Genesis · Chapter 26

There was a famine in the land, besides the earlier famine that had been in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went to Abimelech king of the Philistines, to Gerar.

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. 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.” 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. His going to Abimelech 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. 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 wife (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. Later he regretted it and said, Go from us. here. Afterwards, he returned and made a covenant with Isaac Similarly, in the Babylonian Exile, they were exiled there because of the burning heat of famine, 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, even alerting the princes and governors beyond the River 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.” 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. TO ABIMELECH, KING OF THE PHILISTINES. It is not known whether this is the same Abimelech who lived in the days of Abraham or whether every Philistine king was so called, for in the time of David he was also called Abimelech. 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]. ” 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 place here. asked Isaac, in mere quest, concerning his wife, and he said, She is my sister. here. Even so, neither the king nor any of his men touched her for they remembered the affair of Abraham. Hence Abimelech said, One of the people might lightly have lain, 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.”

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. 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.

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. 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 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.)

ויהי רעב בארץ מלבד הרעב הראשון, “There was famine on earth, apart from the first famine, etc.” Nachmanides writes concerning this statement that it is possible that the first famine on earth was the one reported in Genesis 12,10 during the days of Avraham. His comment is surprising in view of what we learned in Bereshit Rabbah 64,2 that there were a total of 10 famines which have been mentioned in the Bible, the first one of which occurred in the days of Adam as a result of G’d cursing the earth for his sake (Genesis 3,17). The second is supposed to have occurred during the time of Lemech, Noach’s father who greeted Noach’s birth as a good omen, saving mankind from the earth which had been cursed (Genesis 5,29). The correct interpretation of our verse is that the word “the first famine,” referred to in our verse describes the post-deluvian world, not the “first” ever. This is evident even from the continuation of Nachmanides’ commentary in which he writes: “for they were remembering the first famine and telling each other about it.” On account of that famine Avraham had felt impelled to leave the land of Canaan and to descend to Egypt. Yitzchak, true to the example set by his father, wanted to do the same, until G’d restrained him by telling him not to go to Egypt. Nachmanides, in commenting on this whole paragraph, involving Yitzchak and Avimelech, writes: “this entire paragraph is full of allusions and foreshadows what would happen to the Jewish people when they would go into exile to the land of the Babylonians. Whereas the exile of Avraham into Egypt had been due to a famine, foreshadowing that his descendants would also descend there on account of a famine, this exile of Avraham to Gerar was voluntary (Genesis 20,1) “Avraham journeyed from there to the land of the South and settled between Kadesh and Shur and he sojourned in Gerar.”The descent of Yitzchak to Gerar, as opposed to that of his father, was involuntary and occurred at the specific command of G’d. (verse 2) It therefore can serve as a preview of an exile to a land one’s fathers had come from. Just as Avraham had come from Babylonia before migrating to the land of Canaan, so when his or Yitzchak’s descendants would march into exile it was fitting that the place they would be exiled to would be the land they had originally come from. Please remember that Yitzchak’s “exile” was different from his father’s. Avimelech did not rob him of his wife. He only lived in fear that this might happen, fear being one of the hallmarks of living in exile. At the beginning, as soon as Yitzchak arrived, Avimelech had issued instructions that no one should dare harm Yitzchak (verse 11), whereas ultimately he expelled him from his country (verse 16). Eventually, the same people who had expelled him sought an alliance with Yitzchak. This is very similar to the experience of the Jewish people during the Babylonian exile. The exile commenced due to the terrors of hunger (Lamentations 5,10). During the Jews’ stay in Babylon they were not oppressed, and many of them rose to positions of great influence. Finally, [after the Babylonians had themselves become vassals of the Persians, Ed.] King Coresh proclaimed that they were free to return to their homeland and gave them money and a military escort to protect them on the way (Ezra 1,3). He even warned the surrounding kingdoms not to molest the returning Jews (Ezra chapter 4 and Daniel chapter 7). Basically, what the Torah tells us in this paragraph is that there was a famine and Yitzchak went to the land of the Philistines, a land governed by the same Avimelech who had already governed it in the days of Yitzchak’s father and who had concluded a sacred covenant with his father. This was the reason Avimelech did not dare touch Yitzchak. [Originally, Avimelech had requested the covenant because he was afraid of what might happen to his offspring when the Jews would take over the country. It had not occurred to him that Avraham’s son might use his own country as a safe haven from famine. Ed.] The inquiry about the status of Rivkah was not made by Avimelech but by the local inhabitants, and this is why the Torah was careful to write (verse 7) “the men of the place inquired about his wife.” In spite of being told that Rivkah was not Yitzchak’s wife they did not molest her remembering the covenant with Avraham, Yitzchak’s father. When Avimelech protested to Yitzchak that “someone from the local population almost slept with Rivkah,” (verse 10) he meant: “I did not touch her and I was extremely careful not to get involved with her. But, at the same time, it was very possible that one of my countrymen could have done so and then you Avraham would have been the immediate cause of making us guilty just as happened in your father’s time.” Thus far Nachmanides.

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.

Hashem was revealed to him and said: Do not go down to Egypt; dwell in the land that I will tell you.

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, 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, 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.” 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. 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, 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 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. "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.

“Dwell in the land which I will tell you.” And immediately afterward He said, “Sojourn in this land,” so what is meant by “which I will tell you,” which implies that after some time He will tell him which land to dwell in, when immediately and forthwith He told him which land it is? This is a puzzling verse. What seems most likely to me is that He prevented him from going outside the Land [of Israel] because there, there is no place for the Divine Presence to be revealed. Therefore, He would not be able to speak to him there prophetically according to the needs of the moment. For this reason, [God said] “dwell in the land where My Divine Presence is revealed, and there I will tell you whenever I wish to communicate some prophetic message to you.” This explains why He first said “dwell [shkhon] in the land” and afterward said “sojourn [gur] in the land,” because “shkhon” implies more of a permanent residence than “gur” which is an expression of temporary dwelling. This is because from the perspective of acquiring spiritual perfection in this land, you shall dwell in it as a permanent resident, but from the perspective of acquiring physical blessings, you shall be in it as a temporary resident. This is what is meant by “sojourn in this land,” etc., because everything mentioned afterward speaks of physical promises. This is also what is meant by “I am a stranger [ger] and a resident [toshav] among you” — a stranger from one perspective and a resident from another perspective.

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.

Sojourn in this land, and My Memra will be at your side, and I will bless you; for to you and to your children I will give all these lands, and I will establish the covenant that I made with Abraham your father.

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. 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, 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. 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; Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Thy servants, to whom Thou didst swear by Thine own self. 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. 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, 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. 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.

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

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." 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.

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.

גור בארץ הזאת, “dwell in this land.” G’d commanded Yitzchak not to leave the boundaries of the Holy Land. The reason was that he had been sanctified when he lay bound on the altar on Mount Moriah in order to become a burnt-offering (Bereshit Rabbah 64,3). [some ancient sources combine this with the fact that Yitzchak was born in Eretz Yisrael. Ed.] Had Yitzchak left the country he would have become ritually impure, just as are all the people outside the land of Israel. Why did G’d phrase the command not to leave Eretz Yisrael as גור “dwell as a stranger,” when He had already told him in the previous verse שכון בארץ, “live permanently in the land!?” He wanted to give Yitzchak a hint of the גור אריה, the vision Yitzchak had seen while lying bound, something which transformed him into the epitome of פחד יצחק, the heading under which our tradition sums up Yitzchak’s relationship with G’d. It was because of this vision that when Yitzchak found out that he had been deceived by both his sons when he gave the blessing to Yaakov, that the Torah reports: ויחרד יצחק חרדה גדולה, ”Yitzchak experienced a very great trembling (27,33).” [Being wrong in one’s assessment of such an important matter as almost giving the power to bless and to curse to an unworthy person was a traumatic experience for someone whose life was based on the attribute of Justice. Ed.]

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 formula אשר 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.

I will multiply your children as numerous as the stars of the heavens, and I will give to your children all these lands; and through your children all the nations of the earth will be blessed.

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: (48:20) “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”.

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.

In return for the fact that Abraham heeded My Memra and kept the charge of My Memra: My commandments, My statutes, and My teachings.

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

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), 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. 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. There the Sages also said that Abraham observed the details of the Torah, which he taught to his children, 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 pillar This is forbidden in Deuteronomy 16:22. and marry two sisters in their lifetime, and, in the opinion of our Rabbis, four sisters. Thus Jacob married four sisters: Leah, Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah. Also, Amram [Moses’ father] married his aunt, and Moses our teacher erected twelve pillars. 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 him to walk in His ways? In the case of Jacob the Sages taught that he observed the Sabbath and established borders for Sabbath distances. 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; 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.” They further expounded [on the verse referring to Isaac, which says], And he found in that year a hundredfold, that he measured the produce for the purpose of tithing, since the patriarchs were the generous ones of the peoples, 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. 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 Hakodesh 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.” 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, and similarly with Amram who married his aunt. For the Commandments are the ordinance of the G-d of the land, 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. 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, He hated it although it was pleasing to Him in the days of the ancestors.” 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, it was because it is equal in importance to all the commandments, constituting, as it does, a testimony to Creatio ex nihilo. 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, the bringing of his son as a burnt-offering, and the expulsion of the maid-servant and her son. My statutes refers to walking in the paths of G-d by being gracious and merciful, doing righteousness and judgment, I, pp. 11-12 Soncino edit. Positive Commandment 8. and commanding his children and his household concerning them. 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 Noah which constitute their Law.

"And he kept My charge" — this is a general term encompassing everything one is obligated to observe: commandments, statutes, and teachings. The commandments may refer to [directives such as] "Go forth" [Gen. 12:1] and also "Please take your son" [Gen. 22:2]. The statutes are the ordinances of Hashem, by which a person follows after His deeds, as I will explain in the passage concerning sha'atnez. These statutes are implanted in the heart. The teaching refers to [the fact] that he circumcised himself and his sons and his servants. And in the verse "the teaching and the commandment" (Exod. 24:12) I will explain them well.

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

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 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.” 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 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 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.” 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.

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. וישמר משמרתי, מצותי, חוקותי ותורותי, “he observed My safeguards, My commandments, My statutes and My moral/ethical instructions.” If we follow the approach of interpreting these nuances as the plain text, we must assume that G’d spoke of the seven Noachide laws which are applicable to all of mankind. The word מצותי then applies to the prohibition of robbery and bloodshed; the word חוקותי applies to the law not to eat tissue or blood from a living creature, as well as not to mate different species of animals with one another or to do the same with trees by crossbreeding. The word תורותי refers to the prohibition of all kinds of idolatry as well as to the positive commandment to establish a judiciary. People observing these laws are considered as doing G’d’s will. Finally, וישמר משמרתי “keeping G’d’s safeguards,” is a reference to “fences” around Biblical commandments to ensure that even if a “fence” had been violated, the Biblical commandment itself would remain inviolate. According to Bereshit Rabbah 64,4 Avraham was familiar even with such concepts as making an עירוב in private property to avoid becoming guilty of transferring property from one domain to another on the Sabbath. There is a view expressed in the same Midrash that the tractate Avodah Zarah dealing with idolatry and its sub-categories studied by Avraham was comprised of 400 chapters. The repetition of the word משמרתי after G’d had already said that Avraham observed, i.e. וישמר, is a reference to secondary incestuous relationships which were not even spelled out in the legislation concerning forbidden (sexual) marital relationships in the written Torah. The opinion of our sages is that the words וישמור משמרתי refers to Avraham observing voluntarily all the laws of the Torah which had not yet been legislated. According to this opinion it would be inappropriate for the Torah to commence the list with subordinate rabbinical ordinances before mention had been made of Biblical commandments. The verse divides these 613 commandments into specific categories each with its own heading. Basically, there are three categories of commandments. The first are called עדות, ”testimonies,” and comprise commandments which the mind can readily understand and which are therefore easy to fulfill. The second category is called חוקים. They are in the nature of Royal decrees which are usually incomprehensible to the human being, the subject of the King, as they are based on a superior intelligence. Finally, there is the category called משפטים, social laws, which are generally readily understandable. We find that the Torah quotes future generations of Israelites as dividing the Torah into these three categories when the Torah writes: מה העדות והחוקים והמשפטים, “what is the respective significance of these three categories of laws in the Torah?” (Deut. 6,20) The division in our verse is similar except that the social laws are referred to as תורותי, “My moral/ethical imperatives.” Furthermore, the reason for that word (and two others) appearing in the plural is that it refers to both the written as well as the “oral” Torah. The Talmud Yuma 28 states that Avraham even observed the various rabbinical ordinances such as עירובי תבשילין and עירובי תחומים. [The former involves preparing food for the holiday before the holiday if the Sabbath occurred immediately after the holiday, in order that it would not appear that the holiday was used to prepare for the Sabbath. עירובי תחומים, on the other hand, is a device employed to change the radius of one’s habitat prior to the Sabbath by means of depositing food at the centre of the new radius in order to fulfill duties such as welcoming Torah scholars who did not reach that area prior to the beginning of the Sabbath. Ed.]. In illustrating the fact that our patriarchs taught their children all these aspects of Torah which had not been legislated as yet, they quote Genesis 45,21 in which the Torah refers to the wagons Joseph sent to transport his father Israel down to Egypt. The choice of the word עגלות for such wagons [which is less appropriate than, say, מרכבה, Ed.] is interpreted as Joseph reminding his father that the last subject in their Torah study they had learned prior to his going on his ill-fated mission, was the one called עגלה ערופה, the heifer which needs to be killed in order to atone for a murder committed near a Jewish community when the murderer has not been found. Joseph hinted to his father that during the 22 years he had not seen him he had maintained his custom to study Torah. The meaning of the word משמרתי according to this approach would be “the safeguards erected by the rabbis against violating Biblical injunctions on the Sabbath.” When we reflect on these opinions offered by the Talmud and subsequent scholars that the patriarchs observed even minutiae of later rabbinical ordinances, the question comes to mind how Yaakov could ignore a Biblical injunction and marry two sisters while both were alive, or how he could erect a מצבה, a monument, or how Amram could marry his aunt Yocheved? Not only that, but Moses himself, after the Ten Commandments had been revealed, erected 12 monuments as spelled out in Exodus 24,4. In answering these questions Nachmanides (in his commentary on Leviticus 18,28) points out that the principal function of the laws of the Torah is that they be observed within the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael. When the patriarchs did observe them, they did so in an entirely voluntary fashion. Seeing that the “so-called” infractions we mentioned occurred outside of Eretz Yisrael they were no infractions at all. The patriarchs had decided in each of these instances that the reasons for not observing these laws at that time and in that place were stronger than that they should voluntarily observe them.

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.

And Isaac settled in Gerar.

"And Isaac dwelt in Gerar" — he did as Hashem had commanded him.

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

The men of the place asked about his wife, and he said: She is my sister — for he was afraid to say: She is my wife — lest the men of the place kill me on account of Rebekah, for she was beautiful in appearance.

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.”

"Concerning his wife" — on account of his wife, analogous to "lest they say to me" (Judg. 9:54). "For he feared" — this is a past-tense verb; likewise, "And it came to pass, when Isaac was old" (Gen. 27:1). The phrase "for he said, lest they kill me" is elided, just as in "for God has made me fruitful" (Gen. 41:52).

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 Kamma 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)

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.

When he had been there many days, Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out through the window and saw — and there was Isaac laughing with Rebekah his wife.

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

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 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 Bereshit Rabbah 64,5); 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.

“And it came to pass, when he had been there a long time…” Therefore, Abimelech pondered in his heart, saying: “If she is truly his sister, then why hasn’t he taken a wife during all this extended period of time?” Indeed, there must be something more to this matter. Therefore, Abimelech looked out through the window to observe his conduct and affairs.

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.

Abimelech summoned Isaac and said: Indeed, she is your wife — how then did you say: She is my sister? Isaac said to him: Because I thought, lest I die on her account.

Abimelech said: What is this you have done to us? Almost one who is set apart among the people had lain with your wife, and you would have brought guilt upon us.

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

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. 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.”

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.” 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.

And he said, ‘What is this that you have done to us, etc.’ With Abimelech, it is written ‘you have done to us’ in the plural form, and similarly Abimelech said to Abraham ‘What have you done to us, etc.’ However, Pharaoh said to Abraham ‘What is this that you have done to me’ in the singular form. In the book Toldot Yitzchak, he wrote to resolve this question: Since the Egyptians were steeped in sexual immorality, therefore there was no difference there whether he said ‘she is my sister’ or ‘she is my wife’ — either way they would have been promiscuous with her. ‘But to me alone you have sinned, for I am the king who judges the whole land — shall [I] not act justly?’ Therefore, you should have told me the truth. But Abimelech said ‘to us’ — meaning ‘you have sinned against all of us, for I and my people are all righteous,’ and they would not have touched her at all had you told the truth. This explanation is insufficient, for we see that the Egyptians, even though they were steeped in immorality, did not touch her but rather said “She is fitting for the king,” as it is written And they praised her to Pharaoh. It seems to me that since the Egyptians were brothers to the Kushites and were dark-skinned, they were not accustomed to beautiful women, as Rashi explains in Parshat Lech Lecha (12:11). Presumably, they would not lay hands on a beautiful woman, and we see that this is indeed the case, for when they saw Sarah, they said among themselves “She is fitting for the king.” Therefore, they did not want to take what was not appropriate for them. Accordingly, Pharaoh was right to say “What have you done to me?” but not “to my people,” because either way, they would not have touched her. Out of fear of the monarchy, they certainly would not touch something that was fitting only for the king and not for them. However, Abimelech’s people were not dark-skinned and were accustomed to beautiful women, and they did not have the same fear of monarchy in this matter, and everyone would lay hands on a beautiful unmarried woman. Therefore, “you would have brought guilt upon all of us.” Evidence for this is that with Abimelech, it is not written that they praised her to Abimelech saying she is fitting for him. Certainly in such a matter, the people were like the king, therefore he said “What have you done to us?” As for what Pharaoh said, Here is your wife, take her and go, this was because he was concerned that after the king dismissed her from his house, people would say the king did not desire her and they would lay hands on her. This was not the case with Abimelech, for it was specifically the Egyptians who were steeped in immorality.

Abimelech commanded all the people, saying: Whoever harms this man or his wife shall surely be put to death.

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).

Isaac sowed in that land, and he found in that year a hundredfold by their measure, and Hashem blessed him.

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

"A hundredfold" — in the words of our early sages, of blessed memory, this means "a measure," for he found a hundred [times] the measure of the seed. The word derives from the same root as "as he reckons within himself" (Prov. 23:7).

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

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.

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.

ויזרע יצחק בארץ ההיא, “Yitzchak planted in that land, etc.” The reason the Torah emphasised “in that land,” is that it was hard ground, did not usually produce much. Considering the fact that the year was one of famine the achievement by Yitzchak in securing a hundredfold return on his seed was all the more remarkable. The place where he had planted the seed was Gerar. This is where these remarkable “hidden” miracles happened for him. The land was so parched that when the local people finally found some water, they exclaimed: “we have found water!” (verse 32) מאה שערים, “one hundredfold.” At the end of tractate Ketuvot (folio 112) our sages explain that when the land of Israel enjoys G’d’s blessing, one בית סעה, of earth will yield a crop of 50,000 כור of grain. In the period when Tzoan in Egypt was at the height of its development, the yield of a measure of earth of a בית סעה would be equivalent to 70 כור. This is documented by Rabbi Meir having personally observed that in the valley of Beit Shean (Jordan valley) one בית סעה produced 70 כור. He added that there is no soil which is reputed to be richer than that of Egypt, i.e. the region around Tzoan, which the Torah described as being “like a garden of G’d” (Genesis 13,10), and where the Egyptian kings were being raised. We know this from Isaiah 30,4 where the prophet mentions that Egypt’s princes and kings were in Tzoan, and that the fertile region extended a far as Chaness. On the other hand, there was no more rocky region in Eretz Yisrael than the region of Hebron and in spite of this the single cluster of grapes which were brought back by the spies from that region had to be carried by eight men. The Torah had reported that Hebron had been cultivated seven years earlier than Tzoan in Egypt (Numbers 13,22). This number is not to be taken at face value, as it would have no bearing on what the Torah was trying to tell us in that verse. The meaning is that even in a rocky place in the land of Israel such as Hebron, the yield is seven times that of the yield of similar produce planted in Tzoan, i.e. 490 כור. In an area which is not covered with rocks such as Hebron the yield may be presumed to be 500 כור. The Talmud concludes its discussion on the relative fertility of the best part of Egypt and the worst part of the land of Israel by saying that the reason why the Torah makes a comparison is to teach that the worst part in the land of Israel is seven times superior to the best part of Egypt even if that part of Eretz Yisrael does not enjoy a special blessing during the year in question. Our verse then points out that when G’d does send His blessing the result is 100 times as great as in normal years (which themselves are phenomenal by world-wide standards.)

The man became great and continued growing greater until he was very great.

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).

"And he grew great" — this is a past-tense verb.

He had flocks of sheep and flocks of oxen and many farmhands, and the Philistines envied him.

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, because the wealth which he amassed in the land of the Philistines consisted of flocks and a great household. 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. 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.”

"And a retinue" — male servants and female servants who served him. It is an adjective, or a noun in its own right, like "a treasured possession" (Exod. 19:5).

ועבודה רבה, soil ready to be worked. 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.

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.

All the wells that his father's servants had dug in the days of Abraham his father, the Philistines had stopped them up and filled them with earth.

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”.

The construct form of "wells" occurs in two different ways.

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.

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.]

וכל הבארות אשר חפרו עבדי אביו, “and all the wells which the servants of his father had dug, etc.” The Torah simply tells us that the Philistines were so jealous of Yitzchak’s success that they closed down wells which Avraham had dug in order to deny Yitzchak the opportunity of benefiting from his father’s foresight. They wanted to deny Yitzchak the water he needed to sustain his herds and flocks. Eventually, Yitzchak bestirred himself and he redug the same wells making sure he kept the names his father had given to these wells. The Torah reports this seemingly insignificant detail to acquaint us with the meticulous way Yitzchak adhered to the norms his father had taught him. Perhaps, this is even the reason why the Torah never reports that Yitzchak’s own name was changed, as distinct from the names of both his father and his son Yaakov. This would be a further illustration of the principle of מדה כנגד מדה, that G’d responds in kind. [Yitzchak had been named already prior to his birth and never needed to have his name adjusted in order to encourage him to become more perfect. Ed.] Some commentators claim that the wells are allusions to converts who had been converted in Avraham’s time to monotheism. The allusion would symbolise that conversion was as easy as accepting a source of water which the earth provides for free. Opening a heart which had been closed to belief in G’d is compared to “digging.” This is why the Torah describes the Philistines as having stopped up the hearts of these converts, i.e. filled them with dust. Allegorically speaking, whereas Avraham had filled the mouths of these converts with “water,” i.e. life-giving Torah knowledge, their pagan compatriots filled them with earth. The expression עפר, “earth, dust” to describe pagan religious concepts is not novel; we find it in Baba Batra 16 as describing someone like Job who used specious arguments to decry G’d’s system of Justice. The Torah reports that after a while Yitzchak made the effort to reconvert these converts his father had made. It is the nature of people who engage in missionary activity to place a great deal of emphasis on the names they give to their converts. Yitzchak did just this and named the people with whom he succeeded with the very same names his father had given them when they converted to monotheism. The source for this is Isaiah 65,15: “He calls His servants by another name.”

Abimelech said to Isaac: Go away from us, for you have become much mightier than we.

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.

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.

Isaac departed from there and encamped in the valley of Gerar, and he settled there.

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.” 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 days 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, 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, 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.

Isaac returned and dug the water wells that had been dug in the days of Abraham his father, which the Philistines had stopped up after Abraham died; and he called them by the same names that his father had called them.

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.

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.

Isaac's servants dug in the valley and found there a well of springing water.

"Living water" — meaning water that flows continuously.

.ויחפרו עבדי יצחק בנחל וימצאו שם באר מים חיים, “Yitzchak’s servants dug in the valley and they discovered there a well of living water.” Nachmanides comments on this as follows: “The reason the Torah devotes so much space to the digging of wells is not because the knowledge of these facts is so useful to us, nor is the reason that the Torah wished to publicly honour Yitzchak for his activities in developing the area agriculturally. Rather, the reason is hat these details are allusions to what would happen to the Jewish people in their history long after Yitzchak had died. The words באר מים חיים, “a well of living water,” is an allusion to the Holy Temple of which it is written in Jeremiah 17,13: מקור מים חיים את ה', ”The Fount of living waters.” The first well which was called עשק is an allusion to the first Temple which became the object of contention (התעשקו) between the Jewish people and its adversaries until, in the end, they managed to destroy it. The second well, named שטנה, hatred, illustrates an even greater hatred than that which surrounded the first Temple and is an allusion to the second Temple, concerning which it has been written: “during the reign of Achashverosh, at the beginning of his reign, they issued letters of hate against all the inhabitants of Yehudah and Yerushalayim” (Ezra 4,6). This hatred continued throughout the existence of that Temple. Eventually, our opponents succeeded in destroying it and the Jewish people were exiled under very adverse conditions. The name of this well reminds you that this is where the source of Satan is to be found. Satan is none other than the spiritual representative of Esau in the celestial regions. Satan’s preoccupation in this world is to always oppose the Jewish people with a display of hatred. Yitzchak named the third well רחובות, the Torah mentioning ויעתק משם, that he had previously moved from the sites of the first two wells. The meaning of these words is that Yitzchak freed himself from the mentality surrounding the second Temple and he was able to concentrate and look forward to the idyllic conditions which would exist once the third Temple would be built. Concerning that Temple it has been written in Ezekiel 41,7 ורחבה ונסבה למעלה, למעלה, “and the passage will become wider and wind its way upwards and upwards.” When that time arrives there will be no strife and hatred and G’d will expand the boundaries of our country as is written: (Deut. 12,20) “it will be when G’d will expand your boundaries as He has said to you.” This verse was written concerning a time in the distant future, the time envisaged in greater detail in the prophecies of the latter chapters of the Book of Ezekiel. Thus far Nachmanides. The fact that in connection with the digging of that third well the Torah associates G’d’s name with it, i.e. כי הרחיב ה' לנו ופרינו בארץ, “for G’d has granted us ample space and we can be fruitful in the land,” was a prediction applicable to the future. Seeing that the first two Temples were constructed by human hands by the instructions of Solomon and Coresh respectively, they did not endure. The third Temple which will be constructed by G’d Himself (compare Rashi in Rosh Hashanah 30,1 צריכא), will no longer be subject to destruction. This is why G’d’s name is associated here with the digging of the third well. I have found a Midrash which supports this. Our sages commented on Samuel II 5,7 where we read וילכוד דוד את מצודת ציון היא עיר דוד, “David captured the citadel of David which became the city of David.” The Midrash asks why the city was called after a mortal, i.e. after King David? The answer provided is that G’d knew perfectly well that the city would initially be built and subsequently destroyed by mortal human beings. This is why during the periods preceding the final Temple, Jerusalem was known as the city of David, i.e. the city of a mortal human being. However, in the future, it will bear the name of G’d Himself seeing that it would then no longer be subject to destruction. This is the meaning of Isaiah 60,14 והלכו אליך שחוח בני מעניך והשתחוו... וקראו לך עיר ה' ציון קדוש ישראל, “they shall come before you, the children of those who have tormented you... and you will be called ‘city of the Lord, Zion, the Holy One of Israel.”

And Isaac’s servants dug in the valley and found there a well of living waters. The Ramban writes, and so it is written in Sefer Toldot Yitzchak and in Sefer Menorat HaMaor, that since everything that happened to the forefathers was a sign for their descendants, therefore they found reason to interpret all these matters of the wells as referring to the three Holy Temples which were called ‘wells of living waters’. Just as there was quarreling over two wells, and the third was called Rechovot [wide spaces], similarly with the First and Second Temples, the nations quarreled with Israel until they destroyed them, but the Third Temple, which will be built speedily in our days, is called Rechovot. And I will add my own interpretation to expand on the details of these matters that align with this exposition, and through it will be resolved what was said For now God has made room for us and we will be fruitful in the land. For apparently, the phrase and we will be fruitful in the land does not seem to be the reason for the name Rechovot [wide spaces]. Therefore, I will expand upon this matter with specific details that all correspond to what happened to us and what will be in the end of days. For it is known what our Sages said (Yoma 9b) that in the First Temple period there was strife, quarreling, and baseless hatred between the leaders of Israel who were called shepherds, as it is written And I will establish shepherds over them (Jeremiah 23:4). And the Temple was destroyed because of the quarreling between the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah. And in the Second Temple period, the trait of baseless hatred was between all of Israel, for the affliction spread among everyone until there was no cure. Therefore, regarding the first well it is written And the shepherds of Gerar quarreled with Isaac’s shepherds, hinting also to the future when there would be quarreling between the shepherds of Israel, and incidentally, the shepherds of the nations also quarreled with Israel. Therefore, he called the name of the well Esek [contention] because they contended with him, for there is a difference between two people fighting over some issue between them, and two people fighting needlessly over nothing, as is common in our generation. And this is the difference between the First and Second Temples, for the hatred that existed between the shepherds of Israel in the First Temple period was over the issue of kingship, as the kingdom of Israel was divided, and the nature of the matter dictates that one kingdom cannot touch another, therefore each one thought that his fellow was encroaching on his territory, and through this issue, the animosity between them increased. However, the baseless hatred during the Second Temple period was truly without cause, for even the lowest among them hated each other for no reason. This is why their hatred was called baseless hatred [sinat chinam], for one person had no dealings with another, and this was nothing but wickedness of heart. The Satan was dancing between them, causing them to stumble over one another, for God had found their sin from elsewhere and therefore incited them against each other to find reason for hatred. This is why they dug another well, and they quarreled over it too, and he called it Sitnah [hatred/antagonism]. In this quarrel, the text doesn’t mention the shepherds, alluding to the quarrel of the Second Temple period which involved all of Israel. Therefore they called it Sitnah, for they found no reason for their quarrels, except that Satan was certainly dancing between their horns with which they would gore one another, as it is written And they shall stumble one over another (Leviticus 26:37). And regarding the third well, they did not quarrel over it, because the Third Temple will be built by the King Messiah, about whom it is said Of the increase of His dominion and peace there shall be no end (Isaiah 9:6). For there will be only peace and truth in His days. Therefore it was called Rechovot [wide spaces], because then God will expand their territory. For in times when quarrels are prevalent, or when two Hebrews are fighting, even if they are in a city as large as Antioch, it cannot contain them dwelling together. Even in a very spacious place, the space becomes too narrow for them and cannot contain them, as unfortunately this behavior is still common among us today. Conversely, in times when there is peace upon Israel, even though we are fruitful in the land and those dwelling in it are extremely numerous, nevertheless the land is spacious for them and they are not cramped, as it is explained in the Tractate Sanhedrin 7a: “When our love was strong, we could lie together on the width of a sword blade; now that our love is not strong, a bed of 60 cubits is not enough for us.” Therefore it is said For God has made room for us, even though we are fruitful in the land and those dwelling in it are many, nevertheless the land before them is spacious. Furthermore, we find that in the Second Temple period, due to discord, wholesome people and many people left the land because of the evil of its inhabitants. Therefore, it states that in the time when peace is found and we are fruitful in the land they will not need to leave it.

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.

The herdsmen of Gerar quarreled with Isaac's herdsmen, saying: The water is ours. So he called the name of the well Esek, because they had contended with him.

עשק means DISPUTE. כי התעשקו עמו means THEY ENGAGED WITH HIM about it in strife and 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. 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. 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, 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), here. a name harsher than the first. This alludes to the Second House, which has indeed been referred to by this very name, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote ‘sitnah’ Thus the same word sitnah appears in connection with the Second Sanctuary. against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. And during its entire existence they 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., which refers to the future. And concerning the Third House of the future it is written, Broader 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. [The concluding statement in the present narrative, concerning the naming of the third well], And we shall be fruitful in the land, here. signifies that all peoples will come to worship G-d with one consent.

"Esek" — well known in the words of our early sages, but in Scripture it has no parallel.

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)].

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 dug another well, and they quarreled over that one too; so he called its name Sitnah.

שטנה old French nuisement; English hindrance.

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.

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.

And they digged another well; and they contended for it also; and it dried, and did not flow again. And he called the name of it (Sitnah) Accusation.

He moved on from there and dug another well, and they did not quarrel over it; so he called its name Rehoboth, saying: For now Hashem has made room for us, and we will spread out in the land.

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.

He went up from there to Beer-sheba.

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.

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)

Hashem was revealed to him that night and said: I am the God of Abraham your father. Do not fear, for My Memra is at your side; I will bless you and multiply your children for the sake of Abraham My servant.

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. וברכתיך, a blessing of financial success.

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.

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.

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.

He built an altar there and prayed in the name of Hashem; and he spread his tent there, and Isaac's servants dug a well there.

"And they dug" — they excavated; likewise, "which I dug for myself" (Gen. 50:5); and likewise, "if a man digs [a pit]" (Exod. 21:33); "one who digs a pit" (Prov. 26:27).

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.]

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.

Abimelech went to him from Gerar, with a company of his companions and Phicol the commander of his army.

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

And Avimelech went. After he got up to call in the Name of Hashem, the servants of Yitzchak dup a well successfully, without strife. And Avimelech went to him to seal a covenant, and not damage him further.

[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. 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. 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.

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

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).

Isaac said to them: Why have you come to me, seeing that you hated me and drove me away from among you?

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? 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.

מדוע באתם אלי ואתם שנאתם אותי ותשלחוני מאתכם, “why do you come to me? You hate me and have driven me away from your midst!” Yitzchak reminded Avimelech and his chief of staff of three matters. 1) “why do you come to me?” He referred to the distance between Gerar and Beer Sheva where he now lived. 2) “You hate me” on account of my being successful and the vast numbers of cattle and sheep which I own. 3) You drove me away.” He referred to the district of Gerar where he had settled previously and Avimelech had told him “go away from us for you are too powerful for us” (26,16). Avimelech responded to all three questions: Concerning the question why he had come, he acknowledged: “we have seen very clearly that G’d is with you" (verse 28). They repeated this, thus implying that Yitzchak’s success in planting and bringing in a bumper crop, plus the fact that he always found water was ample proof that G’d was on his side. As a result of this belated realization they had come to make a covenant with him. Onkelos translates the word אלה, oath, as מומתא, “oath,” and the word תהי was meant to reconfirm an existing obligation entered into by Avraham. [They were afraid that by expelling Yitzchak they had given him cause not to feel bound by his father’s covenant with the same king. Ed.] A totally different explanation is quoted by our author in the name of Rabbi Ishmael the author of Sifri. [Our editions of the Sifri do not have this — Rabbi Chavell]. Rabbi Ishmael views the offer of a covenant as not related to the covenant concluded with Avraham but as a new “non-aggression pact” between Yitzchak and Avimelech not to cause each other damage in any way. They wanted this to be a secret agreement that the world was not to know about. It was embarrassing for Avimelech if the world at large would hear that he had come all the way to Yitzchak to make the latter swear not to harm him in any way, and that he was so scared of Yitzchak’s power. Concerning Yitzchak’s second point about their hating him, Avimelech said that this was absolutely not the case and he had no cause to be hostile to them. In fact he would be ungrateful if he did them any harm seeing they had not only allowed him to depart in peace but had not prevented him from taking all his wealth with him. [In the opinion of the Gentiles, letting a Jew depart with his locally made fortune is proof that they do not hate him. Ed.] As to the third point Yitzchak had made, i.e. that they had expelled him, he had not suffered by this as G’d had made him equally successful elsewhere so that the fortune he had made could not be attributed to the location Gerar which they had recently denied him.

They said: We have clearly seen that the Memra of Hashem has been at your side. So we said: Let there now stand the oath that was between our fathers, between us and you, and let us make a covenant with you.

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

"Between us" — a double plural form.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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].] 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].

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 you will do us no harm, just as we have not harmed you, and just as we dealt with you only for good and sent you away in peace. You are now blessed of Hashem.

לא נגענוך WE HAVE NOT TOUCHED THEE when we said to you “Go from us”. אתה THOU — thou, also, do with us in a like manner.

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. 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,” 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: 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. It is possible that Abraham was very great and mighty in power, having in his household three hundred men that drew sword, and also many confederates; and he also that is valiant, whose heart is as the heart of a lion, 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. -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, 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. 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. [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.] 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. 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.

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 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)

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. 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. 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. 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', “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.

He made a feast for them, and they ate and drank.

They arose early in the morning and swore to one another; then Isaac sent them off, and they departed from him in peace.

And they arose in the morning, each man with his brother; and he broke off from the bridle of his ass, and gave one part to them for a testimony. And Izhak prayed for them, and they were enlarged. And Izhak accompanied them, and they went from him in peace.

On that same day Isaac's servants came and told him about the well they had dug, and said to him: We have found water.

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. 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]. 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. 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. And they redug it, indicating that the Philistines indeed returned the Ark together with the honorary gift to G-d.

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.

He called it Shibah; therefore the name of the city is Be'era de-Sheva — Beer-sheba — to this day.

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

"Beer-sheba" — it was called thus on account of two things; or it is a different city [from the earlier one].

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.]

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.

Esau was forty years old when he took as a wife Judith daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath daughter of Elon the Hittite.

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).

"Judith" — a [personal] name. And he had no offspring from her. As for Basemath, she is Adah, and she has two names; such cases are found hundreds of times in Scripture.

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, 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.

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.

They were rebellious and vexing against the word of Isaac and Rebekah.

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

"A grief of spirit" — [applicable] to each one of them. Some say it derives from the language of "stubborn and rebellious" (Deut. 21:18). In my view, however, it derives from the root of "bitter as wormwood" (Prov. 5:4), with the sense of "bitterness of spirit," and so it is written: "for the daughters of Canaan were evil" (Gen. 28:8). This passage was written so that the children of Israel would be on guard against the daughters of Canaan.

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 ומורה 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. Because of this blessing he 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, “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 Yitzchok and to Rivkah.” According to our sages in Bereshit 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.]

ותהיינה מורת רוח ליצחק ולרבקה, “they were a source of aggravation for both Yitzchak and Rivkah.” Satisfaction with something as well as knowledge of something are called רוח in our tongue as we know from Sifri Pinchas on (Numbers 27,16) that the leader must be able to confront every individual’s spirit and make it amenable to his own. We are told in our verse that each of the wives of Esau refused to fall in with the wishes of either Yitzchak or Rivkah. They angered both Yitzchak and Rivkah in all they did, as they did so provocatively. According to a Midrash Tanchuma Toldot 8 the words מורת רוח mean מרימת רוח, “they caused the holy spirit which had previously rested on Yitzchak as well as on Rivkah to lift itself off Yitzchak and Rivkah and to depart from them.” Departure of holy spirit from a person may be due to two reasons. 1) Because a person becomes angry and loses his “cool.” We have a tradition that holy spirit rests on a person only when he is in a joyous frame of mind (Berachot 31). 2) Another reason why the holy spirit departs from a person is when he keeps company with wicked persons. We have observed a classic example of this when the Torah did not report G’d as communicating with Avraham until the latter had separated himself from Lot (compare Genesis 13,14). Bereshit Rabbah 65,4 states that one of Esau’s wives was a daughter of a priest. Seeing that Rivkah herself was a daughter of an idolatrous priest, she did not mind so much when she saw garbage of idolatry. [My version of this Midrash. All of this would only explain why Yitzchak reacted earlier to this phenomenon than Rivkah. Ed.].

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.