Комментарий к Берешит 26:41

BESIDE THE FIRST FAMINE THAT WAS IN THE DAYS OF ABRAHAM. Perhaps¹⁰³“Perhaps.” Since in Bereshith Rabbah 25:3, it is stated that there were ten famines in the world, the first one having been in the days of Adam, Ramban writes, “Perhaps,” meaning that a famine of such magnitude had never occurred before the days of Abraham, and this explains why Scripture uses it as a reference point. there was no famine in the world until the days of Abraham. This is why Scripture counts from it, for otherwise, what need is there to mention it? In my opinion the correct reason why Scripture mentions it is to tell us that people remembered the first famine, mentioning that on account of it Abraham went down to Egypt and there G-d did him great honor. It was for this reason that Isaac wanted to go in his father’s footsteps by descending into Egypt until it was said to him, Go not down into Egypt.¹⁰⁴Verse 2 here. The reason for the prohibition has been stated by our Rabbis: “You [Isaac] are a perfect burnt-offering and residence outside of the Land of Israel does not befit you.”¹⁰⁵Quoted by Rashi in this form. The source is in Bereshith Rabbah.
In my opinion, there is also included in this subject a reference to the future. Abraham’s exile into Egypt on account of the famine is an allusion to the exile of his children there.¹⁰⁶See Ramban above, 12:10, for complete exposition of this subject. His going to Abimelech¹⁰⁷Chapter 20. however was not an exile for he resided there of his own volition. But Isaac’s going [to the land of Abimelech, as recorded here in this verse, And Isaac went unto Abimelech] on account of the famine, does allude to an exile since he left his place against his will and went to another land. Now Isaac’s exile was from his own place to the land of the Philistines, which was the land in which his father had resided. This alludes to the Babylonian Exile, which took place in the land in which their ancestors had resided, namely, Ur of the Chaldees.¹⁰⁸In view of the fact that Ramban, at the end of Seder Noach (11:28), states his opinion at length that Abraham’s birthplace was not Ur of the Chaldees, it is necessary to say that the author’s reference here is to the time when Terah, his father, took him there, and while being there his life was saved by a miracle. See Ramban there at the end of Verse 28.
Know further that this Babylonian Exile mentioned is mirrored in the events which befell Isaac in that they did not take his wife¹⁰⁹As they did to Abraham in Egypt. (12:15). in the land of the Philistines. Rather, his lot there was only exile and fear. At the beginning Abimelech said, He that toucheth this man or his wife shall surely be put to death.¹¹⁰Further, Verse 11. Later he regretted it and said, Go from us.¹¹¹Verse 16 here. Afterwards, he returned and made a covenant with Isaac¹¹²Verses 25-31 here. Similarly, in the Babylonian Exile, they were exiled there because of the burning heat of famine,¹¹³Lamentations 5:10. and while there, they were neither subjugated, nor were they treated harshly. On the contrary, their leaders were princes in the government. Later on, they said, Whosoever there is among you of all His people — his G-d be with him — let him go up,¹¹⁴Ezra 1:3. even alerting the princes and governors beyond the River¹¹⁵Euphrates. The term “beyond the River” here applies to the region beyond the River westward from the standpoint of those in Babylonia or Persia. to help them. Later on, they ceased work [on the House of G-d in Jerusalem] , and it ceased “for a season and a time.”¹¹⁶See Ezra 4:24 and Daniel 7:12. Later, they again changed their policy and gave permission for the construction of the House of G-d, saying, That they may offer sacrifices of sweet savor unto the G-d of heaven, and pray for the life of the king and his sons.¹¹⁷Ezra 6:10.

מלבד הרעב הראשון אשר היה בימי אברהם, as we read in Genesis 12,10. There was no need for this phrase except to inform us that just as his father Avraham had traveled to Egypt on account of a famine, so now his son was about to emulate his father and to travel to Egypt by way of the land of the Philistines. This was the shortest route to Egypt, as we know from Exodus 13,17. G’d told him not to go to Egypt as he knew what his plans were.

אשר היה בימי אברהם, ever since that time there had not been as severe a famine in the Land Of Canaan as there was at the time the Torah speaks of here, a famine severe enough to cause the inhabitants of the land to migrate in search of food.

ויהי רעב בארץ, in the land of Canaan.

מלבד הרעב הראשון, “in addition to the first famine, etc.” Nachmanides, basing himself on the word הראשון, “the first ever,” speculates that the famine in Avraham’s time may have been the first famine on record in antiquity. If not, why was there a need to once more refer to a famine, which, at this time, does not interest the reader at all? It is possible that the reason that the Torah does refer to the previous famine is that people in Yitzchok’s generation still recalled the famine which had occurred some 70-80 years earlier, and they recalled that Avraham had moved to Egypt at the time on account of that famine. They also remembered that Avraham had become a very wealthy man during his stay in Egypt, and had even retained all that newly acquired wealth despite his confrontation with the Pharaoh of Egypt. It was natural then to expect that like father like son, Yitzchok too, would move to Egypt to await the end of the famine there. This is why G’d told him not to leave the Holy Land, or, more specifically, not to move to Egypt. G’d added that He would extend His blessing to him. He renewed the oath He had sworn to Avraham at the time. Rashi explains the reason why Yitzchok was not to descend to Egypt being the fact that someone who had been a burnt offering on the altar on the Holy Mount Moriah is not to demean himself by leaving the Holy Land. Other commentators feel that G’d stopped Yitzchok from traveling to Egypt because in the Heavenly Court the decree that the Jewish people would be enslaved in Egypt had already been promulgated, so that if he had traveled there he could not have left until the end of that period of enslavement. Nachmanides writes that G’d’s directive to Yitzchok was also a סימן, a historical preview of what the Jewish people would experience when the time came, i.e. that any move to Egypt was a move to eventual exile, and that Yitzchok’s sojourn in the part of the Holy Land occupied by the Philistines under Avimelech was not considered as part of that exile. The very fact that our patriarchs resided in that land is proof that it is ancestral land and will forever remain part of the Holy Land promised to Avraham by G’d. The fact remains that in spite of Avimelech having been a partner of Avraham in a non-aggression pact extending for 3 generations, this did not prevent him or his son from expelling Yitzchok. Eventually,.Avimelech personally, did not harm Yitzchok seeing he had sworn an oath of friendship to Avraham; His subjects, however, did what they could to make life miserable for Yitzchok. The Jewish exile experience in Babylonia is compared to Yitzchok’s experience in the land of the Philistines, welcome turning into hatred and even the destruction of our Temple by the Babylonians. This was followed by another change of heart, this time by the Persians. [Rabbi Chavell traces the Ramban’s historical analysis by quoting both from the Book of Ezra and the Book of Daniel. Ed.] At any rate, the Philistines remembered that G’d had protected Avraham against outrages done by both the Egyptians and the previous Avimelch, so that they were careful not to harass him too much.

Seit das Land Abraham zum einstigen Besitze verheißen worden, sehen wir dasselbe wiederholt von Hungersnot heimgesucht, eben das Land, das bestimmt war von Milch und Honig überzufließen. Denn die Blüte dieses Landes soll nicht bloß durch die Arbeit des Menschen und die Gunst der Natur, sondern in erster Linie durch die Sittlichkeit und Rechtschaffenheit seiner Bewohner bedingt sein. "Es speit die Bewohner aus, sobald sie sittlich entarten". Sowie das Volk ursprünglich ein "hartes", schwer zu gewinnendes Volk, durch die Macht des Gesetzes das Gottesvolk wurde, so war auch sein Boden an sich hart und unfruchtbar, der Hungersnot preisgegeben, und nur eben durch die Macht desselben Gesetzes zum Lande der Fülle und des Segens zu umwandeln. Garisim und Ebal, das ist das Bild der Alternative, zwischen welche das Volk von vornherein gestellt war; wüste Öde der eine, üppige Blüte der andere. Und auf Ebal, den öden, ward der Altar der Thora gebaut. Denn völlig voraussetzungslos soll durch das Gesetz ein Ebal zum Garisim werden. Land und Volk gehören innig zusammen, keines erreicht die Blüte ohne das andere.

ויהי רעב בארץ, there was a famine in the land (Canaan); Yitzchok thought [that this was a signal] that the exile of Avraham’s descendants [predicted to him] was about to begin; this is why he headed for Egypt. G-d told him not to proceed to Egypt but to remain within the boundaries of the land of Canaan. (Philistine region) He indicated to him that the exile in Egypt was not yet about to commence.

וילך יצחק אל אבימלך, in order to obtain a permit to stay in his country. This teaches us that Yitzchok possessed good manners, seeing he could have claimed this as a right under the treaty between Avraham and Avimelech.

מלבד, meaning that since the last mentioned famine in Genesis chapter 12, there had not been another famine in the land of Canaan. The only reason Avraham had left the land of Canaan at that time had been the famine, and his desire to save the vast herds of cattle and sheep owned by him at that time.

TO ABIMELECH, KING OF THE PHILISTINES. It is not known whether this is the same Abimelech who lived in the days of Abraham¹⁰⁷Chapter 20. or whether every Philistine king was so called, for in the time of David he was also called Abimelech.¹¹⁸Psalms 34:1. Onkelos, however, is of the opinion that the Abimelech with whom Isaac dealt was a son [of the one mentioned in the account of Abraham].¹¹⁹Ramban refers to Onkelos’ translation of Verse 28, Let there be now an oath between us, and thee, which Onkelos translates as follows: “Let there be now an oath which was between our fathers between us and thee.” Thus Onkelos states that the present Abimelech was a son of the one who lived in the days of Isaac’s father.
The reason that Isaac went to Abimelech was that he intended to go down to Egypt, so he went to Abimelech, his father’s confederate, in the hope that perhaps he would deal kindly with him in the days of the famine, thus making it unnecessary for him to go down to Egypt. Now Abimelech, on account of his covenant with Abraham, did not harm him or his family at all. However, the men of the place¹²⁰Verse 7 here. asked Isaac, in mere quest, concerning his wife, and he said, She is my sister.¹²⁰Verse 7 here. Even so, neither the king nor any of his men touched her for they remembered the affair of Abraham.¹⁰⁷Chapter 20. Hence Abimelech said, One of the people might lightly have lain,¹²¹Verse 10 here. meaning to say, “I Abimelech did not touch her, and I was careful concerning her, but one of the men of the land might easily have stumbled, and then you would have made us incur guilt, as we sinned in the matter of your father.”

מלבד הרעב הראשון, “in addition to the previous famine,” (in his father’s lifetime) According to some commentators this was already the second famine in Yitzchok’s lifetime.

וילך יצחק, Yitzchok, relying on the treaty between his father and Avimelech the King of the Land of the Philistines, considered it the natural thing to do to move to the region ruled over by Avimelech in order to sojourn there until the famine would pass. Avimelech at that time had stipulated that the treaty between them would remain in force for grandchildren and great grandchildren of the signatories. (21,23)

וילך יצחק אל אבימלך, “Yitzchok went to Avimelech” (whose land had not been affected, and with whom Avraham had made a reciprocal treaty.)

מלך פלשתים גררה, “the King of the Philistines whose capital was in G’ror.” At that time it had still been Yitzchok’s intention to use the land of the Philistines as a shortcut to Egypt. (Compare Exodus 13,17 where G-d did not use the land of the Philistines as a shortcut to lead the Israelites to the land of Canaan.)

אל תרד מצרימה GO NOT DOWN INTO EGYPT — Because he thought of going down to Egypt as his father had gone down in time of famine. He said to him, “Do not go down to Egypt for you are a burnt-offering without blemish and residence outside the Holy Land is not befitting you” (Genesis Rabbah 64:3).

DWELL IN THE LAND WHICH I SHALL TELL THEE OF. It is incomprehensible that G-d should tell Isaac at one time, Dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of, [and in the following verse continue], Sojourn in this land,¹²²Verse 3 here. [and in both cases be referring to the same land]. Instead, its explanation is as follows: “Go not down into Egypt, and dwell all your days in the land which I shall tell you from time to time. At the bidding of G-d you should move, and at the bidding of G-d you should encamp,¹²³See Numbers 9:18. and right now, sojourn in this land, the land of the Philistines, for unto thee and unto thy seed I will give it, even as it is written, Counted to the Canaanites are the five lords of the Philistines.”¹²⁴Joshua 13:3.
It is possible that [the event referred to in the beginning of the verse], And the Lord appeared unto him, and said … dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of, happened earlier so that before Isaac left his place it was said to him, “Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of when you will be there. Now dwell in this land, the land of Canaan, which will comprise many peoples and many lands, for I now command that you should not leave it forever for all these lands will I give to thy seed.” Following this command, Isaac journeyed from his place because of the famine to go into all the lands of Canaan, to dwell in the land which He would tell him. And when he came to Gerar, He said to him, “Dwell here.” It was not necessary however for Scripture to detail this for it is known that Isaac would not transgress the command of G-d.¹²⁵Therefore, when Scripture wrote that Isaac was given the charge, Dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of, he left his place and went searching within the land of Canaan for a new home. When he finally reached Gerar he was told, Sojourn in this land. Thus Ramban explains that there was a lapse of [[illegible]] Verses 2 and 3. The original difficulty which Ramban mentions at the beginning of his comments on this verse is thus removed. A similar case of interpretation appears in the verse, Upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of,¹²⁶Above, 22:2. as I mentioned there.

אל תרד מצרימה, do not let the shortage of grass to feed your livestock be the cause of moving to Egypt. (as the sons of Yaakov claimed in 47,4 to explain why they had moved to Egypt.)

שכון בארץ אשר אמר אליך. "Dwell in the land I shall tell you to." This was a general directive to accept G'd's instructions where he was to take up residence even if it conflicted with his own wishes. G'd told him this in order to be able to reward him for obeying. G'd had done something similar when He told Abraham in 12,1 that he was to go to a place G'd would designate (in the future). Five verses later on G'd specified the land, i.e. "the land of Canaan," something He could have done immediately were it not for the fact that He wanted Abraham to accumulate merit for obeying His directive.

וירא, perhaps it had been part of Yitzchok’s plan to move all the way to Egypt as had done his father in similar circumstances, knowing that the food supply in Egypt was more abundant than that in any other country in the civilised world at the time. G’d appeared to him, meaning to dissuade him from carrying out such a plan, seeing that in the Land of the Philistines there was no famine at the time. In view of this, G’d said it would be better for him to reside there on a temporary basis than to move all the way south to Egypt. The Land of the Philistines is historically considered as part of the Land of Canaan as we have written in connection with 15,21 in reference to 15,18. G’d repeats this in verse 3 so that there could be no doubt about it [as some of us might have thought after considering that Avraham might have signed it away when he concluded his treaty with Avimelech at Beer Sheva. Ed.]

שכון בארץ אשר אומר אליך, “reside in the land which I will tell you about.” Nachmanides explains that the negative “do not go down to Egypt,” was not followed immediately by a directive to settle in Gerar, but that the words “reside in the land which I will tell you,” were a sort of hint that in due course G’d would give more specific instructions. In this respect Yitzchok’s experience paralleled that of his father, who also traveled through different parts of the Holy Land in order to have already established a presence there when the time would come for G’d’s promise to give the entire land to his descendants to be fulfilled. It goes without saying that Yitzchok complied with G’d’s directive until G’d eventually told him to settle in Gerar.

For you are a burnt-offering without blemish and being outside the [Holy] Land does not befit you. I.e., a burnt-offering is a kodshei kodoshim sacrifice and may not be taken outside the Temple Courtyard. Similarly, the Land of Israel is your “Temple Courtyard”; you may not go outside the Land.

Aus Raw Hirsch on Genesis 26: 3 ist ersichtlich, dass Jizchak die Absicht hatte, nach Mizrajim, der gewöhnlichen Zuflucht vor Hungersnot, zu gehen. Er ging zuerst zum Abimelech, dem Bundesgenossen seines Vaters, wie es scheint, um womöglich durch ihn Hülfe zu finden. Es war aber auch dort die Not. Da erschien ihm Gott mit der Weisung, keinen menschlichen Schutz zu suchen. Sein Acker sei die Pflege des Gottesgehorsams. שכון, wohne ruhig, ist mehr als גור und weniger als ישב. Wiederholt הארצות האל, gerade diese Länder, die du so wiederholt der Hungersnot erliegen siehst, gebe ich dir und deinen Nachkommen, damit, durch Befolgung meiner Gesetze, dort sich eine solche Blüte entfalte, dass dadurch alle Völker der Erde sich veranlaßt sehen werden, bei euch und in Befolgung eures Beispiels die Wege zu suchen und zu betreten, durch welche der Mensch Selbftschöpfer seines Segens wird.

שכון בארץ אשר אומר אליך, make huts for the shepherds and pens your livestock in the places which I will specify for you.

שכון בארץ אשר אמר אליך, in this verse the instruction is שכון, “make a permanent residence,” whereas in verse 3 the same instruction speaks of גור בארץ, “establish a temporary residence.” The commandment is reinforced that Yitzchok should not leave the Land of Canaan at that time or at any time in the future, the reason being

אשר אומר אליך, what I have said to your father is equally valid for you.

האל is the same as האלה THESE.

AND I WILL FULFILL THE OATH WHICH I SWORE UNTO ABRAHAM THY FATHER. There is no need for the Holy One, blessed be He, to assure Isaac that He will not violate the oath which He swore to his father, for He is not a man, that He should repent.¹²⁷I Samuel 15:29. Abraham had no other seed upon whom a covenant had been established with G-d except Isaac. The oath, moreover, was not given on condition. In the case of Jacob,¹²⁸Further, 35:12. And [[illegible]] land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac, to thee will I give it. it was necessary that he be given such assurance on account of his brother Esau. He was thus saying that in him [Jacob] and his seed will the covenant be fulfilled, not in Esau. [But in the case of Isaac, why was it necessary that he be given such a promise?]
It would appear then that this expression, Vehakimothi eth hashevuah, is itself an oath.¹²⁹It is thus to be translated, And I will ‘establish’ the oath. This is now found in most English translations. It is for this reason that the Torah always says, The land which I swore unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob;¹³⁰Deuteronomy 34:4. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Thy servants, to whom Thou didst swear by Thine own self.¹³¹Exodus 32:13. For we find no source for an oath having been given to Isaac except this verse.
Now it was the desire of the Holy One, blessed be He, to swear to each one of the patriarchs to let it be known that each one was worthy of the covenant being made with him alone, and that the merit of each one stands before Him together with their seed. Even though the previous one suffices, it is an additional merit and honor to them.¹³²That is, their descendants. It is for this reason He said, Then will I remember My covenant with Jacob, and also My covenant with Isaac, and also My covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land,¹³³Leviticus 26:42. since all of them had the distinction of G-d having made a covenant with them.
It is possible that He promised something additional to Isaac through this oath, namely, that He will fulfill in him himself, the oath He had sworn to Abraham his father, i.e., that he [Isaac] will be a blessing among the nations, even as He said to Abraham his father, And all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves with thy seed.¹³⁴Above, 22:18. The explanation of the verse before us will thus be: “And I will fulfill in thee the oath which I swore unto Abraham thy father since you will be a blessing among the nations.” Similarly, He also says in the case of Jacob, And in thee and in thy seed shall all of the families of the earth be blessed.¹³⁵Further, 28:14.

'כי לך ולזרעך וגו, because I have given him and his descendants this land, I have now commanded you not to leave this land which I described as the land I will show you, etc.” in Genesis 12,1.

גור בארץ הזאת, I want you to stay in this country,

כי לך ולזרעך אתן, "for I shall give to you and to your descendants, etc." The land of the Philistines was included in the this gift of the land. Nachmanides also understands our verse in that sense. He writes that the reason G'd said "to you" i.e. not only to Isaac's descendants, may have accounted for the phenomenal success Isaac experienced when he planted in the land of the Philistines (26,12). G'd also intended to tell Isaac that he would be farming successfully there. [after all, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were shepherds not tillers of the soil. Ed.] Perhaps it was because Abraham at the time had failed to establish himself on the soil of the land of the Philistines that G'd told Isaac that he would stake a better claim to that land by ploughing and sowing it. This is why G'd was specific in speaking about כל הארצות האל, "all of these lands."

גור...לך ולזרעך, I have already explained this in connection with the previous verse.

והקימותי את השבועה אשר נשבעתי לאברהם אביך, “so that I can fulfill the oath I have sworn to your father Avraham.” There is, of course, no need for G’d to give an assurance that He will not renege on His oath. Besides, Avraham did not have any other seed which would qualify for the promise of G’d to give the land to Yitzchok’s offspring to create doubt to whom G’d would give the land. After all, only he was in a covenantal relationship with G’d. When it came to G’d repeating His promise to Yaakov, in due course, this was necessary in order to make clear that Esau, though included in the promise: “your seed will be known through Yitzchok” did not automatically exclude Esau. The meaning of והקימותי את השבועה וגו' therefore is that G’d swears a separate oath to Yitzchok concerning who He will give the land of Israel to. When we read in Exodus 33,1 Numbers 32 11, and Deuteronomy 34,4 the formulaאשר נשבעתי לאברהם, ליצחק, וליעקב, we would be hard pressed to find where exactly G’d swore such an oath to Yitzchok, if not in our verse here. It is also possible that the reason why Yitzchok was added to be a beneficiary of G’d’s oath was in order to confer upon him also the blessing which G’d had bestowed at the beginning of chapter 12, i.e. that just as Avraham was to be a blessing for the nations, so his son Yitzchok’s very existence would do the same for the nations of the earth. G’d had promised that the nations of the earth would be blessed through Avraham’s seed; now the same blessing was in effect for the seed of Yitzchok.. Accordingly, the meaning of the entire verse would be: “I will keep My oath to Avraham your father through you. The same promise was repeated in due course to Yaakov when the time was ripe for that.

'והקימותי את השבועה וגו, “and I will keep My oath,etc.” 'ונתתי לזרעך וגו, “I will give to your descendants, etc;” by repeating this oath, G-d specifically excluded Yishmael’s descendants from this promise. This was in spite of the fact that Yishmael was a descendant of Yitzchok’s father Avraham.

ואהיה עמך ואברכך and even though there is presently a shortage of grazing land, if you stay where I tell you to your livestock will prosper.

G'd also wanted to assure Isaac that Ishmael would not share in any of the promises made by Him to Abraham. This is why G'd stressed the word לך, "to you." G'd added the word ולזרעך, "and to your seed," to exclude children of Isaac who would not qualify as his seed in the spiritual sense of the word. This is similar to G'd having told Abraham (21,12) "through Isaac will your seed be known." Nedarim 31 derives from that wording that not all of Isaac's seed would be worthy.

ואברכך, I will bless you both in money and livestock, on condition that you remain in this country.

The reason is that כי לך ולזרעך אתן את כל הארצות האל והקימותי את השבועה, the reason I tell you all this is because here I will keep My oath to Avraham your father to give him and his descendants this land. While you will reside in this land you will be treated like a prince among them. You will acquire title to this land thanks to your lengthy unbroken residence on it.

והתברכו בזרעך AND IN THY SEED SHALL BLESS THEMSELVES — A man will say to his son, “May your seed be as the seed of Isaac”. Such is the meaning of this phrase wherever it occurs in the entire Scriptures. The following passage is that from which this meaning may be derived for all such passages: (47:20) “By thee shall all Israel bless their children saying, “May God make thee [as Ephraim and Manasseh]”. So, too, in the case of a curse do we find a similar idea: (Numbers 5:27) “And the woman shall become a curse”, meaning that one who curses his enemy will say “May you be like such and such a woman”. Similar, also, is (Isaiah 65:15) “And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto mine elect”, meaning that one who takes an oath will say “May I be like such-and-such a person if I have really done so-and-so”.

והרבתי...ונתתי לך לזרעך, for them it will be an outright gift as they will not only dwell there but will expel the gentiles from this land. The word זרעך is intended to apply to the descendants of Yaakov, seeing that this is the only seed common to Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov. והתברכו, I have explained this on 23,18.

A man will say to his son, “May your children be like the children of Yitzchok.” Rashi is explaining that the nations will receive oral blessings [from one another], not that they will become blessed because your children [are a source of blessing for them]. For then it should say והתברכו מזרעך.

הארצות האל, “these lands;” this was to make plain that the lands over which the King of the Philistines ruled at that time were included in the land G-d had promised to the descendants of Avraham. Our author had already explained this in his commentary on Genesis 22,1.

The word: האל, is an allusion to the 31 Kings Joshua would defeat and whose lands he would conquer after Moses’ death.

והתברכו בזרעך, “and through your descendants will be blessed;” Rabbi Yoseph son of Tuviah said: “through your descendants all the nations of the world will receive genetic input.” As we learned in the Mishnah (Sotah 43) אחד המבריך ואחד המרכיב, it does not matter whether he bends or grafts the vine.

שמע אברהם בקלי ABRAHAM HEARKENED TO MY VOICE when I put him to the test.

AND HE KEPT MY CHARGE. Rashi comments: “As a reward that Abraham hearkened to My voice when I tested him. And he kept My charge — these are the precautionary decrees instituted by the Sages, which are intended to make us avoid the violation of Biblical laws, such as Second Degrees of forbidden marriages and certain prohibited acts on the Sabbath. My commandments — these are precepts which, had they not been written in the Torah, were requisite to have been written, such as robbery and murder. My statutes — these are matters against which the evil inclination and the heathen nations argue, such as the prohibitions against eating the swine and the wearing of garments woven of wool and linen, there being no apparent rationale for them except that they are decrees of the King imposed on His subjects. And My laws — the plural is intended to include, [besides the Written Law], the Oral Law as well as those rules given to Moses from Sinai.” [Thus far the words of Rashi.]
Now if so, all this interpretation is posited on the opinion that Abraham fulfilled and observed the Torah before it was given on Sinai. This is indeed what the Sages of the Midrash said in connection with the verse, And Joseph gave them ‘agaloth’ (wagons),¹³⁶Ibid., 45:21. The word agaloth (wagons) may also mean “heifers,” thus suggesting that as a mark of identification to his father, Joseph gave his brothers a reference to the law of the Heifer (Deuteronomy 21:6) which he studied with his father just before he became separated from him. The Midrash referred to is in Bereshith Rabbah 95:2. thereby indicating to his father that when he left him they were studying the section dealing with Eglah Arufah.¹³⁷See Deuteronomy 21:1-9. Thus Joseph occupied himself with Torah just as his fathers did. Though the Torah had not yet been given, it is still written of Abraham, And he kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.¹³⁸Thus far the Midrash in Bereshith Rabbah, 95:2. There the Sages also said¹³⁹Bereshith Rabbah, ibid. that Abraham observed the details of the Torah, which he taught to his children, etc.¹⁴⁰To his children, as it is said, For I know him that he will command his children and his household after him, etc. (Above, 18:19.) Bereshith Rabbah, ibid.
The question presents itself: If it be the case [that the laws of the Torah were observed by our ancestors before the Torah was given on Sinai], how did Jacob erect a pillar¹⁴¹Further, 28:18. This is forbidden in Deuteronomy 16:22. and marry two sisters in their lifetime,¹⁴²Forbidden in Leviticus 18:18. and, in the opinion of our Rabbis, four sisters.¹⁴³According to Bereshith Rabbah 74:11, Bilhah and Zilpah were also daughters of Laban. Thus Jacob married four sisters: Leah, Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah. Also, Amram [Moses’ father] married his aunt,¹⁴⁴Exodus 6:20. and Moses our teacher erected twelve pillars.¹⁴⁵Ibid., 24:4. How then was it possible that they should be permissive in matters of Torah which Abraham their ancestor had prohibited on himself, and for which G-d appointed him reward, when he [Abraham] was wont to command his children and his household after him¹⁴⁶Above, 18:19. to walk in His ways? In the case of Jacob the Sages taught that he observed the Sabbath and established borders for Sabbath distances.¹⁴⁷Bereshith Rabbah 79:7. In this matter of the Sabbath it is possible though that Jacob observed it because it is equal in importance to the entire Torah since it testifies to the act of Creation.
Perhaps then we should say that My charge refers to the Second Degree of marriages which were forbidden to the Sons of Noah;¹⁴⁸See Seder Bereshith, Note 222, and Seder Vayishlach, Note 148. My commandments applies to robbery and murder; My statutes refers to the laws against eating a limb torn off from a live animal, as well as breeding mixed kinds of cattle or grafting together different species of trees; and My laws refer to civil statutes and the prohibitions against idol worship. The Sons of Noah were commanded concerning all of these matters, and Abraham observed and fulfilled the Will of his Creator, observing even the details and the strictures of their commandments, even as the Sages mentioned: “The tractate of idolatry of our father Abraham contained four hundred chapters.”¹⁴⁹Abodah Zarah 14b. They further expounded [on the verse referring to Isaac, which says], And he found in that year a hundredfold,¹⁵⁰Further, Verse 12. that he measured the produce for the purpose of tithing,¹⁵¹Bereshith Rabbah 64:6. since the patriarchs were the generous ones of the peoples,¹⁵²Psalms 47:10. giving tithes to the poor or the priests of G-d, such as Shem and Eber and their disciples, just as it is said, And he was a priest of the most high G-d.¹⁵³Above, 14:18. Reference is to Melchizedek, whom tradition identifies as Shem, the son of Noah. See Ramban, ibid.
Now it appears to me from a study of the opinions of our Rabbis that Abraham our father learned the entire Torah by Ruach Hakodesh¹⁵⁴See Note 90. and occupied himself with its study and the reason for its commandments and its secrets, and he observed it in its entirety as “one who is not commanded but nevertheless observes it.”¹⁵⁵The concept of “one who is not commanded but observes” is found in the Talmud (Kiddushin 31 a). His reward is less than that of “one who is commanded and observes.” (Ibid.) The reason for it, as explained in Tosafoth, is that he who is commanded to do a certain mitzvah (commandment) is under tension lest he might not properly fulfill it, while he who is not commanded therein has no responsibility in the matter and may leave it at his will. Consequently, his reward is less. Furthermore, his observance of the Torah applied only in the Land of Israel, whereas Jacob married two sisters only when outside the Land,¹⁵⁶See Leviticus 18:25 where Ramban extends the explanation further by saying that the reason Rachel died as they entered the Land of Israel (35:16-19) was that she was the sister whom Jacob married last. and similarly with Amram who married his aunt. For the Commandments are the ordinance of the G-d of the land,¹⁵⁷II Kings 17:26. even though we have been charged with personal duties in all places. Our Rabbis have already alluded to this secret, and I will yet call your attention to it with the help of G-d.¹⁵⁸See Ramban on Leviticus 18:25. And the matter of the erection of the pillar [by Jacob and Moses referred to above] was a commandment that was innovated at a certain time, as the Sages expounded from the verse, “Neither shalt thou set up a pillar which the Eternal thy G-d hateth,¹⁵⁹Deuteronomy 16:22. He hated it although it was pleasing to Him in the days of the ancestors.”¹⁶⁰Ibid., Sifre. The reason for the change being that the Canaanites afterward had made it an ordinance of idol worship. And with respect to Joseph concerning whom the Sages expounded that he observed the Sabbath even in Egypt,¹⁶¹Bereshith Rabbah 92:4. it was because it is equal in importance to all the commandments, constituting, as it does, a testimony to Creatio ex nihilo.¹⁶²In Hebrew, chiddush (new), thus implying that G-d created a new world out of an absolute void. Therefore Joseph would do so in order to teach his children faith in the Creation of the world, to remove from their hearts the false doctrine of idolatry and the opinion of the Egyptians. This then is the intent [of the Sages when speaking of the patriarchs and their children observing the Torah].
In accordance with the literal meaning of Scripture, you may say that My charge means faith in the Deity, implying that Abraham believed in the unique Divine Name and kept vigilant guard over it in his heart, differing thereby with the worshippers of idols, and calling by the name of the Eternal to bring many to His worship. My commandments refers to all that G-d commanded Abraham: Go out of thy land,¹⁶³Above, 12:1. the bringing of his son as a burnt-offering, and the expulsion of the maid-servant and her son.¹⁶⁴Ibid., 21:12. My statutes refers to walking in the paths of G-d by being gracious and merciful, doing righteousness and judgment,¹⁶⁵See Maimonides, “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 11-12 Soncino edit. Positive Commandment 8. and commanding his children and his household concerning them.¹⁶⁶Above, 18:19. And My Laws refers to the circumcision of Abraham himself and his sons and his servants, as well as all Commandments of the Sons of Noah¹⁴⁸See Seder Bereshith, Note 222, and Seder Vayishlach, Note 148. which constitute their Law.

בקולי , a reference to the binding of Yitzchok where the Torah had used the expression (22,18) עקב אשר שמעת בקולי, “as a consequence of your heeding My instructions.

עקב אשר שמע אברהם בקולי, in accordance with all that I commanded him;

שמע אברהם בקולי, "Abraham hearkened to My voice." He successfully passed all the tests I subjected him to; וישמור משמרתי, he was careful not to transgress anything l had commanded him even unintentionally, through momentary carelessness. וחוקותי, these are the commandments that appear to be without logical foundations. תורתי, "he studied My commandments in order not to forget them," just as Moses commanded Israel in Deut. 4,9.

עקב אשר שמע אברהם, the reason why I have given him the land is because he heeded my voice even to the extent of offering his only son as a burnt-offering.

עקב אשר שמע אברהם בקולי וישמר משמרתי, “as a result of Avraham heeding My instructions and observing My directives.” Rashi understands the word בקולי as referring to such instructions as offering his son as a sacrifice, whereas the word משמרתי is supposed to refer to rules governing incest with blood relations of the second tier of relatives, and such rules as adding a few minutes to the Sabbath before it actually begins, and similar Rabbinic prohibitions ensuring the sanctity of the Sabbath will not be violated inadvertently, i.e. שבות. Nachmanides queries this, writing that if it were correct, then, if indeed Avraham kept not only the 613 commandments but also Rabbinic regulations, how could Yaakov have been allowed to marry two sisters while both were alive? How could he have erected a מצבה, seeing that the Torah prohibits the erecting of such monuments? How could Amram have married his aunt Yocheved the daughter of Levi? If the fathers and grandfathers of these people had already adopted these Rabbinic rules, surely their children and grandchildren would have been obligated to observe them also? After all G’d specifically revealed certain aspects of His manner of meting out justice “in order that Avraham teach his descendants to emulate the ways of the Lord!?” (Genesis 18,19) One could answer that the word משמרתי refers to the 7 Noachide commandments, laws to which all of mankind is committed. and that the additional words חקות, refer to the prohibition of crossbreeding, and the word מצוותי to finer points of the law, as well as the word תורתי referring to the establishment of courts, the banning of idolatry, etc. The fact is that according to our sages, the wagons Joseph sent to transport his father on his journey to Egypt, were to symbolically remind his father that he had not forgotten the law of עגלה ערופה, the last lesson his father had instructed him in before his fateful journey to Shechem. (compare Deuteronomy 21,1-9) It is clear from what our sages have described that they all agreed that Avraham observed the Sabbath meticulously with all its details, as he had divined G’d’s intention through his holy spirit. However, he did so as something voluntary; He therefore observed these commandments revealed in the Torah later only while he was on Holy Soil, in the land of Israel. The statement that someone kept all the mitzvoth such as Joseph in Egypt, is most likely to be understood as Joseph observing the Sabbath, and thus observing the whole Torah, as in the parlance of our sages Sabbath observance is equivalent to observance of the entire Torah. From the perspective of the plain meaning of the text, the peshat, the word משמרתי refers to basic belief in the sole Creator, something that drove him to preach monotheism publicly, and to decry all forms of idolatry. He was the first “evangelist” preaching G’d’s attributes since Chanoch, emphasizing the benevolent nature of G’d, and His love for His creatures. The word מצותי refers to Avraham’s suppressing his own feelings when carrying out G’d’s command to offer his only son Yitzchok as a total burnt offering to this G’d.. He expelled his maidservant Hagar against his own better judgment, in order to comply with G’d’s orders. The word חוקותי refers to his emulating G’d’s attributes, being hospitable, charitable, etc, to the deserving and the not so deserving. Finally, the word תורותי, refers to his performing circumcision on himself and all members of his household, and teaching this rite as a condition of calling oneself a true descendant of Avraham.

עקב אשר שמע אברהם בקולי, "“because Avraham was obedient to Me.” This is the source of our sages in Nedarim 32 claiming that Avraham recognized his Maker when only three years old. He had lived for 175 years. When you add up the numerical value of the letters in the word עקב, you get 172. If you deduct this number from 175, the resulting number 3 is the number of years when Avraham was not yet obeying G’d’s commandments because he had not yet recognized Him as such.

To include the Oral Law — laws given by God to Moshe at Sinai. You might ask: Since they fulfilled the entire Torah, why did Yaakov marry two sisters, (and Shimon his sister Dinah), and Amram his aunt Yocheved? The answer is: They only accepted upon themselves to fulfill the mitzvos in the Land of Israel, but they were outside the Land [when these events occurred]. (Ramban)

עקב, siehe voriges Kap.Raw Hirsch on Genesis 26: 26. - שמר ,וישמר משמרתי die allgemeinste Bezeichnung dessen, was von uns hinsichtlich des uns von Gott übergebenen Gesetzes erwartet wird. Es ist uns ein anvertrauter Schatz, dem gegenüber wir שומרים sein sollen, den wir hüten und nach dem Willen des Eigners verwenden sollen, über den wir aber nicht nach eigenem Willen disponieren können.

עקב אשר שמע אברהם בקולי, “as a consequence of Avraham having listened to My voice;” a reference to the binding of Yitzchok. The same formulation occurs also in Genesis 22,18: עקב אשר שמעת בקולי, “(G-d to Avraham) “as a consequence of your having listened to My voice.”

וישמר משמרתי AND KEPT MY CHARGE — This refers to precautionary measures which are intended to make us avoid the infringement of Biblical prohibitions: such are the Rabbinical inhibition of marriage between relatives in the second degree and the Rabbinical regulations regarding not doing certain acts on the Sabbath (cf. Yevamot 21a).

וישמור משמרתי, a reference to the circumcision, where G’d had used this expression (את בריתי תשמור) describing the command in 17,9 to circumcise himself.

וישמור משמרתי, he also did the very things which I Myself am in the habit of doing, such as to perform deeds of loving kindness. (compare Psalms 25,10 כל ארחות ה' חסד ואמת, “all the paths of the Lord are love and truth, etc.”) Also, Avraham warned the potential sinners to improve their ways, something that is of utmost importance to Me. This is what he did every time the Torah records him as קרא בשם ה', “he proclaimed the name of the Lord.” He also observed My revealed commandments מצותי, חוקותי, ותורותי, “the seven laws I laid down for all of mankind.” As a result of all this, he did not only preach to his fellow man but he practiced what he preached. Due to his possessing this virtue he became a model human being for others to emulate. At this particular stage in Yitzchok’s life, G’d did favours to him which were the result of the merits of others, i.e. the merit of his father. This theme is repeated once more in verse 24 when the Torah attributes the promise of the increase in Yitzchok’s seed to the merit of Avraham, i.e.בעבור אברהם עבדי “for the sake of My servant Avraham.” Neither Yaakov nor Avraham had ever been told that G’d’s promises to them was on account of a third party’s merit. The reason G’d’s promises to Yitzchok had been due to other people’s merits was that at that time he had not yet emulated his father’s practice of proclaiming the name of G’d, i.e. calling his fellow man to improve their lifestyles and to abandon idolatry. Once Yitzchok had begun to do this we find that even an Avimelech is in awe of him and recognises that he is the recipient of G’d’s blessings in his own right. (compare verse 26, as well as verses 28-29. All this was due to the fact that in verse 25 he is reported as emulating his father, building an altar and proclaiming the name of the Lord. Yaakov, as opposed to his father Yitzchok, has been described as being a יושב אהלים from his earliest youth, i.e. devoting himself to promoting matters spiritual, studying as well as teaching in the academy of Shem and Ever, (primarily those of the seven Noachide commandments which regulate inter personal relations.)

משמרתי, מצותי, חוקותי, ותורותי, G’d included all the commandments, hinting that all the commandments, i.e. chukotai, contain elements of which the rationale has been revealed and some which have not. Even the seven Noachide laws, applicable universally, contain elements the reason for which has not ever been revealed to the people but whose rationale is familiar only to the wisest scholars. Examples of such commandments are: the prohibition of grafting or crossbreeding, eating (amputated) limbs of a living animal אבר מן החי. To describe such laws, the Torah here mentions the word חוקותי, “My statutes,” whereas the description מצותי refers to commandments which the human mind understands or even applauds. It matters not that these commandments be performed by different parts of the body, i.e. the mouth, the hands, or merely the heart. Similarly, it matters not whether they are positive commandments, requiring action, or negative commandments requiring self-restraint. Some commentators (compare Torah Shleymah 25) claim that Avraham was only 3 years old when he recognised the existence of G’d and began to worship him, so that the numerical value of the letters in the word עקב=172 would comprise the number of years which Avraham carried out G’d’s commandments. Other commentators place the time when Avraham became convinced of monotheism as the only religion as being when he had completed his fortieth year. (Bereshit Rabbah 30,8) This appears to be more probable. Our sages claim that Avraham observed all the commandments spelled out in the written and the oral Torah including such rabbinic ordinances as Eyruv Tavshilim (Yuma 28). They base this on the word משמרתי, seeing this word refers generally to the type of “security fence” סיג, introduced by the Rabbis to safeguard us against violating Biblical injunctions. What the rabbis meant therefore was that Avraham invented such safeguards for himself in order not to violate the basic prohibitions.

Die Pflicht des Hüters involviert zunächst zwei Tätigkeiten; 1) stete Auf- merksamkeit, das Anvertraute muss ihm immer präsent sein; daher die gewöhnliche Erläuterung: ת"כ) ושמרתם זו משנה an vielen Stellen): Hüten heißt Lernen, denn eben "Lernen" ist ja nichts als das stete Gegenwärtighalten des geoffenbarten göttlichen Willens in allen seinen Beziehungen. 2) Schutz: den Schatz mit solchen schützenden Veranstaltungen zu umgeben, dass er in seiner Integrität erhalten bleibe; daher jene jüdische Nationalgewissenhaftigkeit, die sich in der Selbstüberwachung durch תקנות und גזרות betätigt. Die Gewissenhaftigkeit, die sich nicht nur vor dem Unrecht, sondern auch vor allem hütet, was an das Unrecht grenzt und leicht zu ihm führt, hat auch Abraham betätigt. —

וישמור משמרתי, “he observed My commandments;” this is a reference to the commandment of circumcising himself which he immediately accepted as recorded in Genesis 7,10: 'זאת בריתי אשר תשמרו וגו, “this is My covenant that you are to observe;”

מצותי MY COMMANDMENTS — those matters which, had they not been written in the Torah, we would nevertheless hold that they are fitting matters to be the subject of a commandment, such as robbery and murder (cf. Yoma 67b).

מצותי, the command to perform circumcision when the baby is eight days old; as in 21,4.

צוה ,מצותי verwandt, wie schon Kap.2, 1 bemerkt, mit צבא: auf einen Posten stellen, wodurch der Wille des Befehlenden in weitesten Kreisen gleichsam durch seine Stellvertreter verwirklicht wird, und dadurch gleichsam dessen Persönlichkeit den weitesten Umfang (צבה) gewinnt, durch צַוֵה bildet er sich ein צבא. Daher מצות im engeren Sinne zunächst solche Aufträge, durch welche die göttlichen Zwecke des Rechts und der Milde, משפט וצדקה, die Gott in seiner Welt gepflegt wissen will, also die Pflichten der Gerechtigkeit, Barmherzigkeit, Milde, Liebe etc. zur Verwirklichung kommen.

מצותי, “My directive;” a reference to circumcision to be performed on the eighth day after the baby’s birth, as is recorded: וימל אברהם את יצחק בנו בן שמונת ימים כאשר צוה אותו אלוקים, “Avraham circumcised his son Yitzchok on the eighth day as G-d had commanded him.”

חקותי MY ORDINANCES — matters which our evil inclination and the heathen nations argue against the necessity of prohibiting, such as the eating of swine’s flesh and the wearing of garments made of a mixture of wool and linen — things for which there are no apparent reasons but which are the King’s decrees and enactments imposed on His subjects (Yoma 67b).

חוקותי ותורותי, basically these include all the laws known to mankind prior to the giving of the Torah, such as not murdering, not stealing, etc. They include virtues such as extending hospitality. At the time the Torah was revealed, these were renewed and elaborated on. At that time the covenant to keep these laws forever was concluded with the Jewish people.

חקותי von חקק‎ (siehe Jeschurun VIII. S. 436): die die sinnliche Willkür beschränkenden Normen, die Gesetze der Sittlichkeit und Heiligung des leiblichen Lebens תורתי, wie wir glauben, nicht von ירה, sondern von הרה, wie הוליך, vo;נהלך א הרה: ieinen Keim in sich aufnehmen, Hiphil הורה: einen Keim in jemanden legen, daher: den Keim des Wahren und Guten, den Keim des Geistigen und Sittlichen in den andern legen: lehren. תורתי somit: die von Gott geoffen- barten Lehren des Wahren und Guten, die von uns in Geist und Gemüt aufgenommen werden sollen, die Erkenntnis des Wahren und die Entschlüsse zum Guten zu erzeugen. מצוה ist die zu lösende Aufgabe, חוק schafft den zu dieser Lösung fähigen Menschen, תורה gibt die Erkenntnis dazu.

חקותי, “My statutes,” a reference to his commanding his children to continue the tradition he had commenced of circumcising himself, as is recorded: והיתה בריתי בבשרכם לברית עולם, ”My covenant shall be on your flesh as an eternalcovenant.” (17,13) Also compare Psalms 105,10: ויעמידיה ליעקב לחוק, “He confirmed it in a decree for Yaakov.”

ותורתי AND MY LAWS — The plural serves to include with the written Law also the Oral Law which prescribes commands that are an ancient institution given by God to Moses from Sinai (cf. Genesis Rabbah 64:4).

Es dürften die hier von Abraham bezeugten Pflichterfüllungen dem (1. B. M. 18, 19) ausgesprochenen Inhalte seiner Bestimmung parallel sein. מצותי entspricht dem חקתי ,עשות צדקה ומשפט ist das ׳שמר דרך ד׳ לעשות וגו, ist der Weg zu solcher Erfüllung, und תורתי ist das צוה את בניו ואת ביתו, die Belehrung und Erziehung zu solchem Leben. (Siehe daselbst.)

ותורותי, “and My teachings;” this is a reference to the beginning of chapter 12 where G-d instructs Avraham to leave home and to proceed to a land that He will show him. As proof that this interpretation is correct, the author quotes Psalms 32,8: אשכילך ואורך בדרך זו, “Let me enlighten you and show you which way to go.” [The subject speaking in that verse is the Holy Spirit. (Alshich) He quotes a similar verse from Psalms 32,8.] Whenever the word תורה occurs, it refers to teaching [as a prelude to commanding the listener to conduct himself in accordance with it.] But the plain sense of the verse is that it refers to the 7 universal laws that apply to all of mankind.

וישב יצחק בגרר. Isaac settled in Gerar. He observed G'd's directive and cancelled his previous plans.

וישב, he accepted G’d’s instruction to remain within the boundaries of the land promised to his father Avraham.

(6-11) Siehe Kap.12, 10 f. und Kap.20. — Dass die Besorgnis nicht ungegründet war, beweist der Umstand, dass, da Rebekkas wahres Verhältnis zu Jizchak bekannt zu werden schien, Abimelech es für nötig erachtete, sie durch ein bei Todesstrafe ergangenes Verbot in Schutz zu nehmen. כי ארכו לו שם הימים, durch die Länge der Zeit wurde er wieder unvorsichtiger. — אחר העם: der König.

לאשתו means CONCERNING HIS WIFE, just as (20:13) “Say about me (לי), He is my brother”.

AND HE SAID: SHE IS MY SISTER. They did not ask concerning the children for he would say, “They are my children from another woman.”

He said "she is my sister" and Yitzhak did not request from her that she also say this as Avraham did in a similar situation because Rivkah was exceedingly  submissive to Yitzhak as I wrote earlier at the end of Chapter 24 and for this reason did not deviate from his will in any way.

וישאלו...לאשתו, an inquiry regarding his marital status, especially the woman in whose company he had been seen. We find a parallel construction in 20,13. There are numerous such constructions, and I have dealt wit them in my commentary on 12,12.

ויאמר אחותי היא, He said: “she is my sister.” The local people did not enquire as to the maternity and paternity of the children (Esau and Yaakov.) They might have been children from a former wife, for instance.

Concerning his wife. [Rashi explains this] because [the word לאשתו in] the verse makes it sound as if they asked Rivkah, and Yitzchok answered. But this is not plausible. Perforce, [it means they asked him, concerning his wife].

וישאלו אנשי המקום לאשתו, “The inhabitants of that place enquired about the marital status of the woman accompanying him.” The reason why Rivkah was not abducted immediately, as had been Sarah when Avraham had stayed in Avimelech’s country, is that Avraham had at the time warned the Philistines by saying to them at the time: “since when is the first thing you ask a stranger about the status of the people who accompany him?” Compare Talmud Baba Metzia 92.

פן יהרגוני, “lest they kill me;” Avraham at the time had ultimately not been afraid to tell Avimelech that Sarah was his wife as it had become known how he and a few men had defeated Amrafel and his mighty armies in battle. At this point they had no reason to be afraid of Yitzchok[, seeing he had not performed any deeds of valour]. This is why he was afraid to tell the people [there that Rivkah was his wife].

כי טובת מראה היא, “for she was goodlooking;” the word מאד, “very much,” is absent here whereas it had appeared in connection with Rivkah before she had mothered twins. (Compare 24,16)

ויהי כי ארכו לו שם, after a while Yitzchok was no longer careful to conduct himself in a manner that the suspicion that Rivkah was his wife could not be aroused. The reason was that he did not think that she would be abducted.

מצחק את רבקה אשתו. making sport with his wife Rebeccah. He indulged in the kind of affectionate behaviour customary between man and his wife. If we are to accept the interpretation of Bereshit Rabbah 64,5 that Avimelech observed Isaac making love to his wife, we must assume that this took place under circumstances when marital intercourse is permitted even during the day, such as for therapeutic purposes (compare Maimonides Hilchot Deyot 40, or the example quoted in Ketuvot 65 about the widow of Abbaye who inadvertently caused Rava to become aroused so that he had to go home in the middle of the day in order to have marital relations with his wife). The righteous endeavour not even to commit the semblance of an unbecoming act.

ויהי...וישקף, compare our commentary on 18,16 on the word וישקיפו.

והנה יצחק מצחק את רבקה אשתו, “and lo, Yitzchok was fondling his wife Rivkah.” Even though, according to Jewish law, marital relations between husband and wife during daylight hours are forbidden, and there is no reason to assume that Yitzchok’s house was in darkness at the time, seeing that Avimelech could see what was going on. One may resolve the problem by saying that when a saintly and learned person such as Yitzchok wraps himself in his Tallit at the time, it is as if he was wrapping himself in darkness, so that he may indulge in marital relations in such conditions. However, this does not answer the question how he could indulge at a time when famine was raging, and we have a long standing rule that in conditions of famine marital relations are to be shunned. Possibly, the fact that he, personally, was not suffering famine, and no other Jew was suffering from famine at that time either, this consideration would suffice to waive the rule not to sleep with his wife during famine.

He thought, “From now on I have no need to worry... The explanation of וישקף is that Yitzchok unconcernedly left open the place where people could look in. Consequently, “Avimelech looked.”

ויהי כי ארכו לו הימים, “it happened that his days were lengthened” seeing that Yitzchok had to abstain from marital relations for an extended period; it had become permissible for him to indulge in such relations even in daytime [to prevent involuntary ejaculation.] (Compare B’reshit Rabbah 64,5);

וישקף אבימלך וגומר AND AVIMELEKH OBSERVED, ET CETERA — He saw him having sexual relations (Genesis Rabbah 64:5).

מצחק, engaging in marital intimacy. The same word was used for intimacy by the wife of Potiphar in Genesis 39,17 when she accused Joseph of trying to rape her. [the author brings this example as in Genesis 21,9 this word could not have had the same meaning. Ed.] Potiphar’s wife elsewhere used to word לשכב עמי, “to sleep with me,” to describe Joseph’s supposed conduct (39,14).

He saw him having marital relations. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, how did Avimelech know she was his wife? But [Rashi’s proof] is not readily understood, as Avimelech could [have known this by just] seeing an embrace and a kiss. (Re’m) [Another approach:] It seems that Rashi deduced this from the superfluous word אשתו, which implies that Yitzchok was amusing himself in a way pertaining to his wife, i.e., marital relations. [Another approach:] Rashi makes his comment on “Avimelech looked,” not on “Avimelech saw,” so we will not say that Avimelech actually saw him having marital relations. Heaven forbid that a tzaddik like Yitzchok would leave the window open! Rather, Yitzchok closed the window — and that led Avimelech to understand [that she was his wife]. “Avimelech looked” means he observed and understood. And the phrase בעד החלון [does not mean “through” the window. It] means “facing the window,” as this is the general meaning of בעד that appears in Scripture. (Nachalas Yaakov) See there for his proof against Re’m.

וישקף אבימלן בעד החלון, “Avimelech took a look through the window;” according to some commentators the window had not been open but had in fact been securely locked. This fact led Avimelech to conclude that Yitzchok and his wife were engaged in activities that were extremely private. Even when marital intercourse is permitted in daytime, the room in which it takes place must be dark. Yizchak was permitted to engage in marital relations [which are generally prohibited in times of famine] because there was no famine in this country.

וירא, והנה יצחק מצחק את רבקה, “he looked and here he saw that Yitzchok was engaged in intimacies with Rivkah.” This expression for describing intimacies with the opposite sex is found when the wife of Potiphar tells the servants in her husband’s household that this is what the Hebrew slave tried to do to her. (Genesis 39,14). In that verse the next words are: לשכב עמי, “to sleep with me;” from this we are able to deduce that Avimelech did not witness actual intercourse but only foreplay. Yitzchok most certainly would not have engaged in marital relations unless he was sure that no peeping Tom could witness this.

ויקרא...אך הנה אשתך, the word אך in this verse means the same as the word אבל, “but, however.” It also appears in this sense in Exodus 31,13 אך את שבתותי תשמורו, “but you must observe My Sabbath days,” (even when engaged in building the Tabernacle) In Exodus 21,22, when speaking about someone dying as a result of an injury deliberately inflicted upon him, the Torah writes אך אם יום או יומים יעמוד, “but if the victim can stand on his feet for a day or two days, etc.” (his death is not directly attributable to the injury described). In our verse, Avimelech challenges Yitzchok who had presented his wife as being his sister by saying: “but I have seen with my own eyes that she is your wife!” He used the fact that he had observed Yitzchok being intimate with Rivkah as proof that therefore she must be his wife, as no one sleeps with a woman who is not his wife.

ואיך אמרת, the Avimelech mentioned in our chapter here was not the same one that lived in the days of Avraham. Had he been the same it is inconceivable that he could have asked Yitzchok such a question. He had, after all, had experience with Sarah and Avraham concerning the same subject. The Kings of the Philistines generally assumed the title “Avimelech,” just as the Kings of Egypt generally assumed the title “Pharaoh.”

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.

מות יומת, will be executed. The repetition of the word מות refers to death by human tribunal as well as by heavenly forces. The reason Avimelech used the word "whoever touches," was to warn his subjects that even conduct for which Gentiles normally are not punishable by death would become capital offences in this instance (compare what we have written on Genesis 20,4).

ויצו, after Avimelech had found out that Rivkah was Yitzchok’s wife, he had to inform the people of this fact to ensure that no one would touch her. Also, he had to warn the people not to harm Yitzchok, so that he would not be killed on account of his wife.

בארץ ההוא IN THAT LAND although it (Gerar) had not the sacred importance of Erez Yisroel proper — i. e., as the territory of the seven nations, and is therefore not as fertile as the Holy Land (cf. Ketubot 112a).

בארץ ההיא, even though the soil of this land is exceptionally hard;

ויזרע יצחק בארץ ההיא, in accordance with G’d’s instructions “גור בארץ הזאת” (verse 3)

מאה שערים, ויברכהו. one hundred fold; G'd blessed him. Since we have a general rule that anything that is measured does not qualify for a blessing, the Torah here informs us that G'd blessed Isaac's harvest even though the amount of his harvest had been measured. The Torah also wanted to tell us that despite the phenomenal success of Isaac as a farmer during a famine he did not suffer the effects of an evil eye of anyone who was jealous of his success.

ויזרע...מאה שערים, 100 times as much as they had expected to harvest from this planting.

Despite the fact that it is not as esteemed as Eretz Yisrael itself... Rashi is answering the question: Is not Gerar also in Eretz Yisrael, as Rashi explained above (v. 2)?

In diesem Lande und in diesem Jahre, Land und Jahr waren ungünstig und doch fand er hundert שערים. Im Munde der Weisen heißt allerdings שער auch Maß, allein in תנ"ך kommt es nur als Tor und Marktplatz vor. So 2. B. Kön. 7. 1. Daher heißt auch wohl das Zeitwort שעור: zu Markte sitzen, feilbieten, davon ProRaw Hirsch on Genesis 26: 23, 6.7 ׳אל תלחם את לחם רע עין וגו׳ כי כמו שער בנפשו כן הוא וגו. Wenn der Geizige dich zu Tische ladet, so ist es ihm, als "ob er mit seiner Seele zu Markte sitze", als ob er ein Stück von seinem Leben feilbiete. תאנים שוערים (Jirm. 29, 17) sind "Markthüter", Früchte, die nicht vom Markte kommen, nicht verkäuflich sind, d. h. schlechte Früchte. שערוריה und שערורה in Jirmija und Hosea heißt: Feil- heit. Demgemäß hieße hier מאה שערים: hundert Märkte. Es reichte der Ertrag nicht nur für seinen Bedarf aus, sondern er brachte das Hundertfältige gegen gewöhnliche Erträge davon auf den Markt. —

מאה שערים, Rashi writes that our sages said that the meaning of the expression (שער(ים here is “estimate” for the sake of tithing. [Either, according to Onkelos,] Yitzchok’s harvest was 100 times as much as could be expected, or that he had to tithe 100 times as much as he had expected.

בשנה ההיא IN THAT YEAR although it was not a normal year, being a year of famine.

בשנה ההיא, a year of general drought and even famine.

מאה שערים. In accordance with G’d’s promise to Avraham in Genesis 12,2 ואהיה עמך ואברכך, “I will be with you and bless you,” i.e. with material blessings

'ויברכהו ה, He made him successful in all his undertakings.

They had estimated the amount it ought to produce... מאה שערים means מאה שיעורים (a hundred amounts), as they had estimated it (שערה).

ויברכהו ד׳. So war er zuerst der Gottgesegnete. Indem er den Segen nicht wucherisch aufspeicherte, sondern auf den Markt brachte, kam in dem Hungerjahr sein Segen der allgemeinen Not zu gute, und zuerst erblickte man in ihm nur den von Gott gesegneten Mann.

בארץ ההיה בשנה ההיא In that land and in that year. — Why is there mention of the two — that land and that year? To tell you that that soil was hard and that year was a hard one (Genesis Rabbah 64:6).

מאה שערים, a field which if one plants one measure of seed it produces 100 measures of grain as a harvest.

ויברכהו ה, with money. He sold his crops for cash. According to our sages as quoted by Rashi, the estimate of the size of Yitzchok’s crops given here is to teach us something about tithing properly. [according to Bereshit Rabbah 64,6 the question is why Yitzchok, who must have been aware that blessing does not rest on items which have been measured or weighed, bothered to measure his crop. The answer is that one must not tithe by estimating, but by measuring. If he wanted to tithe correctly, he had to first measure the size of his crop. Ed.] G’d directed the blessing to Yitzchok on account of his concern to tithe correctly, something we also find reflected in Maleachi 3,10 “bring the full tithe into the storehouse and let there be food in My House, and thus put Me to the test-said the Lord of Hosts. I will surely open the floodgates of the sky for you and pour down blessings on you.”

Our Sages said, the purpose of this estimate was for tithing. Rashi is answering the question: Why did they measure [the produce after the initial estimate]? It is stated in Bava Metzia 42a that only something hidden from the eye is blessed, not something that is counted and measured! Thus Rashi explains that Yitzchok wanted to give tithes, and one may not give tithes based on a mere estimate (Avos 1:16).

מאה שערים AN HUNDREDFOLD — for they had estimated how much it should have yielded and it yielded one hundred for every measure which they had estimated. Our Rabbis said that the estimate was made for the purpose of the tithe (Genesis Rabbah 64:6).

כי גדל מאד UNTIL HE BECAME VERY GREAT — so that people used to say, “Rather the dung of Isaac’s mules than all Abimelech’s gold and silver’’(Genesis Rabbah 64:7).

ויגדל, in material wealth and all types of possessions.

The man prospered. Scripture attributes this prosperity to Yitzchok’s own merit rather than to the bounty of the land. He continued to prosper. He never suffered a setback, which demonstrated that his prosperity was not by chance. Until he became very great. If his prosperity had been the result of favorable circumstances it would have reached a limit and then been followed by a downturn.

So that people would say: Rather the dung of Yitzchok’s mules... Otherwise why does it say, “Until he became very great”? [The next verse details his wealth! Perforce,] it comes to tell us the extent [of his blessing]. Thus Rashi mentions mules, since mules [ordinarily] have no blessing at all, as Rashi explained in Devarim 15:14.

ויגדל האיש, nicht ויגדל, auch nicht ויגדל יצחק, sondern ויגדל האיש es ist dies ganz aus der Anschauung der Philister gesprochen: es ward ihnen der Mann zu groß und dadurch nicht nur ihr Neid, sondern auch ihre Eifersucht erregt. Ganz ebenso bei Jakob in Beziehung zu Labans Söhnen: ויפרץ האיש. (erst. B. M. 30,43)10

הלוך וגדל the word הלוך is an infinitive mode of the verb, whereas the word גדל is an adjective or also an infinitive.. We encounter a parallel construction in Exodus 12,9 ובשל מבושל. The meaning of the phrase is that Yitzchok’s wealth kept on increasing and he kept on becoming a man of great substance until he had reached a point where he could be described as גדול מאד, “very great.”

וְעֲבֻדָּה רבה means a great many things to do (i. e. great undertakings) O. F. ouvraine. The word עֲבוׂדָה denotes one thing to be done whereas עֲבֻדָּה denotes many things to be done (a collective noun)

AND HE HAD POSSESSIONS OF FLOCKS, AND POSSESSIONS OF HERDS, AND A GREAT HOUSEHOLD, meaning she-asses and camels, he-asses, and men-servants and handmaids. Now Scripture mentions these but not silver and gold, as it says concerning Abraham,¹⁶⁷Ibid., 13:2. because the wealth which he amassed in the land of the Philistines consisted of flocks and a great household.¹⁶⁸Since these possessions which Isaac accumulated in the land of the Philistines were visible to all, the Philistines became jealous of him. Ramban thus explains the beginning and end of this verse as cause and effect. And the Philistines were jealous of him in this matter. This is the meaning of that which Abimelech says to Isaac, For thou art become much mightier than we.¹⁶⁹Verse 16 here. The king said to him, “I, too, who am the king do not have in my home such flocks and domestics as you, and it is a disgrace to us that your household is greater than that of the king.”

ועבודה רבה, work in the field and vineyards. The expression עבודה, unless defined differently, additionally, always refers to labour in the field.

ועבודה רבה, soil ready to be worked.

ויהי לו מקנה צאן ומקנה בקר, he had acquired both flocks of sheep and herds of cattle. Both words מקנה have the vowel tzeyreh indicating that they are in a construct mode.

ויהי לו מקנה צאן ובקר, ועדה רבה, “and he had acquired masses of sheep, cattle and servants.” The reason the Torah does not mention Yitzchok as having accumulated silver and gold, is that in that country wealth was not measured in terms of money, but in terms of herds and flocks. When Yitzchok possessed more than the king, the matter became embarrassing for the king to host a commoner richer than himself. This is why he expelled Yitzchok, being careful to word that expulsion in a courteous manner.

ויקנאו אותו, nicht ויקנאו בו wie gewöhnlich. קנה etwas erwerben und als Eigentum besitzen, davon ja מקנָה: der Kauf und מקנֶה: das Eigentum, der Besitz. — קַנֵא: sein Eigentum vindizieren, etwas als seiner Person gebührend fordern. Daher —קַנֵא ב an dem andern etwas für sich in Anspruch nehmen, als eigentlich sich gebührend betrachten: jemanden um etwas beneiden. קנא את: die ganze Person fordern, sein Recht auf die Person geltend machen, so: וקנא את אשתו, er warnt die Frau vor Treubruch. So auch hier: ויקנאו אותו, nicht: sie beneideten ihn um den Segen, der war im Grunde in einer solchen Zeit ja ein Segen für das Allgemeine; allein sie fühlten sich durch die Stellung und das Ansehen verletzt, die er dadurch erlangte; ihre קנאה bezog sich auf den Mann mehr als auf seinen Reichtum.

ויקנאו אותו פלשתים, seeing that what happened on their own fields was the exact opposite of what Yitzchok experienced. They had planted extra seed only to produce smaller crops.

ועבודה רבה, he also engaged extensively in agriculture. Compare Proverbs 12,11, עובד אדמתו, “tilling his own land.” Compare also Genesis 4,11 כי תעבוד את האדמה, “when you till the soil.”

ויקנאו אתו, they were jealous of him on account of his astounding success. The absence of the dagesh in the letter נ indicates that this is an intransitive mode of the verb קנא.

סתמום פלשתים THE PHILISTINES STOPPED THEM, saying, “They may become a source of danger to us because of marauding troops that may invade us” (i.e.,they may invade our country to obtain possession of the wells, or if they invade us for any other reason they will be able to find a supply of water). (Tosafot Sotah 10.) The rendering of the Targum טמונין means “stopping up” and we find it in the language of the Talmud (Pesachim 42a) “Chokes up (מטמטם) the heart”.

סתמום פלשתים, the Philistines had stopped up these wells to ensure that Avraham’s descendants would not be able to use them and to claim the land around them. as their grazing land. The Torah had to record this for us since Avraham’s shepherds had in the meantime pitched their tents a distance from there. We have a parallel to this when the Torah writes in 9,18 חם אבי כנען, Cham, the son of Canaan, although at the time, Canaan had not been born yet. Here too, the verse serves as background to the facts in verse 18, explaining that the servants of Yitzchok were not annexing land for their use which had not already belonged to Avraham with the full consent of Avimelech the king at time.

The Philistines plugged them. Since the king had forbidden them to harm Yitzchok physically, they gave vent to their jealousy by plugging up the wells.

וכל הבארות, and all the wells, etc. The reason we are told this in connection with Isaac's outstanding success is to remind us that the wicked cannot stand to see the righteous successful. They are jealous. The Torah adds that the first Jew Abraham already had the same experience during his lifetime. The Torah therefore makes a point of saying: סתמום וימלאום עפר, they sealed them and covered them with dust, instead of merely reporting that they filled the wells with earth. Apparently after Abraham's death the Philistines placed rocks on the sites where Abraham had found water. This was why Isaac even had to dig up these wells anew.

וכל הבארות, after Avraham had died the local populace was no longer afraid of Yitzchok. Also, the Avimelech with whom Avraham had made the pact and who had restored the wells to Avraham had died in the interval. Why then did the Philistines stop up the wells instead of using them for their own flocks? They were afraid that in the event that when Yitzchok would grow up he would be as powerful a figure as his father he would appropriate these wells. Therefore, they reasoned the only way to deny him these wells is by also denying them to themselves. Therefore they closed them up so that no one supposedly would be able to locate them.

Because they said, “They are a danger to us because the armies... But [the plugging was] not because of jealousy. For then Scripture should [connect the idea of their jealousy to their plugging, and] say: “And the Philistines were jealous of him. They plugged all the wells that his father’s servants had dug....” (Re’m) But it seems to me that they indeed plugged the wells because of jealousy, but to conceal their jealousy they mentioned the aspect of danger. Otherwise, “And the Philistines were jealous” should come right before, “Avimelech said to Yitzchok, ‘Go away from us.’” And afterward it should say, “All the wells...,” followed by, “Yitzchok returned and excavated the wells.” Why is, “All the wells...” juxtaposed to, “And the Philistines were jealous”? To tell us that they plugged the wells because of jealousy! They thought Yitzchok would sense their jealousy, and leave [on his own]. When Avimelech saw that his plan failed, he told Yitzchok outright, “Go away from us.” (Nachalas Yaakov)

Diese dem fremden Abrahamiden als solchem sich zuwendende Eifersucht hatte sich schon sofort nach Abrahams Tode, als ja noch Jizchak gar nicht unter ihnen war, durch schadenfrohe Vernichtung der Brunnen geltend gemacht, die doch, wo auch immer sie sich befinden, eine öffentliche Wohltat sind.

סתמום פלשתים, “the Philistines had stopped up.” They had argued that their land had not been blessed on account of the famine they had experienced. Therefore they were jealous of Yitzchok’s success, and tried to limit it as much as was in their power. [Avraham had not been a farmer, so that he had dug wells from altruistic motives. If the land of the Philistines either in Avraham’s time or in Yitzchoks’ time had sufferedfrom a famine, why would either Avraham or Yitzchok have gone there, seeing they needed grazing for their sheep and herds? Ed.]

טמונון פלשתאי meaning stopping up... Rashi is telling us not to explain Onkelos along the lines of טמוני חול (Devarim 33:19), denoting something hidden. That is why he explains that [this word] also means stopping up.

Mit dieser קנאה leitet sich eine ganze Reihe von Ereignissen ein, die ein mit Jizchak eingetretenes neues Stadium bezeichnen. Abraham mit allem seinem Reichtum und doch ebenfalls Fremdling in Mitte der Völker, errang durch seine ganze Persönlichkeit eine solche Achtung, dass er unbeneidet und unbeeifersüchtelt als נשיא אלקים unter ihnen wandelte. Einmal machte sich eine ähnliche Feindseligkeit geltend, die aber sofort von dem Fürsten desavouiert wurde (oben 21, 26). Mit Jizchak begann das Galuth, begann die Verheißung גר יהי׳ זרעך sich zu erfüllen. Das dem Abraham noch völlig ungetrübte Glück war bei Jizchak bereits durch Neid und schikanierende Eifersüchtelei getrübt, und Jakob erscheint uns bereits in vollendeter Knechtsgestalt. Damit ist eine dreifache Stellung der Abrahamiden als Fremde in der Mitte der Völker gezeichnet: als Knecht, als beneidete Größe, als verehrte Hoheit. In allen drei Schicksalsstellungen hat sich der Gottesbund schützend und segnend bewährt, der daher sich selbst nicht nur als ein ברית עם אברהם עם יצחק ועם יעקב sondern als ein: ברית אברהם ,ברית יצחק ,ברית יעקב, manifestierte, in welchem Ausdruck die Väter nicht als Personen, sondern als Typen der durch sie zur Anschauung gekommenen verschiedenen Manifestationen der Kraft des göttlichen Bundes erscheinen.

Wenn einst das Galuth ihre Söhne zur endlichen, unverlierbaren Selbständigkeit führen soll, so muss es sich daher in der entgegengesetzten, steigenden Linie entwickeln und in jedem Stadium den ברית bewähren. Es ist zuerst: ברית יעקב, die Prüfungsjahrhunderte in Knechtsgestalt und der im Elend in uns und an uns sich bewährende Gottesbund. Dieses Stadium liegt — vielleicht — bereits zurück. Als "Jakob" haben wir uns glänzend bewährt, יאי עניותא לישראל — es gilt nun die Lösung des zweiten Stadiums, ברית יצחק, frei und selbständig in Mitte der Völker, den Gegensatz und den Neid nicht zu scheuen, emanzipiert das Abrahamsvermächtnis weiter zu tragen und des ברית יצחק des uns gegen Neid und Eifersucht schützenden Gottesbundes gewärtig zu sein: es ist dies eine Galuthprobe, die wir noch zu bestehen haben. — Dann erst dürfen wir dem letzten Galuthstadium entgegenharren, nicht obgleich wir Juden, sondern eben weil wir Juden, die Anerkennung und Achtung der Völker zu gewinnen, und Abraham gleich als נשיא אלקים unter ihnen zu wandeln: ברית אברהם. Dann werden die Völker selbst uns in das alte Erbe einsetzen. — והביאו את כל אחיכם מכל הגוים מנחה לד׳ — und dann wird die Weltgeschichte den alten Satz gelöst haben, mit welchem bereits vor Jahrtausenden das Programm unseres Galuth und unserer Erlösung gegeben ist. - וזכרתי את בריתי יעקוב ואף את בריתי יצחק ואף את בריתי אברהם אזכר והארץ אזכר (B. M. 26, 42 .3).

כי עצמת ממנו, you would be able to stage a rebellion against us using all your wealth.

כי עצמת ממנו, "for you have become more powerful than we." Even the wealth and authority of the king paled into insignificance compared to the reputation of Isaac. There is no greater humiliation for a king than to be ranked lower than some other resident in his domain.

ויאמר ..כי עצמת, you have become wealthier and able to dispense more good than we. He used the plural ending nu instead of nee, i.e. ממני, meaning that Yitzchok had become not only more powerful than any individual in his country, but even more powerful than a whole group of Philistines collectively. He suggested that Yitzchok exposed himself to acts of violence due to the jealousy of him of so many Philistines so that even Avimelech’s warning to his people not to molest him might be ignored. My father of blessed memory understood the word ממנו as applying to all the Philistines collectively.

לך מעמנו כי עצמת ממנו מאור. Es dürfte eine tiefe Wahrheit in der ם-Stufe der zum קץ הימין, zum Ziele der Tage fördernden Geula liegen, welche in dem Prophetenvermächtnis der Endzeichen unseres Alphabets (Siehe zu לך לך, K. 12 K. Raw Hirsch on Genesis 26: 1) auf diese Stelle hinweisend, niedergelegt ist. Es dürfte damit uns gesagt sein, wie die unfreundliche קנאה, wie der Neid und die Eifersucht der Völker, die das glückliche Galuthisrael auf der Jizchakstufe findet, und die zu ihm sprechen: ׳לך מעמנו כי עצמת וגו nicht das geringste unter den göttlichen Werkzeugen zu unserer Rettung bilden. Wer weiß, wie leicht Jizchak ohne diese ihn wieder in die Isolierung weisende Philister-Eifersucht in den großen Betrieb seines Reichtums und in die vornehme bürgerliche Stellung, die er dadurch gewonnen, mehr als es dem Sohne Abrahams und dem Träger seines geistigen Vermächtnisses geziemte, hätte aufgehen können, vor welchem Aufgehen eben die zurückweisende קנאה ihn rettend bewahrte. Gewiss ist es, dass seine, seiner Stufe entgegengreifenden emanzipierten Söhne durch die trotz allem abweisende קנאה immer wieder auf sich selbst zurückgewiesen werden, und daher diese קנאה kein unbedeutendes, rettendes Heilmittel sein dürfte, welches ihrem Glücke beigegeben ist, um dem so verlockenden Reiz desselben entgegenzuwirken, — und sie an ihren eigentlichen jüdischen Beruf immer wieder und wieder zu mahnen. —

לך מעמנו, “go from us;” they argued that the reason they wanted him to leave was that they felt their land had not been blessed due to the famine, as opposed to the piece of land on which Yitzchok had brought forth such an exceptionally good harvest. They assumed that as soon as Yitzchok would vacate the land he had worked they would appropriate it for themselves and reap the benefits.

בנחל גרר IN THE VALLEY OF GERAR — far away from the city.

IN THE VALLEY OF GERAR, far away from the city. And [Isaac] digged again the wells of water, which they had digged in the days of Abraham his father, and which the Philistines had stopped up before Isaac left Gerar, he once again dug. Thus the words of Rashi.
It would appear from Rashi’s words, then, that the wells mentioned here [in Verse 18] are the same as those mentioned [above in Verse 15]: For all the wells which his father’s servants had digged in the days of Abraham his father the Philistines had stopped them, and filled them with earth. But this is not so, for how would the Philistines give him permission when they had said, “These wells are a source of danger to us because of invaders.”¹⁷⁰Quoted in Rashi, Verse 15 here. Rather, the wells [mentioned in Verse 18] are different ones in another location since the valley of Gerar is the name of a place, or perhaps the valley extended from Gerar to another land, and when the Philistines, namely, the lords of Gerar — the principality of the king — became jealous of Isaac, they stopped the wells which were his by inheritance from his father in the boundary of the city of Gerar. The king then sent him away from his throne-city, and he went to another city. Possibly, this new place was not part of his kingdom even though it was in the land of the Philistines. There were other wells there which Abraham had dug when he lived there for many days¹⁷¹Above, 21:34. but which the Philistines stopped upon his death since Isaac did not dwell there. They did not do this out of hatred. But in the days of Abraham, [even after he had moved from there], they did not want to stop them out of respect to him, saying, “Perhaps he will return to dwell there.” This was why Isaac returned and dug them in the valley. But the herdsmen of the valley quarrelled with him saying, The water is ours,¹⁷²Verse 20 here. meaning, “The well is in the valley, and the waters ooze forth from that valley while those in the valley are diminished. Hence they are ours.” It is for this reason that Scripture mentions, And they found there a well of living water,¹⁷³Verse 19 here. stating that it was a source gushing forth living water which did not come from the valley as those who quarrelled with Isaac had previously claimed.

ויחן בנחל גרר. He camped in the valley of Gerar and dwelled there. Isaac did not want to abandon living in the land of the Philistines since G'd had specifically instructed him to make his residence there (verse 3). Even though the wadi that Isaac now moved to may not have been exactly part of G'd's original commandment to "sojourn in this country etc.," he was, after all, forced by circumstances to leave the capital of Avimelech's country. Perhaps the whole episode may be considered as a test of Isaac's faith in G'd, who, though telling him: "I shall give the land to you and to your descendants," did not allow him to remain for long in that part of the land even as a private citizen. G'd wanted to see if Isaac would question His ways just as He had tested Abraham in a similar fashion.

וילך..בנחל גרר. The word נחל describes a valley even though there was no river in that valley. We have another example of this in Deuteronomy 2,36 העיר אשר בנחל, “the city which was located in the valley,” or Samuel II 24,5 ימין העיר אשר בנחל, “to the right of the city in the valley.” The most potent proof for our statement is Genesis 26,19 ויחפרו עבדי יצחק בנחל, “the servants of Yitzchok dug in the valley.” If there had been water, a rivulet, or something in the valley, what did they have to dig for? Gerar was the name of the town in that valley, the place where Yitzchok settled. He dug many wells in that region as he owned much livestock and had to provide water for his beasts.

Far away from the city. Rashi is answering the question: Avimelech told him, “Go away from us,” i.e., from Gerar. Why then did Yitzchok camp in the valley of Gerar, close to the city?

וישב ויחפר AND ISAAC DIGGED AGAIN — those wells which they had dug in the days of his father Abraham and which the Philistines had stopped up before Isaac left Gerar he once again dug.

אשר קרא להן אביו, in order to prevent anyone in the future to challenge the ownership of the wells.

וישב יצחק...אשר חפרו, the servants of his father.

Those wells that... in the days of his father Avraham... Rashi is answering the questions: Yitzchok already left, so how could he dig the wells, [which were in Gerar]? Furthermore, if Avraham already dug them, [and nothing happened in between, see next question,] why did Yitzchok dig them again? Also, why is it written: “And were plugged by the Philistines,” implying that the Philistines went and plugged them after Yitzchok dug them? Yet this is not so — nowhere does it say they plugged them after Yitzchok’s digging. Thus Rashi answers: “Which the Philistines had stopped up before Yitzchok departed from Gerar, he again dug them [before departing].” The Nachalas Yaakov writes at length, and maintains that the text of Rashi should say: ופלשתים סתמום קודם שנסע יצחק מגרר חזר וחפרן. Written like this, it is evident that [before Yitzchok left, the Philistines stopped them up, and] after he left and camped in the valley of Gerar, far from the city, he then returned and dug the wells.

כשמות אשר קרא להן אביו, “as had been their names when his father had named them.” He wished to draw attention to the fact that the success of these wells had been and continued to be due to the merit of his father. In order to prove that this was so, when he left the vicinity of Avimelech’s capital and settled where Avraham had lived for a while and [demonstrated that the success depended not on the quality of the earth and the skill of its farmers, but on the goodwill enjoyed by them in the heavenly spheres and] based on this he concluded a treaty with Avimelech.

כשמות, with the same names in order to maintain unbroken continuity of ownership.

ויחפרו, they dug even deeper than initially in order to supply sufficient water for the livestock.

וימצאו שם באר מים חיים, “they found a well of spring water in that region.” The reason the Torah stresses the origin of this water is that the shepherds of the region had accused Yitzchok’s shepherds of diminishing their own water supply by letting their sheep drink from the water of the נחל, the local stream. The water found by Yitzchok’s shepherds did not originate in that stream, but represented a new and additional water supply. Yitzchok’s herds and flocks did not need to use the locally available sources of water.

He named the well Eisek [Quarrel]. This well foreshadowed the First Holy Temple, in the time of which the kings of Judah and Israel, Israel’s “shepherds,” quarreled over the kingship and as an offshoot of their quarrel the shepherds of the nations also joined the fray.

וימצאו שם באר מים חיים, after they kept digging, they found this additional well beneath the old well. This is why the Torah did not write that they found מים, i.e. simply water, but באר, that they found a new source of water.

Sitnah [Obstruction] (or “Hatred”). This foreshadowed the Second Holy Temple, in the time of which baseless hatred became rampant. Eisek implies strife over a specific issue, whereas sitnah implies hatred for no reason.

Rechovos [Wide Spaces]. This foreshadowed the Third Holy Temple, in the time of which the land will seem spacious because peace will reign among Israel.

עשק means DISPUTE.

AND HE CALLED THE NAME OF THE WELL ESEK. Scripture gives a lengthy account of the matter of the wells when in the literal interpretation of the story there would seem to be no benefit nor any great honor to Isaac in that he and his father did the identical thing.¹⁷⁴Both Isaac and Abraham dug wells in the land of the Philistines. They did not quarrel with Abraham, but they did quarrel with Isaac. Thus, in the literal meaning of the story, there “is no great honor to Isaac.” However, there is a hidden matter involved here since Scripture’s purpose is to make known a future matter. A well of living water alludes to the House of G-d which the children of Isaac will build. This is why Scripture mentions a well of living waters, even as it says, A fountain of living waters, the Eternal.¹⁷⁵Jeremiah 17:13. From the context of Ramban’s language it would appear that he interprets the verse as if it said, A fountain of living waters, which is the house of the Eternal. He called the first well Esek (Contention), which is an allusion to the First House,¹⁷⁶The First Sanctuary, which was built by Solomon and destroyed by the Babylonians. concerning which the nations contended with us and instigated quarrels and wars with us until they destroyed it. The second well he called Sitnah (Enmity),¹⁷⁷Verse 21 here. a name harsher than the first. This alludes to the Second House,¹⁷⁸The Second Sanctuary, which was built by the Jews who returned from the Babylonian Captivity and which was destroyed by the Romans. which has indeed been referred to by this very name, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote ‘sitnah’¹⁷⁹Hatred, accusation. Thus the same word sitnah appears in connection with the Second Sanctuary. against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.¹⁸⁰Ezra 4:6. And during its entire existence they¹⁸¹Our historic enemies during the period of the Second Temple, signified in the chapter here by the Philistines. were a source of enmity unto us until they destroyed it and drove us from it into bitter exile. The third well he called Rechovoth (Spacious). This is a reference to the Future House, which will be speedily built in our days, and it will be done without quarrel and feud, and G-d will enlarge our borders, even as it says, And if the Eternal thy G-d enlarge thy border, as He hath sworn, etc.,¹⁸²Deuteronomy 19:8. which refers to the future. And concerning the Third House of the future it is written, Broader¹⁸³In Hebrew verachavah, from the same root as the name of the third well, Rechovoth. The connection between the third well and the Third Temple of the future, concerning which Ezekiel prophesied, is thus established. and winding about higher and higher.¹⁸⁴Ezekiel 41:7. [The concluding statement in the present narrative, concerning the naming of the third well], And we shall be fruitful in the land,¹⁸⁵Verse 22 here. signifies that all peoples will come to worship G-d with one consent.¹⁸⁶Zephaniah 3:9.

ויריבו לנו המים, as we explained in connection with Avraham and Avimelech (21,25), the quarrel was if the source of the water was part of the region of Gerar or part of the region of Beer Sheva. The old quarrel resurfaced now between the shepherds of Yitzchok and those of Gerar.

ויקרא שם הבאר עשק, “He named the well in question “strife.’” Nachmanides writes that the reason why the Torah devotes so much space to relating these incidents although at first glance they do not appear to contain any new kind of information, is, that although these verses do not contain new information on the surface, they do hint at hidden mystical connections. Torah is described in the parlance of the prophets as מקור מים חיים, “the source of truly life-giving water.” With the building of the Temples by Yitzchok’s descendants, the Torah became ever more firmly established among the nation, and though several Temples were subject to eventual destruction, the time will come when a permanent Temple will be erected, no longer subject to dispute and destruction, and at a time when G’d will expand the inheritance of the Jewish people, just as at Rechovot, Yitzchok felt that he had achieved the ability to expand.

They disputed with him... Rashi is telling us not to explain the word עשק as meaning “dispute.” Rather, it means an actual עסק (matter). I.e., it was a matter of dispute.

Dass das Brunnengraben etwas Erlaubtes, der Grund und Boden freies Gut und der Brunnen demjenigen gehörte, der ihn gegraben, dürfen wir bei einem Sohn Abrahams voraussetzen und finden dies überdies oben Kap.21, 30 bestätigt, da dort Abraham nur das offizielle Zugeständnis fordert, dass er den Brunnen gegraben. Überdies war es ein lebendiger Quell, den sie fanden, also aus der Tiefe springendes Wasser, von dem man nicht sagen konnte, dass es etwa einem andern entzogen wäre. Gleichwohl schikanierten sie, so recht in der Jahrhunderte herab gegen den Galuthjuden geübten Weise: den Brunnen hast du gegraben, das Loch gehört dir, aber das Wasser ist unser! — עשק kommt in תנ"ך nur dies einzige Mal an dieser Stelle vor. Im Nabbinischen ist עסק sehr gewöhnlich. מתעסק ,עסוק; sich mit etwas beschäftigen, עיסקא: iein Geschäft, und עסיקין ganz in dem Sinn wie hier: Rechtstitelstreitig- keiten. Die Wurzel scheint verwandt mit עשק ,הזק ,עזק אזק, die alle ein starkes Erfassen und Festhalten bedeuten. Daher dürfte עשק: etwas gewaltsam mit dem Geiste erfassen heißen, etwas chikanös zu erlangen suchen. עסק jedoch, rabbinisch, allgemein: die Erreichung eines Zweckes oder eines Gegenstandes mit dem ganzen Geiste erfassen, sich mit etwas beschäftigen.

לאמור לנו המים, saying: “the water is ours.” They argued that the water from the well had originally been flowing in the river that was theirs. They used the same argument with the second well Yitzchok’s servants brought in. When Yitzchok moved away further and again succeeded in bringing in a well, they did not argue about it [they finally realised that it was he who was blessed, and that he had not robbed them of anything (verse 22)].

כי התעשקו עמו means THEY ENGAGED WITH HIM about it in strife and DISPUTE.

ויקרא שם הבאר עשק, He gave it a name so that in the future when he would become more powerful than they, the shepherds of Gerar would not be able to claim the well as theirs without protest. The very name already foreshadowed that the claim to this well would be disputed. The meaning of the name עשק as describing dispute is known to us from our sages in Baba Kama 9 המוכר את השדה ויצאו עליה עשיקין, “if someone sells a field and a quarrel ensues concerning it.”

שטנה old French nuisement; English hindrance.

ויחפרו...שטנה, from the word “Satan.” The name reflected the fact that every time they dug with success they would be subjected to this hatred.

ויקרא שמה שטנה, “he called its name Sitnah. (hatred, enmity) He had given the Philistines the benefit of the doubt regarding denying his claim to the first well his servants had dug. But now he knew that that had not been mere coincidence, but a display of their hatred of him.

ויקרא שמה שטנה, “he named that well: “hatred.” We must not understand the name of this well as reflecting the same sentiments as the previous well he had dug, as at that time the name עשק, “dispute,” reflected that he gave the Philistines the benefit of the doubt when they claimed that the waters that came out of that well had previously flowed in their river. When they disputed his right to the second well, he became convinced that their arguments were malicious and not based on a legitimate claim.

ופרינו בארץ WE SHALL BE FRUITFUL IN THE LAND — as the Targum translates it וניפוש and we shall increase in the land).

ולא רבו עליה, seeing this well was quite a distance from the region where they grazed their livestock, as we know from ויעתק משם, he moved away from there.

ויעתק, he removed his digging tools from the immediate neighbourhood so that the shepherds of Gerar should not be able to claim future discoveries of water as belonging to them. It was clear beyond doubt that the area where Yitzchok’s servants dug now belonged to the region of Beer Sheva. This is why he called this well רחובות, to inform subsequent generations that the ownership of this well had never been disputed.

He moved from there: Therefore he moved his cattle from that place after seeing that they (the herdsmen from Gerar) continued to strive with him. And it is honorable for a person to dwell without strife. He distanced himself far from them, and there the quarrel ceased.

As Onkelos translates it: “And we will increase in the land.” The word ופרינו cannot be past tense, because Yitzchok said: “For now, Adonoy has made room for us.” How could he then say they were already fruitful in the land? Perforce, it is future tense. Thus Rashi disagrees with our version of Onkelos which says ויפשיננא, past tense, and explains that the text of Onkelos should read: וניפוש.

ויעתק, siehe oben Kap 12,8.

ופרינו בארץ, seeing that this is not subject to dispute we can now become fruitful and multiply in this land.

ויעל משם באר שבע, because he was physically afraid of them. We have proof for this, seeing that G’d told him not to be afraid (verse 24)

ויעל משם באר שבע. This was not far away from Gerar as we already explained. As to the reason for the expression ויעל, “he went up,” the reason for this is that the part of the Land of Israel which is known as the traditional Land of Israel was on a spiritually higher level than the part occupied by the Philistines. This is also why we find the expression ויעלו פלשתים in Judges 15,9 (against Shimshon) as well as the phrase uttered by King Sha-ul in Samuel I 14,36 נרדה אחרי פלשתים, “Let us pursue the Philistines by descending.” This expression occurs again and again. [this seems unnecessary as any student of the topography of Eretz Yisrael knows that the Philistines lived in the coastal strip, i.e. the topographically lowest region of the country, so that considerations distinguishing between areas of higher sanctity and lesser sanctity are hardly needed to help us understand the wording of the Torah here. Ed.] All these stories about the digging of the wells and the names they were called by were intended to inform us that in the part of Eretz Yisrael traditionally promised to Avraham, his son Yitzchok was digging according to his undisputed right. In those areas he also did not encounter opposition when naming these wells. All of this was an indication to them of which parts of Eretz Yisrael G’d had meant for them to plant seed in, i.e. the part of the land that G’d would give to the Israelites in the first instance. (under Joshua).The regions in which the Philistines dwelled did not really come under full control of the Israelites until many hundreds of years later. This accounts for the ongoing wars at intervals between the Israelites and the Philistines. These skirmishes were basically border-wars, neither side planning to conquer the territory of the other permanently. [according to the author the problem would be permanently settled only in Messianic times. Ed.] It is an outstanding issue similar to the territory of three Canaanite tribes, the Kenite, Knizite and Kadmoni, which formed part of G’d’s promise to Avraham in chapter 15 at the covenant between the pieces but has never yet been under Jewish sovereignty.

(23-24) Bis dahin hatte ihn die Feindseligkeit der Philister gezwungen in die Isolierung gedrängt, die er vielleicht als Abrahams Sohn freiwillig hätte suchen sollen. Ähnlich der Ghetti-Isolierung, in welche der Judenhass und Judenneid seine Enkel Jahrhunderte lang zwängte. Bis dahin war ihm Gott nicht wieder erschienen, hatte ihn nicht seines Schutzes versichert, hatte ganz ungehindert den Neid und die Feindseligkeit gegen ihn und auf ihn wirken lassen. War es vielleicht heilsam, den Abrahams- sohn gewaltsam aus dem möglichen Versinken in Reichtum und Menschenansehen erwerbende Geschäftsthätigkeit zu drängen? Erst jetzt, wo er (Raw Hirsch on Genesis 26: 22) glaubte sich sagen zu dürfen, fortan ungehindert im Lande bleiben und weiter gedeihen zu können, und er nun frei- willig hinaufzog zu der alten Isolierungsstätte, wo einst seine Wiege gestanden, wo er bei seinem Vater in der Kindheit gewohnt und wo sein Vater seiner geistig großen Aufgabe gelebt (Kap.21, 33). — erst da (Raw Hirsch on Genesis 26: 24) erscheint ihm Gott, versichert ihn seines Schutzes und seines Segens, sagt ihm, er sei noch der alte Gott seines Vaters Abrahams, und werde sich auch ihm also schützend und segnend bewähren, und alles dies um seines Vaters willen, den er — wie sonst nie wieder — "עבדי" nennt, und mit diesem Namen dem Sohne alles gesagt hat, was er auch von ihm erwartet. Und wie er nun dort sofort einen Altar baut und die geistige Standarte des Abrahamberufes erhebt, und dort sein Zelt aufschlägt, ohne zuvor die Güte und die Beschaffenheit des Bodens zu untersuchen und ohne sich zuvor zu überzeugen, ob dort auch Wasser zu finden sei, kommt ihm alles von selbst entgegen! — Wasser finden seine Leute beim ersten Spatenstich und der Fürst, der ihn fortgewiesen, sucht ihn selber unter allen möglichen Ehrenerweisungen in seiner Zurückgezogenheit auf — alles Dinge, um welche er bis jetzt vergebens und unter Unannehmlichkeiten gerungen! —

ויעל משם באר שבע, “he moved uphill from there to B’eer Sheva. This was the B’eer Sheva where his father had stayed for many years, which is not far from Chevron.

FEAR NOT, FOR I AM WITH THEE. Since Abimelech drove him away because of the Philistines’ jealousy of him, and since the herdsmen of Gerar quarrelled with him, Isaac feared lest they gather against him and smite him and his family. Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, assured him that he should not fear them, and He blessed him. Then He prompted them so that the king went to Isaac with greater honor than that which he did to his father since he came with Phichol, the chief of his host, and also brought with him many of his friends.

אל תירא, that they would reduce your heritage due to their constant interference with you.

אל תירא כי אתך אנכי, "do not be afraid for I am with you, etc." Seeing that Isaac had experienced the humiliation of expulsion at the hands of Avimelech and did not know where to turn next, he might have felt abandoned by G'd. This is why G'd reassured him, telling him not to be afraid.

וירא, this vision was meant to encourage Yitzchok not to be afraid on account of these territorial disputes over the sources of water for his flocks. He reassured him that those hating him now would not only give up their opposition but would come pleading for a peace-treaty with him; this is why He added that Yitzchok’s success would be linked to that of G’d’s servant Avraham. We see this promise fulfilled already in verse 26 when the King himself travels to see Yitzchok and is forced to acknowledge that the combination of Yitzchok’s G’d and Yitzchok is too powerful for him to oppose.

אל תירא, “do not fear!” G’d reassures Yitzchok that his expulsion was not the beginning of a downturn in his fortunes, As proof, immediately thereafter it is Avimelech who begs Yitzchok to observe the treaty obligations his father had entered into with the (previous) Avimelech. Yitzchok is accorded far more respect and reverence after his expulsion than while he was a guest at Avimelech, needing the latter’s protection.

אל תירא כי אתך אני, “Do not fear for I am with you;” G-d appeared to him at this point as he had been greatly disturbed by the hostile attitude displayed by the Philistines time and again.

וברכתיך, a blessing of financial success.

בעבור אברהם עבדי, seeing that Avraham had complied with all of G’d’s instructions just like a slave carrying out the dictates of his master.

ויכרו שם עבדי יצחק באר, Yitzchok did not name this well until his servants had completed it and until after Avimelech had come to him from Gerar suing for peace, and the confirmed their agreement by swearing an oath to each other. At that point his servants came and told him that they had located a new source of water and he called it שבעה as a reminder of the oath that had been sworn on that occasion by both Yitzchok and Avimelech.

ויקרא בשם ה'...ויכרו שם עבדי יצחק באר—ואבימלך הלך אליו. After Yitzchok had roused himself to proclaim the name of the Lord publicly, his servants started digging a successful well without encountering opposition. Not only this, but Avimelech now came to him in order to make a treaty with him, and not to interfere with him anymore. [I wonder whether the word הלך “he walked on foot,” somewhat unusual for the mode a king travels is meant to convey to us that he humiliated himself. Ed.]

'ויבן...ויקרא בשם ה. Just as Avraham had been in the habit of doing.

חפר und רהו sind verschieden. Aus בור כרה ויחפרהו (Psalm 7, 17) und da חפר auch überhaupt aufsuchen, ausspähen, somit wohl aus der dunklen, unbekannten Tiefe ans Licht heben heißt, ist wohl כרה, das ja überhaupt bereiten heißt, der Anfang des Grabens und חפר die Vollendung, so tief graben, bis Wasser hervorquillt. Früher, bei den Philistern, musste Jizchak Wasser suchen und um das gefundene streiten. Jetzt, wo ihm Gott erschienen und er an dieser Stelle, um alles andere unbekümmert, sein Zelt aufgeschlagen hatte, brauchte er nicht erst zu suchen, wo seine Knechte den ersten Spatenstich ansetzten, da fanden sie auch Wasser. Abimelechs Besuch und dies Graben war gleichzeitig.

ויט שם אהלו, he fixed his abode in Beer Sheva.

ויכרו שם עבדי יצחק, just as Avraham had dug for water there, Yitzchok now ordered his servants to dig a well there. While they were engaged in digging this well and Avimelech came up from Gerar, Yitzchok’s servants came to tell him that they had met with success and had brought in a new well. All of this is reported here to show G’d’s timing was intended to demonstrate to Avimelech that Yitzchok was successful everywhere and that he better be in awe of him.

ואחזת מרעהו —as the Targum renders it: וסיעת מרחמוחי which means a company formed from his friends, the מ meaning from סיעת ממאוהביו. There are some who explain that in מרעהו the מ is part of the noun מרע — just like (Judges 14:11) “Thirty companions (מרעים)” in the narrative of Samson — in order that the word ואחזת should be taken to be the construct state to מרעהו (the company of his friends). But it would not be a polite thing to speak thus of a king — the company of his friends — for if this were the meaning it would imply that he (Abimelech) took with him the whole company of his friends and that he had no more than one group of friends. For this reason it should be interpreted in the first way (that אחזת is not construct). And you need not be surprised at the ת of אחזת although the word is not in the construct state, for we have similar cases in Scripture: (Psalms 60:13) “help (עזרת) against the adversary”, and (Isaiah 51:21) “Drunken, (שכרת) but not with wine”.

מרעהו ואחזת, with an entourage of his friends, as per Onkelos. The expression מרעהו occurs in this sense in Judges 15,6. The prefix מ in the word מרעהו is similar to the same prefix in the מריע ותוקע (Rosh Hashanah 33) [an unusual shift from the simple active mode kal, to the causative mode hiphil for basically the same activity, namely blowing the shofar. Ed.] as well as the מ in Jeremiah 21,4 אנכי מסב את כלי המלחמה, “The author quotes several more examples, as for instance, Proverbs 12,26 יתר מרעהו צדיק, ודרך רשעים תתעם, “the righteous enjoys advantages over his fellow man; the way of the wicked leads him astray.” [If I understand correctly, the letter מ is used transitively, although in this instance in the construction of a noun. Avimelech’s entourage רעהו was meant to give moral support to Avimelech in this ordinarily humiliating undertaking for him. Rash’bam goes as far as understanding the word ויתורו in Numbers 13,2 not as commonly understood as a verbal form of תור, “to tour, to traverse,” but as related to the word יתר from יתרון quoted in his citation from Proverbs 12,26. As to the fact that, if so, he word in Numbers should have been ויתירו instead of ויתורו, he quotes the interchangeable usage or ישוב and ישיב as well as יקום and יקים as examples where the hiphil is also used with the letter ו instead of the letter י for the middle root letter, עיו הפועל. Ed.]

[Dear reader, you will note that the author distances himself from the commentary of the Bereshit Rabbah on the following verse, calling it merely homiletical, and proceeds to substitute his own. I leave it to you to decide which approach seems more far-fetched. I have followed my practice of printing this commentary in smaller print than usual in such cases Ed.]
ואבימלך הלך אליו מגרר, and Avimelech went to him from Gerar, etc. Why did the Torah have to tell us where Avimelech came from? We know he lived in Gerar! Aware of this difficulty, Bereshit Rabbah 64,9 mentions that the word מגרר is to be understood here as מגורר, that the king experienced strange growths on his body which he attributed to his treatment of Isaac. Of course, this is an homiletical explanation only.. Besides, why did he have to take his general Phichol and Achuza along? If these people were merely part of the Royal entourage, the Torah did not have to bother mentioning it.

ואבימלך...ואחוזת מרעהו, Avimelech had a powerful minister whose name was Achuzat (Bereshit Rabbah 64,9) The Massoretes claim that the word is not the name of a human being. Accordingly, the word מרעהו would have to be understood as similar to Kings I 4,5 רעה המלך, “a companion of the king, a close friend.” The leading minister, comparable to a prime minister in a constitutional monarchy, always had the title רע המלך, “the King’s closest associate.” The letter מ in the word מרעהו belongs to the groups of letters known as אותיות א-מ-ת-י-ן which often are used as additional letters. For instance, we find this extraneous letter מ in connection with רע also in Judges 14,20 ותהי אשת שמשון למרעהו אשר רעה לו, “Shimshon’s wife then married one of those who had been his wedding companion.” Onkelos translates the words אחוזת מרעהו as “a group of his supporters.” Accordingly, the verse means that Avimelech took with him a number of his close advisers, friends. According to Onkelos the meaning of the letter מ in the word מרעהו is a mem hashimush, a formative letter varying pronoun endings, etc., so that the word רעהו would be the same as רעיו, His companions, and the unusual plural ending, the same as in Nachum 2,4 מגן גבוריהו, “his warriors’ shields.” The word גבוריהו is an alternate for גבוריו.

ואבימלך הלך אליו מגרר, “and Avimelech walked to him from Gerar.” The reason the Torah wrote מגרר, something quite superfluous, is so that we can read the word as מגורר, full of eczema; his skin had developed painful boils, etc. (compare Bereshit Rabbah 64,9).

Dieser Besuch des Abimelech ist sehr charakteristisch. Obgleich er selbst dem Abrahamssohne die dem Vater zugesicherte Bundestreue gebrochen, lag ihm doch daran, von dem Sohne einen Bundeseid zu erhalten. War es ja auch in späterer und spätester Zeit des jüdischen Nationallebens eben die jüdische Nation, die jedem Völkerrechtlich geschworenen Bundeseide unter allen Umständen die Treue hielt, und um dieser Treue willen notorisch geachtet war. Ebenso charakteristisch ist das ונשלחך בשלום, "dass sie ihn ungeplündert fortgewiesen", rechnen sie als hohe Wohltat an! —

ואחוזת מרעהו, “and a group of his friends,” (as per Targum) Some commentators believe that the word אחוזת refers to an individual named thus. (B’reshit Rabbah 64,9). This is supported by the messorah, (the notes made by the sages responsible for ensuring that the text of the Torah is accurate.) מרעהו, “his friend.” As far as the prefix מ in that word is concerned, it is not a prefix but part of that person’s name. We find something similar in Judges 15,6: ויתנה למרעהו, “he gave her (Samson’s wife) to מרעהו. “

ואחוזת; some commentators (quoted by Baal Haturim) understand this word as being a personal name as opposed to a title or rank.

אחזת signifies a collection and band, and a band is so called because the people who constitute it are held נאחזין together.

ופיכל שר צבאו, this was the same general who had held this position in Avraham’s time with the former Avimelech.

The intent of the Torah is to explain why Avimelech suddenly needed Isaac as an ally and flattered him though he should have been secure in the knowledge of the covenant Abraham had made with him (21,23). The validity of that covenant extended for three generations into the future. Nachmanides attempts to answer this problem claiming that Avimelech was simply afraid that Isaac would not honour a covenant made by his father seeing that Avimelech on his part had violated the agreement by expelling Isaac. I have not seen anywhere that part of the agreement between Abraham and Avimelech included the right of Abraham or his descendants to reside in the land of the Philistines. There was therefore no breach of the agreement when Avimelech asked Isaac to leave Gerar, and the problem we have raised remains unanswered.

מרעהו, während רע, von רעה ein inniges Freundschaftsverhältnis bezeichnet, in welchem jeder in dem andern seine "Weide", seine Befriedigung findet, bezeichnet מֵרֵעַ mehr den Vergnügungsgenossen, wie bei Simson. Es scheint auch das מ mehr ein sachliches als ein persönliches zu bezeichnen, mehr "Bekanntschaft" als Bekannter, ebenso mehr Genossenschaft als Genosse. — אחוזה scheint den ganzen Vorrat an Genossen zu bedeuten, was er nur an Genossen besaß. אחז kommt ja häufig auch von Personen vor, ותאחזני ימינך usw. — פיכול, da der Feldherr in Abrahams Zeit auch פיכול hieß, so kann es, wenn es nicht derselbe war, ein amtlicher Name sein, wie אבימלך für alle philistäischen Könige, so: פי כל, "der Mund aller", d. h. der Befehlshaber, für alle dortigen Feldherren.

מרעהו, a friend of Avimelech; the letter מ in this word would then be part of his name; an example of something similar is found in Judges 14,20: ויתנה לרעהו, “he (the father of Shimshon’s wife gave her to someone by the name of מרעהו.” (Pessikta zutrata) The word: אחוזת would then not be a personal name.

We have learned in Nedarim 65 that if someone has denied himself (by a vow) the benefit of anything owned by a second party such a vow can be annulled only in the presence of the other affected party. The Talmud understood the words of the Torah in which Moses agreed to stay with Yitro as a vow not to return to Pharaoh in Egypt. When G'd told Moses to return to Egypt the Torah says: "G'd said to Moses in Midian 'go return to Egypt" (Exodus 4,19). There too the words "in Midian" appear superfluous at first glance, except for the fact that G'd told Moses that seeing he had made his vow in Midian that was the place he had to annul it. Concerning the rule that the annulment has to take place where the vow was made originally, we find the following glossary in Haga-ot Maimoniyot chapter six of Hilchot Shevuot: Ri states that this ruling applies in that form only as a desirable (לחתחילה) form of annulment. If, however, the vow was revoked by the person who made it in the absence of the person affected by it, such an annulment is valid. Even the rule that it is desirable that the person who was the subject of the vow be present at the annulment applies only when the person who denied himself any benefits of that party had originally been the recipient of a favour by that party, such as Moses to whom Yitro had given his daughter, or King Zedekiah who had been set free by King Nebuchdnezzar. When no such benefit had been received by the person who has made the vow there is no need for the subject of the annulment to be present at all, as we know from Sotah 36. Thus far the quote from Haga-ot Maimoniyot. From the above it is clear that the person who uttered the oath denying himself benefits from a second party can proceed to have this oath annulled without bothering about the presence of the second party involved. The question of whether Abraham had obtained benefits from Avimelech prior to having sworn an oath to him is therefore irrelevant. As a matter of record, Abraham received absolutely no benefit from Avimelech. The gifts that Avimelech gave him were only in expiation for the humiliation he had caused Sarah. The report in the Torah shows clearly that Abraham departed from Gerar immediately after that episode and settled in Beer Sheva. Abraham did not accept Avimelech's gifts in order to remain in Gerar but moved to Beer Sheva where Isaac also lived after his expulsion from Gerar. I have found a statement recorded in Bereshit Rabbah 54,2 on Genesis 21,23 where Avimelech refers to the kindness he showed Abraham and requests a kindness in return. The "kindness" was Avimelech's offer to Abraham to reside in the land of the Philistines, an offer which Abraham declined. The request to conclude a treaty was meant to be Abraham's quid pro quo for that offer. When the Torah quotes Avimelech as having performed acts of kindness towards Abraham, the Torah reports Avimelech's own version, not an historical fact. Isaac, on the other hand, did remain in the land of the Philistines, prospering greatly during his sojourn there. When the Torah reports Avimelech as going to Isaac from Gerar this means "on account of the legal situation deriving from Isaac's stay in Gerar." Abraham had not accepted Avimelech's offer at the time, and could therefore annul his oath without the presence (agreement) of Avimelech. The fact that Isaac did accept Avimelech's offer, made it impossible for him to annul Abraham's covenant without the presence (agreement) of Avimelech.

We may assume that Abraham did not agree with the approach of the Ri when Avimelech made Abraham swear the covenant but agreed with the approach of Maimonides. The latter writes in Hilchot Shevuot chapter 6 that whoever makes his fellow man render an oath cannot annul such an undertaking unless the other party is present even though he had not received any benefit from the party requesting the oath. Maimonides does agree, however, that if this provision was ignored the annulment is still valid precisely because the party who swore never received any benefit from his opposite number. Later halachic authorities such as the Raa'vad, Rashba and others feel that such an annulment is not valid even ipso facto, i.e. בדיעבד. Avimelech wanted to cover all his bases and therefore went to Isaac and took with him Phichol and Achuzat to lend added strength to the agreement to be forged, as we shall explain.

ואחוזת מרעהו ופיבול, וגו׳. And Achuzat and Phichol, etc. We need to know why Avimelech had to take these two people with him, something he had not done when he made a covenant with Abraham.

We may understand this with the help of a comment by Ran in Nedarim 65. He expresses doubt as to the ruling about the affected party having to be present when the vow is revoked unless the vow was designed originally to be of benefit to the party becoming its subject. [King Zedekiah (Chronicles II 36,13 as interpreted by the Talmud Nedarim 65), had vowed not to reveal the fact that he had observed king Nebuchadnezzar eat a raw hare. Had this fact become common knowledge, Nebuchadnezzar's image would have suffered amongst his subjects. Zedekiah therefore should not have had his vow annulled without the presence (consent) of Nebuchadnezzar, seeing such annulment was to his detriment. Ed.] Ran quotes unnamed sources who hold that the whole rule of requiring the consent (presence) of the second party is valid only if the second party would suffer embarassment if the party who made the vow originally now wants to annul it. Other authorities hold, however, that the reason for the rule is to ensure that the second party does not inadvertently commit a sin by not being aware that the vow had been annulled. According to the latter view, when the vow had not conferred a benefit upon the second party, it suffices to inform the second party, his presence or consent is not required. According to the former view the affected party's presence (consent) would be required as a condition for such annulment to become valid.

Avimelech may have been astute enough to try and prevent Isaac from annulling his (or his father's) vow by converting the covenant made with Abraham (in private) into a covenant made in public. We have learned in Gittin 46 that according to the view of Rabbi Yehudah a vow made in public can never be annulled. On folio 36 the Talmud quotes the opinion of Amemar that even according to the view that vows made in public are subject to annulment this is so only when the vow was not made with the consent of the people present at the time such vow was made. Tossaphot explain that Amemar does not necessarily disagree with the view of Rabbi Yehudah that publicly made vows are not subject to annulment. It emerges from the opinion expressed by Rav Yoseph in Pessachim 107 that the discussion is resolved in favour of the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah, whereas at the end of the discussion the other rabbis rule in favour of the opinion expressed by the Rabbanan. Later authorities, i.e. the Geonim, again rule in favour of Rabbi Yehudah. At any rate, Avimelech took along an entourage, i.e. Achuzat and others in order to make the vow they wanted Isaac to undertake qualify as an oath made in public and therefore not subject to annulment at any future time. Our rabbis in Gittin disagree on how many people must be present in order for such a vow to be considered "public." Rabbi Nachman holds that the presence of three people suffices, whereas Rabbi Yitzchok holds that there has to be a quorum of ten people. After perusing what our sages have written on this subject in Bereshit Rabbah 64,2 concerning the meaning of ואחוזת מרעהו, I found that Rabbi Yehudah defines the meaning as simply the name of the person, whereas Rabbi Nechemyah understands it as a procession of wellwishers. Perhaps the disagreement mentioned in that Midrash is parallel to the disagreement whether three or ten people are required in order to qualify a vow as having been made in public. At any rate we may view Avimelech as having made sure that sufficient people were present to make Isaac's vow irrevocable.

Perhaps Avimelech was so astute that he wanted to ensure that the presence of his army commander Phichol, who represented all the military, would make the vow one that had been made על דעת רבים, "with the consent of many," not merely "in the presence of many."

The same two rabbis who disagreed in Bereshit Rabbah 64,9 on the meaning of ואחוזת מרעהו also disagree on the meaning of the word פיכל. Rabbi Yehudah considers the word as merely his name, whereas Rabbi Nechemyah sees in it a description of his function, i.e. that פי כל, he was the authority to whom all the soldiers owed obeisance. The argument between the two rabbis may have the same root, i.e. whether in order to make a vow into a public vow one requires the presence of three or ten people respectively. The plain meaning of the Torah seems to be that three people suffice; this is why if we accept the meaning of Rabbi Yehudah, Avimelech took two people along for the ceremony. According to the view that a quorum of ten is required to make the vow a public oath we would have to interpret the verse according to the opinion of Rabbi Nechemyah in which case Avimelech took along quite a number of people, i.e. a minimum of ten. At the same time Avimelech may have wanted the oath to qualify as approved by a quorum of at least ten people, as we described earlier.

ויאמר אליהם יצחק, Issac said to them, etc. We have to understand why Isaac spoke to the king and his entourage in such a hostile manner. It seems incompatible with our image of Isaac. Besides, seeing that in the end he did make a covenant with them, what was the point of the hostile attitude Isaac displayed initially? Furthermore, once Isaac had told Avimelech and company that they hated him, why did he spell out how this hatred had expressed itself, i.e. by his being expelled from Gerar? If the latter sentence was meant to prove the Philistines' hatred of him, he should have said כישלחתם אותי, when you expelled me instead of ותשלחוני מאתכם, suggesting that they let him go unmolested?

ויאמר...ותשלחוני, the plural mode here indicates that at the time when Avimelech had expelled Yitzchok he had done so by following the advice of his ministers and notables. He had also said at that time “לך מעמנו,” Go from us!”

We must understand Isaac's words as reflecting his awareness that the only reason Avimelech displayed any interest in making an agreement with Isaac was his concern that possibly his own inheritance would be in jeopardy due to G'd's promise to Abraham of the whole land of Canaan. Abraham had already reassured Avimelech about those concerns and Isaac his son would certainly not be able to annul a promise made by his father. There was therefore no reason for Avimelech to approach Isaac in this matter. Isaac reasoned as Maimonides rules that vows undertaken with the consent of the other party cannot be revoked except with that party's consent. Since Abraham had not done so during his lifetime it was too late for Isaac to make any changes, anyways (based on Job 37,18). Under the circumstances Avimelech had no need of Isaac at all. When Isaac said: "why did you come?" this is not to be understood as a hostile statement, but as pointing out that there was no need for them to come all the way in order to request what they were about to ask. Seeing this was so, he could only assume that they had come for his sake, presumably in order to lure him back to Gerar. He alluded to this by using the word אלי, to me. This was hard to believe, however, in view of past hostility shown him. He added the word ואתם, and you, referring to Avimelech and his ministers personally; he meant that it was not just the population at large which had displayed hatred towards him. By using the word ותשלחוני, Isaac meant that their hatred of him was based on jealousy. It is a well known fact that hatred may evaporate unless it is caused by jealousy. Hatred based on jealousy will not abate until the cause (Isaac) of the jealousy has disappeared. Isaac challenged Avimelech that their hatred of him would not disappear as it was based on jealousy.

ראו ראינו WE SAW PLAINLY (literally, seeing we have seen) — We saw it in the case of your father and we see it in the case of yourself (Genesis Rabbah 64:10).

תהי נא אלה, which is בינותינו, between your father and me should remain in force also between בינינו, ובינך, between you and me. This had been part of the condition of that pact that neither Avraham’s children nor grandchildren were allowed to renege on a promise he had made on their behalf. (21,23)

כי היה ה' עמך, we do not want to make a deal with you because we are afraid of you, but because G’d is on your side.

ויאמרו ראו ראינו וג׳. "We have seen very clearly, etc." Why did Avimelech and company repeat: "we have seen, seen?" There are also other nuances in their remarks which we need to analyse.

ראו, the letter ו at the end instead of the customary letter ה as the last letter of the root is not unique, we encounter it also in Isaiah 6,9 or as בכו לא תבכה, in Isaiah 30,19. There are other parallel verses in Scripture.

תהי נא אלה בינותינו, בינינו ובינך, “let there be a treaty confirmed by a mutual oath between us, between us and between you.” From the phrasing it is clear that Avimelech was not prepared to swear an oath in the name of Yitzchok’s G’d. Hence he used the expression בינותינו to indicate that he meant to swear by the deity he was in the habit of swearing by.

That oath that exists between us since your father’s times. Rashi is answering the 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.”]

ראה ראינו, “we have seen repeatedly;” the fact that you have succeeded twice where we have failed has convinced us that your G-d is on your side;” clearly your success is due to you personally, and not to the quality of the earth that you have either planted seeds in or dug wells in. We have noted that since you departed this earth has failed to be blessed. It is clearly your G-d Who is the cause and Who is with you.

‘תהי נא אלה בינותינו וגו means LET THE OATH that has existed BETWEEN US since the days of your father CONTINUE NOW BETWEEN US AND YOU.

תהי נא אלה בינותינו, a reference to all the people of his country having sworn to keep this agreement with Yitzchok, to be confirmed by an oath between the two representatives of the parties concerned, i.e. Avimelech and Yitzchok.

Basically, Avimelech and company responded to Isaac's questions by saying that they really intended to respond to all Isaac had said. As to the covenant concluded between Abraham and Avimelech they said: "we have seen,seen." They claimed that there were two reasons why they could not rely on Abraham's vow. One was, as we stated, that Abraham's vow was made in private, the other that Abraham had not been a beneficiary of Avimelech and thus was at liberty to annul his vow even without Avimelech's presence or consent. Furthermore, they said that they did realise that only when they renewed said covenant with Isaac would he consider his father's vow as binding and ironclad. Avimelech added that when he concluded his covenant with Abraham he had not been careful to do it in such a way that it would remain irrevocable.

בינותינו בינינו וביניך, “between us; the oath that we swear by our deities shall now be binding both between us and you;” he meant that although Yitzchok swears in the name of his G-d, such an oath shall also be binding for them who swear in the name of their own deity. [The linguistic problem here is that the word בינינו, is otherwise completely superfluous. Ed].]

Should Isaac be angered that Avimelech had not bothered to secure similar guarantees from his brother Ishmael who was, after all, Abraham's elder son, they explained this by saying they had observed that it ws Isaac who was both personally powerful and obviously enjoyed G'd's blessing and support. Although Isaac had pointed out that the fact they had expelled him was a sign of their hatred for him, they had convinced themselves that if he was worthy of G'd's blessing there was no cause to hate him.

ונכרתה ברית עמך, “and we are willing to conclude a binding treaty with you;” an offer to renew the covenant Avraham had made with Avimelech’s predecessor for three generations.” They felt the need for this, since their having breached it when they claimed the wells and when the expelled Yitzchok[, they were afraid that Yitzchok might feel free to disregard it].

Concerning Isaac's complaint that they had not been honest with him and that it was an effrontery therefore to ask him for favours, ראו ראינו, they felt intellectually that the permanent validity of the covenant with Abraham would be guaranteed only if they renewed it at this time. I shall forthwith explain how we can read all this out of their carefully chosen words.

ונאמר תהי נא אלה בינינו, we said: "let there be an oath between us, etc." The word ונאמר is past tense. They now began to explain the reason they had expelled Isaac from Gerar; as long as Isaac remained with them in Gerar it was legally impossible for the oath they had in mind to become irrevocable. We learn in Nedarim 27 that it is permissible to revoke certain vows without the need to appear before a tribunal. Examples are vows which were made under pressure from people who are reputed to commit murder in order to enrich themselves, or when facing robbers intent merely on confiscating one's property, or when facing tax collectors who exceed their authority. The school of Hillel taught that even when such vows were phrased as an oath, no legal mechanism is required to revoke them (when the danger is over). Concerning the above Mishnah, Maha'rik writes in Yore De-ah 232, that "anyone who swears an oath or makes a vow under duresss, such oath or vow is not legally binding." It suffices to annul such vows or oaths in one's heart; Joseph, however, did not annul his vow concerning his promise to Pharaoh not to reveal that the latter did not understand the Hebrew language, nor did Zedekiah annul his promise to Nebuchadnezzar in his heart. This ruling is valid even if the person who made the vow had been compensated in some form for the vow he was about to make. Avimelech and his company were afraid that Isaac might invoke this ruling to free himself of any vow if such an undertaking were to be made while he was in Avimelech's territory, i.e. under his rule, and therefore under some kind of duress. Therefore they came to a place over which Avimelech had no authority so that any undertaking by Isaac would be completely voluntary and therefore binding upon him. This is also clear from the writings of Nachmanides on the subject. The words תהי נא were meant to emphasise that the covenant to be undertaken now was to be different from the one previous in that it would remain valid, i.e. תהי. When they claimed at the time they expelled Isaac that he had become too powerful, this had only been a pretext to make him leave; their true reason had been to create a situation in which Isaac's oath would be binding upon him. They may also have used that pretext so that Isaac could not try to dissuade them by telling them that their fears that he would not honour his commitment were unfounded. There were some other considerations which I will come back to later.

בינותינו בינינו ובינך, "between us, i.e. between us and you." The reason they added the apparently unnecessary word בינותינו was to reinforce the existing agreement concluded with Abraham, and to add a new covenant with Isaac. They wanted to examine whether Isaac considered the agreement with Abraham as valid for him. Perhaps Avimelech was afraid that G'd would renew His promise to give the land of Palestine to Isaac and the latter would give part of his inheritance to Esau. Avimelech did not consider Esau as the seed of Abraham seeing that G'd had specificaly said to Abraham that כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע, that only part of Isaac's seed would be considered Abraham's seed (21,12). Should Isaac then decide to give the land of the Philistines to Esau, he, Avimelech, would not have a legal leg to stand on in a dispute with Isaac, seeing that the covenant with Abraham which covered Abraham's descendants down to his great-grandchildren would not have been breached thereby. Esau would argue that his inheritance was due to a promise made by G'd to his father Isaac, not through a promise made by G'd to Abraham who had delayed it from becoming effective for four generations. These were the considerations which prompted Avimelech to make Isaac swear a separate oath. According to Rashi the word בינותינו alluded to the validity of the agreement for several generations.

This word may also allude to the fact that Avimelech wanted the undertaking to be a public one. The repetition of the word בינינו was meant to emphasise the mutual agreement that prevailed at the time of the new covenant and which would make any future attempt to revoke it subject to mutual agreement.

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.

ויעש להם משתה, in order to preserve the friendly atmosphere he prepared a feast for them and they ate and drank together.

He made a feast for them. It is the way of the righteous to be easily appeased.

וישכימו..וישלחם, they rose early and he sent them off after accompanying them for the appropriate distance.

AND ISAAC’s SERVANTS CAME AND TOLD HIM CONCERNING THE WELL WHICH THEY HAD DIGGED. This is the same well mentioned above in the verse, And there Isaac’s servants digged a well.¹⁹⁴Verse 25 here. They had begun to dig it, and Abimelech came to him during that period, and on the day of the making of the covenant, when Abimelech and his retinue had left, Isaac’s servants brought him the tidings that they had found water.
It appears feasible to me that this is the same well which Abraham dug, in connection with which he gave Abimelech seven lambs as a witness [to his ownership of the well].¹⁹⁵Above, 21:30. The Philistines, however, stopped it together with the other wells, whereupon Isaac dug it again and called it by the same name which his father had called it. It is for this reason that the name of the city is Beer-sheba: on account of the well (be’er) which both the father and the son called by that name because there they swore both of them.¹⁹⁶Ibid., Verse 31. The verse there refers to Abraham and Abimelech. Ramban uses it here only as an expression to indicate that both Abraham and Isaac called the same well by the same name and both had occasion to swear over it. The name of the city “Beer-sheba” thus derives its historical significance from both the first patriarch and his son.
This well of theirs alludes to the Tabernacle at Shiloh, which the Philistines stopped when the Ark of G-d was taken captive by them.¹⁹⁷I Samuel 4:11. And they redug it, indicating that the Philistines indeed returned the Ark together with the honorary gift to G-d.¹⁹⁸Ibid., 6:11.

ויהי ביום ההוא, before Avimelech and his entourage had departed. This was deliberately timed by G’d to demonstrate to Avimelech the extent of Yitzchok’s success so that they would remain in awe of him.

ויבאו עבדי יצחק, “The servants of Yitzchok arrived just then, etc.” According to Nachmanides this statement refers back to what had been written in verse 25 i.e. ויכרו שם, “they dug there (Beer Sheva). The digging had already begun before Avimelech set out to conclude this treaty with Yitzchok. Their efforts were rewarded with success on the very day the agreement was concluded. I believe that it is most likely that this was the same well which Avraham had dug in the same location, and that he had at the time given 7 sheep to Avimelech as testimony that that well had been dug by his servants and that the water was his. (Genesis 21,24) The Philistines had stopped up that well after the death of Avraham. Yitzchok now renamed the well with the name given to it by his father at the time.

שבעה [AND HE CALLED IT] SHIBAH (swearing), in allusion to the Covenant (cf. v.31; “And they swear” etc.).

על כן שם העיר באר שבע this was not the same Beer Sheva we read about in connection with Avraham. There were two towns called Beer Sheva, as we know from Kings I 19,3 ויבא באר שבע אשר ליהודה, “he came to Beer Sheva in Yehudah.” [If there had not been another Beer Sheva the additional words “which is in Yehudah” would have been unnecessary. Ed.]

ויקרא אותה שבעה, on account of the oath that Yitzchok and Avimelech had sworn there. Avraham had done the same. (21,31) Even though he had not named the well itself שבעה, he named the entire region Beer Sheva, both on account of the oath and on account of the seven sheep which had been the physical symbol of that oath. Both Avraham and Yitzchok named the event in the presence of Avimelech.

על כן שם העיר באר שבע, “this is why the town became known as באר שבע.” The fact that both Avraham the father, and Yitzchok the son, had called the well באר שבע resulted in the urban center surrounding it becoming known by the name given to it by these two prominent people. From a mystical perspective, this name is an allusion to the Tabernacle which stood at Shiloh for over 300 years When the Philistines captured the holy ark which Eli’s sons had taken to war with them, they stopped up that well again, until the Israelites, once the Hoy Ark was returned by the Philistines, reopened it. Ibn Ezra comments that there were two separate reasons why the well and the town were called Beer Sheva. On the other hand, seeing that this is somewhat unlikely, it is possible that the city Beer Sheva is not the site at which this well was dug and the treaty concluded.

Abraham hatte למקום, den Ort, die Gegend באר שבע genannt, Jizchak den Brunnen שבעה — entweder von dem dort geleisteten Eide, oder weil ihm dort Gott sichtbar im Bunde mit seinen konkreten, irdischen Verhältnissen (das Siebte mit den Sechsen), sich gezeigt; es war dies der Glanzpunkt in Jizchaks Leben — durch beides erhielt die später dort gebaute Stadt ihren Namen.

על כן שם העיר באר שבע, “this is why the name of the town was B’eer sheva. If you were to question that that name for this well (site) had already been given to it by Avraham, so why does the Torah let us think that this was something new? We must understand the meaning of the verse as follows: Yitzchok named the well mentioned in verse 32 shivah, “seven,” because he had named the town B’eer sheva. Actually, originally the name was a reminder of the “oath” שבועה, not the “number” שבע. As to the question how Yitzchok could enter into a business arrangement with a pagan, the Talmud Avodah Zarah considers the prohibition based only on such deals leaving a wrong impression on other Jews, something that was not relevant as yet. This was also the reason that the Philistines came to Yitzchok there, as they wanted to renew the oath at the place it had been concluded originally. There is also the problem of Exodus 23,13 that “the name of an alien deity shall not cross your lips,” i.e. you must not be heard uttering it. [I have not understood how Yitzchok could have become guilty of this in this connection. Ed.]

As to the Torah writing: על כן שם העיר באר שבע, and we know that the place had been known by that name already since the days of Avraham, the Torah informs us that the name Avraham gave it might not have endured, but that this event now ensured that the name would be permanent. When a certain location commemorates two historic events both in the life of the father and that of the son, this will be remembered for far longer as everyone recognises that more than coincidence was the reason why the historic event which produced the name occurred precisely there.

בן ארבעים שנה [AND ESAU WAS] FORTY YEARS OLD —Esau is compared to a boar, as it is said, (Psalms 80:14) “The boar from the wood doth ravage it”. The boar when it lies down stretches forth its cloven hoof as much as to say, “See, I am a clean animal” (whilst really cloven hoofs are a feature of clean animals only in conjunction with another that is lacking in the swine). In the same way these dukes of Esau rob and extort and pretend to be honorable (Genesis Rabbah 65:1). For the whole forty years Esau enticed women from their husbands and ill-treated them; when he reached the age of forty he said, “My father took a wife when he was forty and I shall do the same” (Gen. R. 65).

ויהי עשו בן ארבעים שנה, at that point Yitzchok was 100 years old seeing that he had been 60 years old at the time the twins had been born. The only reason the Torah draws our attention to the age at which Esau got married was to give us a better understanding of Yitzchok’s age when he is described as getting old, (27,1) He must have been well over 100 years old by then.

ויהי עשו בן ארבעים שנה, at that point Yitzchok was 100 years old and he did not bother to see to it that both of his sons should be provided with suitable wives. As a result,

ויהי עשו, the reason why he did not marry until he was 40 years of age was that he wanted to emulate his father who had married at the age of 40. He wanted to create the impression that he was walking in the footsteps of his father. However, he did not observe his father’s ways who had not been allowed to marry a woman of Canaanite descent. In that respect he followed his eyes, judging by external appearances, not ancestry, and personal virtues. He had not bothered to consult with his father. He was guided by the influence the family of his wives wielded in the land of Canaan, for after mentioning the names of the wives it becomes clear that the father of each was a well known personality. Seeing Esau appeared a great man to the fathers of these girls, they consented to let him marry them.

The daughter of Be’eri the Chittite. From the fact that Yitzchok did not warn him against marrying a Canaanite it is clear that he knew that Yaakov alone was to be his heir (see Rashi 28:15). Nevertheless, he loved Eisov because he thought him resourceful and decent.

ויהי עשו בן ארבעים שנה ויקח אשה את יהודית בת בארי החתי ואת בשמת, “when Esau had reached the age of forty he took as a wife Yehudit daughter of Be-eri the Hittite and Bosmas.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 65,1 interpreted the wording to mean that during the first forty years of his life Esau chased married women. When he attained the age at which his father had married his mother, he decided to emulate his father’s example and to take a wife also. He reasoned: “just as my father married at the age of forty, I shall do the same.” Concerning this strange attack of sudden piety on the part of Esau, Rabbi Pinchas quoted Rabbi Simon that it is strange that the pig has been mentioned only on two occasions by the prophets. Once by Moses who emphasized that it is unfit to be eaten by Jews (Leviticus 11,7), and the second time by Assaph in Psalms 80,14 “the wild boar gnaws at it and creatures of the field feed on it.” The psalmist uses the pig as an example of a creature which when “lying down” extends its hooves to display that it is a pure animal, while at all other times it unabashedly disregards civilized conduct. Esau, when getting ready to settle down, pretended to be following in the footsteps of his father by choosing the age at which his father had gotten married to emulate him. The nation descended from Esau also excels in pretending to apply civilized standards as something demanded of others while they themselves rob, plunder and murder. They have a record of perpetrating evil under the cloak of being servants of the Lord.
Both Esau’s wives were Hittites, Canaanites, members of the seven tribes whom the Jewish people have been instructed to exterminate if they do not vacate the land of Canaan first (Deut. 20,17). The Torah informs us that wicked Esau married wives belonging to a wicked people. The verse applied to the marriages of the wicked is found in Psalms 125,5: “but those who in their crookedness act corruptly, let the Lord make them go the way of the evildoers; peace on Israel.” The psalmist means that when the wicked join other evildoers the ultimate result will be peace for Israel as the wicked will self-destruct. Hail to Israel who do not act in this fashion. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 65,3 have stated “when a starling is seen joining a raven, this is not by accident. It proves they have something in common.” [In current parlance this is the meaning of the expression “birds of a feather.” Ed.] If Esau, though biologically descended from a father who epitomized holiness nevertheless married such women, it proved that spiritually he was totally corrupt.

Mit dieser Heirat und noch dazu zugleich zweier Chitterinnen hatte Esau vollständig seine Unfähigkeit zur Tragung des Abrahamsberufes besiegelt. In einem Hause, wo gar zwei Töchter Chets walteten, war das abrahamitische Prinzip begraben. Wir haben gesehen, wie Jizchak und Rebekka es als ihre Aufgabe erkannten, sich zu isolieren, und nun denke man sich: Jizchak baut einen Altar und ׳ויקרא בשם ד, und sein eigener ältester Sohn bringt die ע"ז ins Haus. Natürlich heißt es dann, dass sie מורת רוח ׳וגו waren.

ויקח אשה, את יהודית בת בארי החתי, apparently Yitzchok did not object to his sons marrying Canaanite girls, something his father had objected to strenuously.

מרת רוח [AND THEY WERE] A VEXATION OF SPIRIT — the expression means opposing the spirit of a person. The first word is of the same root as (Deuteronomy 9:24), “Ye have been rebellious (ממרים)”: all their actions tended to be a grief

ויקח אשה את יהודית....ותהיין מורת אוח, seeing that Rivkah is reported in 27,46 as becoming fed up with her life if she would have to live to see Yaakov also marry a Canaanite girl, the Torah had to explain what had produced such a prejudice in Rivkah against the local girls.
מורת רוח, the construction of the word מורת, with the vowel patach under the letter ר needs to be understood by comparing it to the root עשה, also a root ending with the letter ה. In Psalms 148,8 we have the formulation ossah devaro, which is feminine, seeing it describes the activity of the רוח סערה, a stormy wind, which is feminine. The construct form of the word ossah there would be ossat, Similarly, the word מורת in our verse is a construct form of the feminine form of the word מורה, not with the vowel segol under the letter ר but with the vowel kametz. [as in numerous similar nouns that appear sometimes as feminine and sometimes as masculine. Ed.] The word מורה meaning being contrary, rebellious, also appears in a slightly different form, i.e. ממרה as for instance, in Joshua 1,18 ימרה את פיך, “someone who will rebel against your orders.” When it appears in a genitive, construct form, it becomes morat. In Proverbs 14,10 we encounter a similar construction (though it is written with the vowel kametz under the letter מ) The verse reads: אבל לב יודעת מרת נפשו, “a heart knows its soul’s bitterness.” The use of the chataf kametz under the letter מ there converts the word from adjective to being a noun. It is derived from מררות, “something bitter.” (compare Deuteronomy 32,32) In our verse here the word מורת is not a noun but a construct form of a verb, similar to Lamentations 1,20 כי מרה מריתי, “for I am experiencing a great deal of distress.” Here (in our verse) the vowel cholem instead of kametz as in Lamentations, is a manifestation of the abbreviated, chataf vowel often found with the middle letter of the root

ותהיין מורת רוח, they became like a razor and a knife, shortening the lives of both Yitzchok and Rivkah. The expression מורת is the same as in Judges 13,5 where the angel told the wife of Manoach that the as yet unborn Shimshon must be a Nazirite and ומןרה לא יעלה על על ראשו, no “hair-trimming tool must touch his head.” Even now Yitzchok did not realise the extent of his son Esau’s wickedness. He did not protest his behaviour with a single word. This led to his ultimate error in setting out to bestow the blessing on his son Esau. This, in turn, [i.e. Esau first having been promised a blessing and then not getting it Ed.], led to Esau getting the blessing or advice that he would live (be successful) by his sword. In spite of this blessing he still hated his brother to the extent that Yaakov had to flee for his very life to another country in order to get away from his murderous intentions.

ותהיין מורת רוח, they angered their in-laws and opposed them in every way. They even reversed the customs practiced by Rivkah in her household.

ותהיינה מורת רוח, “Their conduct caused both Yitzchok and Rivkah mental anguish.” The Torah writes this so as to explain that due to their not visiting Yitzchok and Rivkah often, it is not surprising that they were not on hand to reveal Yaakov’s masquerading as Esau.

An expression meaning: a spirit of rebellion, as in: “You were rebellious.” For if it meant מרירות (bitterness), it would not have a ת in the construct state, since the root would be מרר. Whereas the root of ממרים is מרה, and the ת of the construct state replaces the ה, since it is the third letter of the root. מרת רוח conveys that each of Eisov’s wives possessed a rebellious spirit, whereas bitterness does not relate to one’s spirit.

מרה ,מורת רוח, Grundbedeutung: entgegengefahren, daher מוֹרָה Scheermesser, das im rechten Winkel gegen das Haar fahren muß. (Ähnlich מול gegen und beschneiden.) מרה auf Gemüt und Handlungsweise übertragen, heißt demnach: gerade etwas darum wollen oder nicht wollen, weil es der andere nicht will oder will. Sie waren beiden, Jizchak und Rebekka, trotzig entgegen, obgleich diese sonst in ihren Sympathien nicht übereinstimmten, und zwar bedeutsam Jizchak zuerst. Dass Schwiegertochter und Schwiegermutter sich nicht ganz vertragen, ist nichts so Ungewöhnliches, zumal wenn die letztere auch dem Sohne nicht ganz hold ist. So aber heißt es ליצחק zuerst; denn es war hier nicht ein Gegensatz in gleichgültigen Dingen. Sie waren ein vollendetes Widerspiel gegen den Geist, der in Jizchak und Rebekka lebte.

ותהיין מורת רוח, “both of these daughtersinlaw became sources of frustration to both Yitzchok and Rivkah. We see this from Rivkah’s justifying her wishing to take a wife from her family (27,46) by telling her husband that if Yaakov were to take wife from the local Hittite population she would get fed up with her very life. What can describe more graphically her and her husband’s frustration at the choice of wives Esau had made? Moreover, it is likely that if these daughtersinlaw had been compatible with them they would all of them have lived in one house. The fact that they did not live under one roof is clear, as Yaakov would never have gotten away with deceiving his father by pretending to be Esau if Esau’s wives had lived in the same house! He had expelled them from his house on account of their conduct. [I find this argument very weak, as in Genesis 2,24 already the Torah describes a son marrying and setting up house for himself and his wife as being the norm and not the exception. Ed.]

ליצחק ולרבקה TO ISAAC AND REBEKAH, because they worshipped idols (Genesis Rabbah 65:4).

מרת, a noun, just as מרת נפש in Proverbs 14,10. The root of the word is מרר, embitter, the only difference between the word here and that in Proverbs being the vowel under the letter מ. Here we have the vowel cholem, whereas in Proverbs it is written with a kametz chataf, abbreviated vowel kametz. It is also possible that the root of the word here is מרה, in the sense of Isaiah 63,10 מרו ועצבו את רוח קדשו, “they rebelled, and grieved His Holy Spirit.” This too is a variation of the theme of bitterness. If we accept this word as the root of the word מרת in our verse, the meaning would be that these women actively engaged in causing anger, frustration to Yitzchok and Rivkah. The whole story would then have as its purpose to show how disdainful Esau was of the sensitivities of his parents. He did not even protest his wives’ behaviour or move them out of the patriarchal home.

Because they worshiped idols. It seems that Rashi deduced this since Scripture mentions Yitzchok before Rivkah, to say that the pain was greater for Yitzchok. [Perforce,] this was because all his life he was not accustomed to idol worship. But Rivkah was accustomed to her father’s and brother’s idolatry.

Diese beiden Verse sind eine höchst bedeutsame Einleitung zu der nun folgenden Geschichte.

ליצחק ולרבקה, “to Yitzchok and to Rivkah.” According to our sages in B’reshit Rabbah 65,4, Yitzchok was the first to experience this dissatisfaction with Esau’s wives’ conduct. It is explained that the reason is psychological. Rivkah, who had grown up in an environment of pagans, did not become affronted so easily by Hittite girls not yet having abandoned every nuance of their former pagan backgrounds, whereas Yitzchok, used be surrounded only to holiness,at least in his father’s house and his wife’s housewas far more sensitive to this. [Another exegesis: Normally, women spend most of their time in the home and therefore become aware of what other women in their homes do. Men, whose lifestyle usually requires them to spend more time outdoors, are not privy to what goes on inside the house. Yitzchok, being blind, and therefore housebound, not being preoccupied with mundane activities in the kitchen, etc., had a keener sense of hearing and overheard more inappropriate remarks made by his daughter in law than did Rivkah.]