Комментарий к Берешит 26:10

אחד העם ONE OF THE PEOPLE — the one singled out from the people — viz., the king (cf. Targum).

כמעט שכב אחד העם, the person described here as אחד העם, a euphemistic expression, was the king himself, who was after all, אחד העם, in a unique position compared to the common people. He had considered himself above the law doing whatever he pleased; or he had imagined that seeing that he was the king no one would dream of refusing to sleep with him, on the contrary every woman would be pleased to have been chosen for such an experience and that Yitzchok would be highly honoured to have his sister marry the king.

ויאמר.. כמעט שכב, he meant that it had been very likely that someone among his people would have slept with Rivkah seeing that Yitzchok had represented her as being his sister. They would not have considered such a sexual encounter as something sinful and therefore Yitzchok would have been to blame for any guilt arising from such an encounter.

The one singled out amongst the people, meaning, the king. Rashi knows this because it is written, “You would have brought guilt upon us.” It is understandable if it refers to the king, as a king is referred to in the plural form, as is a prominent man. [Another approach:] It seems to me that Rashi knows this because otherwise it should say אֶחד rather than אַחד. And similarly Rashi explains the verse דן ידין עמו כאַחד (49:16). (Nachalas Yaakov)

אחד העם, “one of the people;” whether an important person or a commoner; the word occurs in this sense in Samuel I 26,15.

והבאת עלינו אשם AND YOU WOULD HAVE BROUGHT GUILT UPON US — If he had lain with her already, YOU WOULD HAVE BROUGHT GUILT UPON US.

והבאת עלינו אשם, by misrepresenting who Rivkah was, you, Yitzchok, almost made us guilty of a sin, for if the outstanding citizen of this land would have taken her, this would have caused also his subjects to be punished. This is the reason why he said: עלינו, “upon us,” instead of עליו, “upon himself.”

Had he had relations, you already would have brought guilt upon us. והבאת cannot be future tense because it says שכב which is [clearly] past tense. A further reason [it cannot be future tense]: Avimelech had them announce that she is Yitzchok’s wife [and that whoever touches her shall die]. As a result, no one would sleep with her. (Nachalas Yaakov)

והבאת עלינו אשם, “and you would have brought guilt upon us.” He referred to the pact of friendship between Avraham and Avimelech’s father.” [The name “Avimelech,” presumably is a title, just as Pharaoh was a title for every King of Egypt. Ed.] Violating an oath requires a guilt offering in Jewish law, compare Leviticus 5, 2425.