Комментарий о цитате к Берешит 25:5

If we are to understand the Midrash as recording an actual historical event, it would seem reasonable to say that here, too, God made a necessary trade-off. The test of the Akeida could not be accomplished without Sarah dying in the way that she did. In addition to being an inevitable consequence, her death could be one more component of the test itself. As mentioned earlier, God made every facet of Avraham’s test as difficult as is possible. Since, according to the Midrash, Sarah’s death was an obvious consequence of the Akeida, Avraham may well have realized that his killing Yitzchak would likely result in the death of Sarah as well. This thought would have served as one more devastating psychological barrier for Avraham in his test of submission.⁴Viewing the tangential events surrounding the Akeida as additional facets of Avraham’s test also solves another problem that has troubled commentators from the Talmudic period to the present: After we read of Avraham and Yitzchak’s every action on the way to the Akeida, Yitzchak mysteriously disappears (most conspicuously in Bereshit 22:19), only to reappear several chapters later. When he reappears, Avraham inexplicably disappears. The next time that they clearly reappear together is at Avraham’s funeral. (In Bereshit 25:5 when we are told that Avraham gave his inheritance to Yitzchak, that does not imply that he did so in Yitzchak’s presence.) Many explanations are tendered, but they all seem forced, or divorced, from the story line. Could it be that Yitzchak did go back home – but without Avraham? After the Akeida, the human bond between father and son was forever ruptured. Even though Yitzchak agreed with every action taken by his father, a human being cannot see his father in the act of killing him and remain the same. Yitzchak’s associations with his father could no longer be what they were before this pivotal event in both of their lives. Yitzchak’s “disappearance” is another indication of the inevitable cost of a test such as the Akeida.

לא יירשך זה כי אם אשר יצא ממעיך, for the son would succeed taking over Avram’s leadership role amongst large number of followers while his father was still alive. This is the true meaning of Genesis 25, 5-6 ויתן אברהם את כל אשר לו ליצחק בנו.... בעודנו חי,” Avraham handed over all that was his to his son Yitzchok while he was still alive.” This is followed by the statement that Avraham sent away the sons of the concubines from the presence of his son Yitzchok.

AND ALL THE GOODS OF HIS MASTER BEING IN HIS HAND. Rashi comments: “This refers to a deed of gift of all his possessions which he wrote in favor of Isaac so that they would be eager to send him their daughter.” And so it is also stated in Bereshith Rabbah,¹⁰⁶59:15. “He carried with him a disposition of property.”
According to this opinion, the verse stating, And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac,¹⁰⁷Further, 25:5. means that he caused him to take possession of the belonging at the time of his death so that the other children would not contest his ownership, just as it is said, And he sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived.¹⁰⁸Ibid., Verse 6. If so, the word “taking” applies also to the second part of the verse, And the servant ‘took’ ten camels, and departed, and all the goods of his master he took in his hand. Perhaps [the words of the verse are to be transposed as follows]: “And the servant took ten camels and all the goods of his master in his hand, and departed.”
Others¹⁰⁹This interpretation is found in the commentary of Chizkuni. explain the sense of the verse as meaning that immediately upon being sworn, the servant himself went and took many camels from his master’s camels because all his master’s goods were in his hand, he being the officer and captain over all and authorized to take from him whatever he desired, just as the verse says, that ruled over all that he had.⁸⁰Verse 2 here.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the meaning of this verse is similar to that of the verse concerning Hazael, general of Aram, And Hazael went to meet him [Elisha the prophet], and took a present with him, and every good thing of Damascus, forty camels’ burden,¹¹⁰II Kings 8:9. [which means “and ‘of’ every good thing of Damascus].” Here too Scripture states that he took in his hand of all his master’s goods ten camels’ burden. The sense of the verse concerning Hazael is that the camels carried all that was good and excellent among those species of fruits and precious things that were found in Damascus or in his master’s house, and in addition they carried a present with them. In a similar sense is the verse, ten asses laden with the good of Egypt,¹¹¹Further, 45:23. [which means laden with the good and excellent fruits of Egypt]. The verses, however, shorten expressions when the subjects are understood.