³Verse 22 here. [since Lotan’s father was Se’ir the Horite]. And the reason why Scripture does not enumerate her among Se’ir’s children is that she was Lotan’s sister maternally but not paternally.”
But I do not agree with this since in the book Chronicles, it should have said, “and Timna his daughter.”²⁶⁹See further, 46:15: “and Dinah his daughter.” Why should Scripture enumerate the woman among the sons? Perhaps Scripture is not particular about this when a matter is known for so we find there in Chronicles: And the sons of Amram: Aaron and Moses, and Miriam. And the sons of Aaron: Nadab and Abihu, etc.²⁷⁰I Chronicles 5:29. [Scripture thus enumerates a woman among the sons.] If so, it is fitting that we say that this Timna was the daughter of Eliphaz, who had been born to him of the wife of Se’ir the Horite after the death of her husband, and she was thus Lotan’s sister from one mother. Eliphaz took her as a concubine, this being permissible to an idolater.²⁷¹Sanhedrin 55b. Or we shall say, in accordance with the opinion of our Rabbis [that Timna was illegitimate, as explained above in the words of Rashi], that the Timna mentioned in Chronicles²⁶⁸I Chronicles 1:36. is identical with Timna the chieftain mentioned further on,²⁷²Verse 40 here. for he is enumerated there in Chronicles²⁶⁸I Chronicles 1:36. among the sons of Eliphaz, just as Korah is enumerated there²⁷³I Chronicles 1:35. among the sons of Esau [while here in Verses 15-16 Korah is listed among the sons of Eliphaz. You must therefore conclude that he was illegitimate, as was Timna]. Furthermore, Korah is listed here in Verse 5 as the son of Oholibamah [and Esau, and further in Verse 16 he is enumerated among the sons of Eliphaz. You must therefore conclude] that both Korah and Timna were illegitimate, born of one father, and enumerated with the children of another, for it is far-fetched to say that the woman Timna was enumerated among the sons, as was suggested above.
In line with the simple meaning of Scripture it is feasible to conjecture that Timna, the concubine of Eliphaz, after having given birth to Amalek [as stated in our present verse], gave birth to a son, and she had hard labor and died. As her soul was departing she called his name Timna so that her name be remembered, while his father Eliphaz called him Korah. Scripture, however, does not ascribe this son Timna to Timna his mother in order not to prolong the account for the intent is only to enumerate Amalek by himself. However, the sons of Eliphaz were seven, [as they are enumerated here in Verses 15-16, and Korah is among them]. Now Scripture enumerates there the chieftains who were the sons of Eliphaz in the order of their importance. Therefore, it gave Kenaz and Korah precedence over Gatam [although the order of their birth as stated in Verse 11 was: Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz].
I have an additional opinion concerning this verse in connection with that which our Rabbis have said in the Midrash of “Thirty-two Rules by which Agadah²⁷⁴The part of Rabbinic teaching which explains the Bible homiletically, as opposed to the Halachic (or legal) interpretation, which is governed by the famous thirteen principles of interpretation mentioned by Rabbi Ishmael. This Midrash of “Thirty-two Rules” for Agadah was collated by Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean. is explained.” There they mentioned this rule: “There should have been one arrangement for [two verses, meaning that there are verses which should really be combined] but the prophets divided them for some reason! An example is the verse which says, For a multitude of the people, etc.”²⁷⁵For a multitude of the people… had not cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the passover otherwise that it is written. For Hezekiah had prayed for them, saying: The good Lord pardon, (II Chronicles 30:18). And then in Verse 19 it continues: His whole heart he hath set to seek G-d, the Eternal, the G-d of his fathers, though not according to the purification that pertaineth to holy things. Now Verse 18 does not explain whom G-d should pardon, while Verse 19 does not explain “who set his heart, etc.” Combining the two verses makes the sense clear. Hezekiah prayed that the good Lord pardon every one who, though he had not cleansed himself according, etc., had set his whole heart to seek G-d. Those who pursue the plain meaning of Scripture apply this to other verses. And so too this verse says: (And) the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam and Kenaz,²⁷⁶This concludes Verse 11, while And Timna begins Verse 12. Ramban combines the two verses into one, with the result that Timna is also enumerated among the sons of Eliphaz. and Timna. Then Scripture returns to say, there was a concubine to Eliphaz Esau’s son, and she bore to Eliphaz Amalek, but Scripture does not mention the name of the concubine. But in truth she was Timna, as it is said, Lotan’s sister was Timna,²⁶³Verse 22 here. and this is the reason that Scripture did not mention her name here since it did not want to say “and Timna” twice, once in reference to the male chieftain and once in reference to the female concubine. Thus Eliphaz had seven sons, [who are enumerated in Verses 11-12: Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, Kenaz, Timna, and Amalek], and they are the same chieftains ascribed to Eliphaz in Verses 15-16, but they changed the name of this youngest son of Eliphaz — namely Timna — to Korah because his name was like that of the concubine and so that he should not be thought of as her son. He was named Korah upon his ascending to the position of chieftain.
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that Korah the son of Esau’s wife Oholibamah is counted twice; [in Verse 5 he is mentioned as Oholibamah’s son while in Verse 16 he is listed as Adah’s son], because he was the youngest of Oholibamah’s sons, [as indicated in Verse 5 where he is mentioned last. Upon his mother’s death] Adah raised him, [which explains why he is mentioned among Adah’s children in Verse 16]. So also the verse, the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul,²⁷⁷II Samuel 21:8. as our Rabbis have said.²⁷⁸Sanhedrin 19 b: “But they were really Merab’s children! [See I Samuel 18:19.] It is because Merab gave birth to them. However Michal raised them; therefore, they are called by her name.”
According to this opinion [of Ibn Ezra, i.e., that because Adah raised Korah he is counted among her children], the explanation of Scripture in the book of Chronicles (I, 1:36), [where it mentions seven sons of Eliphaz, and among them, and Timna and Amalek, while here in Verses 11-12, it mentions only six sons of Eliphaz, is as follows: The expression in Chronicles, and Timna and Amalek, means] that Timna gave birth to Amalek, the sense of the verse thus being, “and to Timna, Amalek.” The letter lamed meaning “to” is missing just as in the verse: And there were two men that were captains of bands Saul’s son,²⁷⁹II Samuel 4:2. which means “to Saul’s son.” [Thus it was Timna who was his mother, but because Adah raised him he is enumerated here in Verse 12 among the sons of Adah].
The correct interpretation however is, as I have suggested, [that Timna, Lotan’s sister, bore Amalek to Eliphaz], and the verse stating, And these are the sons of Adah — [namely, Verse 16, which mentions Amalek among them], refers to the majority of the names mentioned there, for Amalek was not her son. Similarly the verse, These are the sons of Jacob, who were born to him in Padan-aram,²⁸⁰Above, 35:26. does not apply to Benjamin, [who was born in the Land of Israel, although he is mentioned in the enumeration which follows].

ותמנע היתה פילגש, I have found in a Midrash on Psalms (שוחר טוב) that the prefix ו before the word תמנע suggests that this word may be read as part of what follows or as part of what preceded it. In fact, in Chronicles I 1,36 בני אליפז, תימן ואומר צפי וגעתם קנז ותמנע ועמלק it is understood as belonging to verse 11 in our chapter.

ותמנע היתה פלגש, Eliphaz was one of the conquerors of that land and Timna a sister of the אלופים of the original inhabitants of the region fell to him as a conquest and became his concubine.

ותמנע, it is possible that the Timna mentioned here was not a sister of Lotan as opined in the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 82,14) where we were told that this woman’s name and husband is mentioned in order to further illustrate the tremendous esteem in which Avraham had been held internationally at the time. This woman, who was the sister of an Aluf, i.e. a well known dignitary, a man of great prominence, said that seeing she did not have the good fortune to marry a direct descendant of Avraha, she was willing to settle for the lower rank of being a concubine to a son of Esau in order somehow to become a member of this outstanding family.

ותמנע היתה פילגש לאליפז בן עשו. “Timna was a concubine of Eliphaz, son of Esau.” Seeing that the Torah did not mention by name any of the mothers of Esau’s children except this one, Rashi was prompted to explain that Timna was outstanding, as expressed by her urge to marry into Avraham’s family, even to be married to Esau’s son as a concubine, if that was the best she could do. Nachmanides writes that it is possible that the sons of Eliphaz were already well known to him [i.e. he knew who their mothers were. Ed.] seeing their mothers were his real wives. On the other hand, Amalek, the son of a concubine, had to be identified clearly, else we could not have been certain who the father was. Amalek therefore was not included in Esau’s sons (grandsons) as he also did not dwell with his brothers. The Torah has commanded us not to detest the sons of Esau, and not to grab any part of their ancestral lands. This law refers to the known ancestral lands of Esau, the region of Mount Seir. The inhabitants of that region were known as Edomites. The son of the concubine did not reside in that land and was not called Edomite, and this is why there is no contradiction in the Torah having commanded us to wipe out the memory and name of Amalek. Rashi explains that in Chronicles I 1,39 Timna is included without hesitation as one of Eliphaz’s children, something which reveals to us that Eliphaz must have committed incest (adulterous) with the wife of Seir. When she grew up she became the concubine of Eliphaz, and that is the meaning of the words אחות לוטן תמנע, that from the father’s side she was a sister of Lotan. She is not enumerated with the descendants of Seir, as she was only a sister through the mother. Nachmanides does not agree that we can accept an explanation which would result in our accepting that Ezra in Chronicles counted Timna with the male offspring of Eliphaz when she clearly was a daughter and not a son. She should have been identified as Eliphaz’ daughter in Chronicles if Rashi is correct. Perhaps the Bible is not so explicit when the subject is something so well known, [that Timna was a woman. Ed.] We also find Miriam paired with Aaron and Moses in the same line in Chronicles I, 5,29 which would give the impression to the uninitiated that all three were males. The three personages are so familiar to the readers of Chronicles, that Ezra did not see the need to add that Miriam was a woman. At any rate, it is quite unlikely that Timna, not a world famous lady, would be enumerated together with the males. Perhaps we should say, in agreement with our sages, that the Timna mentioned in Chronicles was identical with the Aluf Timna who appears in verse 40 of our chapter, and is enumerated there as one of the sons of Eliphaz, just as the name Korach is also enumerated with the sons of Eliphaz This Korach who was the son of Oholivamah, wife of Esau, was also a mamzer, bastard, born from a forbidden incestuous relationship. He too was not listed with the category he belonged to. According to the plain meaning of the text we would have to say that Timna who was the wife of Eliphaz and bore him Amalek, became pregnant again and experienced a difficult birth as a result of which she died. The Torah did not mention the name of the baby whose birth caused her death. His father may have called that son Korach, a detail that the Torah omitted in order not to make the narrative unduly long. The major purpose of the Torah when narrating all these details was to isolate Amalek in such a way that the subsequent commandment that we are to wipe out the memory of Amalek should not be perceived as contradictory to the Torah’s injunction not to discriminate politically against the family of Esau. The Torah was not concerned with telling us who Amalek’s mother was. While it is true that when the Alufim are enumerated later on, the name Korach appears prior to the name Amalek although he was senior, these Alufim were mentioned in the order of their relative importance. This is also why Kenaz, though younger, was listed ahead of both Korach and Gaaton. I have to add that the verse needs to be understood as follows: “the sons of Eliphaz are Teiman, Omer, Tzfo, Gaaton, Knaz and Timna; i.e. Timna was also one of the sons of Eliphaz.” At that point, the Torah backtracks by saying that Eliphaz, the son of Esau, also had a concubine who bore Amalek for him. The name of the concubine is not mentioned. Actually, this concubine called Timna was a sister of Lotan. The reason why her name was not mentioned where you would have expected it, was that the Torah did not want to confuse the reader by listing two “Timnas” consecutively, one being male the other female. The seven sons of Eliphaz who were named here, appear later under the heading of “Alufey Esau,” ‘the “headmen” of Esau. As to the fact that this name of Timna has been exchanged when the Torah enumerates the “alufim,” this is precisely because his name was the same as that of Eliphaz’ concubine who was not considered a son of his in the regular manner. Hence he was renamed “Korach,” who had been elevated to the status of “Aluf.” Our sages believe that Eliphaz had slept with Oholivamah, the wife of his father, and that the result of this union was Korach. Ibn Ezra considers that Korach was the son of Oholivamah, wife of Esau, and that he is listed as one of her sons.

She said: “I may not merit being married to you, but, if only I could be your concubine.” Otherwise, why does it say, “Timna became a concubine...”? It should just say that Amalek, too, was among Eliphaz’s sons. Why was his mother’s name mentioned, over and above that of Eliphaz’s other sons? Also, what difference does it make if she was Eliphaz’s concubine or his wife? Therefore Rashi explains, “This is to inform us... if only I could be your concubine...” And therefore Rashi explains [on v. 24] that this is why the Torah had to write the families of the Chorites in vs. 29—30. (R. Meir Stern)

In the version in Chronicles, when listing the descendants of the בני שעיר, Timna is again listed in verse 39 as a sister of Lotan. This is parallel to Machalat, the daughter of Yishmael whom Esau married as a concession to his parents’ disgust with his other wives (Genesis 28,9) being described asאחות נביות “a sister to Nevayot, son of Yishmael.” The description of a woman as a sister of her brother rather than as a daughter of her father or mother also occurs in Exodus 15,20 where Miriam is described as Aaron’s sister. What happened here is that the first time Timna is mentioned, she is described in terms of he relationship to Avraham’s family, i.e. as the concubine of a great grandson of Avraham, Eliphaz, son of Esau, whereas the second time Timna is described as a sister of Lotan (verse 22) not genetically related to Avraham at all, but part of the genealogy of the בני שעיר. Such digressions in the sequence of a narrative are not unknown in the Bible. We find the following in Joshua 13,7-8 after G’d had instructed him at the beginning of the chapter to proceed with distributing the land of Israel to the various tribes, ועתה חלק את הארץ הזאת בנחלה לתשעת השבטים וחצי שבט המנשה. עמו הראובני והגדי לקחו נחלתם אשר נתן להם משה בעבר הירדן מזרחה נתן להם משה עבד ה' “Therefore, divide this territory into hereditary portions for the nine tribes and the half tribe of Menashe. Now, the Reubenites and the Gadites, along with the other half tribe of Menashe had already received their shares which Moses assigned to them on the east side of the Jordan- as assigned to them by Moses the servant of the Lord.” There can be no question that something is missing here as part of the second verse. You would have to say that this verse answered the question implied by the first verse, i.e. “what about the other half of the tribe of Menashe?” The reason for this peculiar division in describing the tribal allocation for the tribe of Menashe is that one half of the tribe, i.e. the half mentioned last, received their allocation by the authority of Moses himself, whereas the second half of the tribe received its allocation by the authority of Joshua. I, Samuel, (our author) have found a third verse [in addition to the two mentioned in the Midrash quoted. Ed.] about the genealogy in Chronicles I 8,35-36 where we deal with the family of Yonathan son of King Sha-ul the following: ובני מיכה פיתון ומלך ןתארע ואחז. ואחז הוליד את יהועדה, ויהועדה הוליד את עלמת וגו'.. “The sons of Micah: Pithon, Melech, Taarea, and Achaz. Achaz begot Yehoadah; and Yehoadah begot Alemeth, etc.” This same paragraph is repeated once more in chapter 9,41-43. In that sequence mention of Achaz is missing in the first of the two verses so that he appears out of nowhere in the second verse. Not only that but he is introduced with the connective letter ו, i.e. “and Achaz, etc. We must therefore conclude that the word ואחז הוליד, “and Achaz begot,” answers the verse which had in effect been interrupted in 8,35 with the word אחז. The author takes up the thread interrupted in chapter 8 and fills the reader in about the offspring of Achaz.

אלה בני עדה, “These are the sons of Adah.” .The meaning is that the majority of these listed were her sons, barring Amalek who was not hers.

Indicating that he came upon Seir’s wife... Re’m asks: How does Rashi know that Timna was an illegitimate child? Perhaps Eliphaz took Seir’s wife after Seir’s demise, and begat Timna from her. Maharshal answers: If so, how could Eliphaz’s own daughter publicly become his concubine? But it is understandable if Eliphaz illicitly came upon Seir’s wife, as people would not know that Timna was Eliphaz’s daughter. But it seems to me [that the answer is:] that if Timna was Eliphaz’s [legitimate] daughter, why does it say, “Lotan’s sister was Timna”? It is understandable if she was Eliphaz’s illicit daughter, as people would assume she was Seir’s daughter and thus Lotan’s full sister. And Scripture would be informing us of the greatness of Avraham, [for the sister of Chief Lotan became a concubine to Eliphaz]. But if Eliphaz legitimately begat Timna, and then took her as a concubine because a ben Noach is [technically] permitted to his daughter, why does the verse tell us she was Lotan’s sister? To inform us of Avraham’s greatness? [This cannot be,] because she anyway was known to all as Avraham’s descendant. For Eliphaz legitimately took Seir’s [former] wife and begat Timna from her. Re’m answers: All these families were written here only to tell of their shame and illegitimacy. So wherever the opportunity arises, we attribute it to [their] illicitness.