or haChaim - parasha jaye sara

 

24:45

אני טרם אכלה לדבר אל לבי, "I had not yet finished speaking (praying)." Eliezer said this so no one should think that Rebeccah's actions had been prompted by what she had overheard Eliezer saying.

24:47

ואשאל אותה…ואשים הנזם על אפה. "I asked her….and put the ring on her nose." He changed the sequence of events in his report so that Laban and his father in their craftiness should not be able to claim these trinkets as belonging to Bethuel since Rebeccah had obtained them as reward for services rendered. If, however, Rebeccah had obtained the jewelry only after she had identified herself as the daughter of Bethuel, it was clear that they were meant to effect the betrothal between her and Isaac, her father not being able to claim them as belonging to him.

24:60

את היי לאלפי רבבה. "May you become thousands and myriads." The reason Laban stressed the word "you" was that he was aware that Isaac would continue the Abrahamitic tradition and found great nations. Although this fact itself was anathema to wicked people such as Laban, they preferred that Rebeccah would be the founding mother than any other wife Isaac might marry. We must accept the psychological fact that the wicked hate the righteous even if the latter are their own flesh and blood.

25:6

ולבני הפילגשים, And to the sons of the concubines, etc. The Torah does not mention that Abraham bequeathed any gifts to Ishmael when he expelled him. We have explained on Genesis 17,5 that Ishmael was himself a slave and as such anything that would be given to him would automatically not be his but his master Isaac's who was the rightful heir of Abraham and Sarah.

25:7

ואלה ימי שני חיי אברהם אשר חי. דקדק לומר [אשר] חי על פי דבריהם ז"ל (ב"ר פס"ג) שאמרו כי חסרו לו ה' שנים קודם יום שבו עשה עשו ה' עבירות, ולזה אמר אשר חי פי' לא שנים שקצבו לו כי יותר היו אלא אלה הם מה שחי:

חסלת פרשת חיי שרה

25:19

ואלה תולדת, And these are the developments, etc. Why did the Torah mention the birth of Isaac instead of the birth of his children at this point? Why did the Torah need to tell us here that Abraham fathered Isaac?

The intent of the Torah may be understood thus. "And these are Isaac's developments," refers to events that are mentioned later on in this פרשה. Seeing the Torah will speak about the sons of Isaac, and Isaac himself was not originally capable of siring children since his own existence had been rooted in the "left" side of the emanations [until the fact that he submitted to the binding on the altar resulted in his "graduating" to the status of someone born under the aegis of the "right" side of the emanations (kabbalistic concept) compare 22,2 Ed.], the reader might have asked how Isaac could sire children at all? The Torah therefore hints in this way that the fact that Abraham had fathered Isaac enabled him to bestow upon Isaac the ability to beget children.

Alternately, the Torah may refer to Yevamot 64, where we learn that when two righteous people offer a prayer simultaneously, if one of them is also the son of a righteous person G'd will listen to his prayer first. This is why the Torah described G'd as listening to Isaac's prayer in 25,22. Accordingly, the words: אברהם הוליד את יצחק means that Abraham's righteousness was a factor in G'd enabling Isaac to have children.

A further meaning may be connected to Bereshit Rabbah 63,2 which explains Isaiah 29,22, where the prophet describes the as yet unborn Jacob as having redeemed Abraham, i.e. saved him from Nimrod's furnace. Had it not been for Jacob's merit Abraham might not have survived that experience. Our verse then would hint that it was only the combined merit of Jacob and Isaac that enabled Abraham to live long enough to beget Isaac.

The wording of our verse contains an additional meaning of the word תולדת, "developments, offspring, generations." The true "offspring" of the righteous are their good deeds. The various trials Isaac underwent during his life are not specifically described as such by the Torah, although it was he who offered his life to G'd on the altar at Moriah. There are even commentators (such as lbn Ezra 22,4) who claim that Isaac submitted only against his will. In order to prevent us from arriving at such a conclusion the Torah describes Isaac once more as a true offspring of Abraham, someone who was in no way inferior to his father in his love for and obedience to G'd. This is stressed both by the word בן אברהם and the conjunctive letter ו before the word אלה. Isaac continued to accumulate meritorious deeds just as Abraham had done before him.

The Torah may also simply hint that Isaac had only one son who followed in the footsteps of Abraham, i.e. "and these are the generations of Isaac, the one who was a true son of Abraham."

Still another meaning may be gleaned from the wording "Abraham begat Isaac." Whereas Isaac did indeed match Abraham in good deeds, he could not receive the same credit since he had his father as an example and could model himself accordingly. Abraham was unique. He was "self-made," did not have a father who served as his role model. This was the reason that the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 41,8) quotes G'd as describing Abraham as "the one who loved Him." Abraham had had to initiate this love towards his Creator without the Creator having served as a guiding light for him first.

Another reason that Isaac is described as the son of Abraham here once again is to teach us that a צדיק who is himself the son of a צדיק is in class by himself, not to be compared to a צדיק who is the son of a רשע. Even though Bereshit Rabbah 38,12 states that Abraham's father Terach became a penitent before he died, he had been wicked for most of his life. The activities of a sinful father cast a pall over the spiritual light spread by the son. When looked at from that vantage point Isaac was better prepared for a pious life than his father. All this is included in the wording ואלה תולדת יצחק בך אברהם.

Isaac did not experience all the painful experiences that Abraham endured. The Torah explains the reason why by writing that he was the son of Abraham. He was the first beneficiary of his father Abraham's great and cumulative merit. If Abraham experienced far more turbulence in his life this was because it could not be said of him that a great man fathered him.

25:20

ויהי יצחק בן ארבעים שנה, When Isaac was forty years old, etc. The reason the Torah reports the age at which Isaac married, something that we were not told concerning Abraham, is in order to to explain why Isaac married so late. The words בקחתו את רבקה, explain that he had to wait that long in order to marry this particular girl. The words: "לו לאשה" "for him as a wife," spell out that only this woman could have fulfilled the role of becoming Isaac's wife. Prior to Rebeccah's birth no בת זוג, suitable potential wife, had existed for Isaac. We have explained in the last פרשה that Rebeccah was very young, having only been born when Isaac lay bound on the altar (at the age of 37) and thus became capable of fathering issue. Under the circumstances no criticism can be levelled at Isaac for not getting married earlier. Rebeccah was only three years old when Isaac married her.

בת בתואל הארמי…אחות לבן, the daughter of Bethuel from Aram,..sister of Laban. The Torah does not repeat this information in order to remind us who Rebeccah was but in order to defend Rebeccah against possible accusations. Inasmuch as the Torah tells us in the next verse that G'd responded to Isaac's prayer (though both of them prayed simultaneously), someone might have concluded that Rebeccah did not merit that her prayer should be answered by G'd; the Torah explains therefore that the only reason G'd did not respond to her prayer at the time was the fact that her father was the wicked Bethuel. Repeating the information that this Bethuel was an ארמי, is an allusion to the other way of spelling these letters, i.e. רמאי, swindler. The Torah deliberately did not mention the town Bethuel lived in in order to have a chance to allude to the fact that the man was a swindler.

The reason that the Torah again mentions that Rebeccah was a sister of Laban, something we already knew from the encounter of Eliezer and Laban at the well, is in order explain why such a fine woman gave birth to the wicked Esau. Having both a father who was a swindler and a brother who was a master swindler in her background, the marvel was Rebeccah's innocence, not the fact that one of her sons might turn out to be wicked. Baba Batra 110 already remarks that most sons turn out to have a character resembling that of their mother's brothers. The Torah attests that Rebeccah herself was an absolutely righteous woman when Isaac her husband is described as praying in the presence of his wife. Should you ask why Isaac did not examine Rebeccah's brother's character before he decided to marry her, we have already answered that she was the only woman who was his בת זוג, divinely appointed to become his wife. Had this not been so Isaac would never have married the sister of a wicked person such as Laban.

The words אחות לבן also allude to the reason that Rebeccah was barren for so many years. According to Bereshit Rabbah 60,13 this was in order that her fertility could not be credited to the blessings bestowed upon her by her brother Laban in 24,60. The Torah therefore alludes to the cause of barrenness before mentioning the fact that she could not conceive. It was because she was Laban's sister that she needed to wait to conceive until her husband's prayer.

25:21

ויעתר לו, "He responded to his entreaty." The reason that the Torah does not mention the customary "Isaac knew his wife" (as in Genesis 4,1, or Samuel I 1,19) prior to reporting her pregnancy may have been that they prayed within three days of having had marital relations. Their prayer was that the semen should not go to waste (compare Berachot 60 on the subject of semen turning unfit for conception).

25:22

ויתרצצו הבנים בקרבה, The children were quarrelling inside her, etc. Both the expression ויתרצצו, "they quarrelled" and the words למה זה אנכי, "why am I therefore" need examination. Rashi explains that "if the pain involved in giving birth is so intense, why did I bother to pray to become pregnant?" It is difficult to reconcile our image of the pious and righteous Rebeccah with Rashi's comment, i.e. that she did not think the pain worth her while in order to become a mother. Also, if that had been her real concern, how did G'd's response alleviate her problem? Our rabbis have offered many and various explanations none of which are acceptable as the plain meaning of the verse. The plain meaning of the word ויתרצצו is based on the root רצץ, to crush. Since there were two fetuses in her womb she felt as if her womb was being crushed. She was afraid that she could not complete her pregnancy and would have a miscarriage as a result. Her question then was rhetorical, i.e. "what good was my becoming pregnant if this pregnancy will not be completed successfully?" The words: "she went to ask G'd," mean that she prayed to G'd to let her complete her pregnancy without mishap. She felt that the miracle of her becoming pregnant after all these years surely should not be wasted by her not giving birth to a healthy child.

25:23

ויאמר ה׳ לה, G'd said to her, etc. Although this verse has been explained by many there is still no truly satisfactory answer. G'd responded to her fear that she would miscarry by explaining to her that there was nothing medically wrong in her womb but that she was carrying two instead of merely one fetus. Whereas normally, when a mother expects twins, the two fetuses get along inside the womb (compare Song of Songs 7,4), in Rebeccah's case they did not. Hence her feeling of being crushed. She did not merely carry twins but each one was destined to become a nation with very different characteristics from one another. Not only would each one be a king in his own right, but these respective nations would endure for thousands of years. All of this would not have resulted in her having a feeling of being crushed were it not for the fact that these twins did not conform to the usual pattern of twins. When G'd explained that ממעיך יפרדו, "they will be totally separate already while still inside of you," this meant that they would not only be separate inside of Rebeccah but their being separate would continue after they were born. At any rate, G'd reassured Rebeccah that there was nothing wrong with her womb.

ולאום מלאום יאמץ, "and one nation will be stronger than the other, etc." This means that there is an additional factor preventing these two peoples from dwelling together in harmony; each one will derive its strength from the other (the defeat of the other). We find an example of this concept in a statement in Megillah 6 that the city of Tzor attained its true prominence only through the fall of Jerusalem. Seeing that each nation therefore anxiously awaits the downfall of the other, there is no hope that they will live together in brotherly harmony.

ורב יעבד צעיר, "and the senior one will serve the younger." None of the many commentaries on this expression seem to do justice to the words. Our approach will solve the problem. Not only will one of these two nations attain its respective grandeur at the expense of the other, but the nation which is defeated will wind up in servitude to the respective victor. The victor will not content himself with having vanquished his antagonist and deprived him of his assets, but he will oppress him to boot. This will further inhibit any chance of reconciliation and will increase the degree of mutual hatred. This is what the Talmud (Ketuvot 72) had in mind when it stated that a human being and a snake cannot live together in cramped quarters. The words do not mean that Esau and Jacob respectively will live in such a dependence on each other; the meaning is that whoever will be the senior one of these two nations during different periods of history will relate to the other as a tyrannical overlord.

25:26

ויקרא שמו יעקב. He called his name Jacob. The Torah refers to G'd, not to Isaac. Proof is that had Isaac been the subject in our verse, the Torah would not have continued : "and Isaac was sixty years, etc," but would have written: "and he was sixty years, etc."

25:28

ויאהב יצחק את עשו, And Isaac loved Esau. According to the Midrash Tanchuma Esau snared the love of his father by misrepresenting his true character such as enquiring about the correct manner of tithing salt. He did not bother to engage in such trickery except when dealing with his father. This was because he was not concerned about the performance of good deeds but only wanted to ensure his father would have no reason to curse him. He also hoped to obtain blessings. His mother could not dispense either, therefore he made no effort to camouflage his true self when in his mother's presence. This is why we find later on (27,41) that Esau waited for the death of his father before killing Jacob, whereas he did not wait for his mother to die before committing murder. The reason Rebeccah did not inform Isaac of Esau's wickedness may have been that Esau was careful never to put on such a charade in her presence so as not to give his mother an excuse to challenge Isaac's love for him. According to Onkelos who renders the words כי ציד בפיו as ארי מצידה הוי אכיל, "that Isaac ate from the game Esau hunted," we must ask why this reason did not also cause Rebeccah to love Esau, for surely they took most of their meals together or at least Esau did not discriminate against her? Perhaps the reason is that in accordance with the commentary of the Maharik on Even Ha-ezer 70,1 Isaac was under an obligation to feed his wife a meat diet. When a wife comes from a family who is used to such a diet the husband must keep her in the style she was accustomed to. Bethuel was a wealthy and influential man in his town, and no doubt Rebeccah had been used to a high standard of living prior to her marriage. She would not therefore be particularly grateful for the venison, considering it merely as her due.

25:29

ויזד יעקב נזיד. Jacob cooked food. Perhaps the reason Jacob did this was that he had observed how effective Esau's providing his father with delicious meals had been in cementing Isaac's love for him. He therefore tried to emulate his brother.

25:30

על כן קרא שמו אדום, this is why he named him Edom (the red one). Esau called the dish "Edom" not because he called something that was already of a reddish colour "red," but inasmuch as his lifestyle flirted with death and this food was bound to give him an additional lease on life, he called it by his own name. Esau was quite well versed in the significance of names as he himself said in 27,36: "has he (Jacob) not rightly been called יעקב, i.e. "crooked?"

25:31

ויאמר יעקב מכרה כיום, Jacob said: "Sell as of this day, etc." The word "as of today," needs amplification. There are aspects to the birthright which do not become effective until after the death of the father, and as such they are legally considered as דבר שלא בא לעולם, something the eventual existence of which is still subject to doubt. The claim to such things cannot legally be established on an "if and when" basis. Jacob added the words "as of this day" in order to make the sale legal at this time. This is in accordance with Baba Metzia 16 and Choshen Mishpat 211,2. When someone who is poor and does not have what to eat goes hunting and offers the proceeds of his hunt for sale adding that such sale be effective "today," the sale is valid. The reason for this is that the poor man desperately needs the proceeds from such a sale. The Geonim write that the word "today" is not critical to the effectiveness of such a sale. Even if the sale was to be effective the day after it would still be valid. The decisive criterion is the critical need for the proceeds of the sale. The only reason the Talmud mentions the word "today" is to exclude dates such as "after thirty days or longer." As long as the time stipulated for the sale to take effect is within one day so that the seller can assure his survival during this space of time he has met the important criterion. When Jacob said "כיום," he did not mean "today" but "in accordance with the rule applying to sales that take effect within a day. He saw Esau was very tired and weak and providing this food for him at that time was a matter of survival. Had Esau not been in a temporarily desperate situation the sale would not have been legal.

25:33

ויאמר השעבה לי. He said: "swear it to me on an oath." The reason that Jacob requested an oath from Esau was because the whole institution of the birthright contains many intangibles, such as the honour and dignity conferred on the firstborn. Jacob was particularly interested in the privilege of performing duties in the Temple, something which was the duty of the firstborn at that time. We are conversant with the rule that a person cannot transfer the right to intangibles either by sale or by gift (Maimonides Hilchot Mechirah chapter 22). This is why Jacob insisted on making such acquisition by means of an oath. Yoreh Deah 239 rules that both tangibles and intangibles may be acquired by means of an oath.

Jacob used the words "swear it to me." Actually the oath is not sufficient to acquire an intangible which does not even exist yet such as becoming heir to one's father if the latter dies before the heir. The reason is that the purchaser cannot truly have convinced himself that he will ever obtain what he has purchased (Baba Metzia 16). If, however, the purchaser was absolutely certain in his mind, the object has indeed been acquired and the oath is quite irrelevant. This is why Jacob had to add the words כיום, as I have explained already. In the meantime I have found a book of the Rivash in which he writes as follows in the course of item number 328. "You have written that you have seen that the son of the Rosh wrote in the name of his father that if someone tried to acquire a "future" by means of an oath such an acquisition is legally valid. He proves the thesis from the sale of the birthright from Esau to Jacob and the fact that the latter insisted on an oath. Since we have neither the signature of the Rosh or his son Rabbi Yaakov to confirm such a theory, it is not admissible to place such theories in the mouths of great men [in order to lend them weight Ed.] seeing that the theory has absolutely no merit. The "so-called" proof from our story is no proof at all seeing that all this occurred before the Torah was given to the Jewish people. It is quite possible that in those days people did not distinguish between selling "futures" and selling "actuals." The oath then would merely have served to reinforce the sale, to protect oneself against the seller changing his mind at a later date. Esau was, after all, a man of violence." Thus far the Rivash. This is exactly in agreement with what we have written, the only difference being that the Rivash did not see fit to provide a reason why Jacob insisted on an oath.

The reason Jacob said: "swear an oath on it to me," instead of merely "swear an oath on it," is so that it would be understood that the sale was for the benefit of Jacob (not for someone else). The oath had to be acceptable to Jacob else Esau could have annulled it in his heart. The essential element of an oath is the heart, i.e. what a person has in mind at the time of the oath (compare Rabbi Akiva in Torat Kohanim 12). Rabbi Akiva insists that at the time an oath is sworn the person undertaking it must have no reservations about the declaration he makes on oath. When Jacob said "swear it to me," he meant: "make your oath correspond to my will."

Another reason Jacob was careful to add the word לי "to me," was that only he was able to acquire the birthright. Inasmuch as the benefits of the birthright include such intangibles as the duty to perform sacrificial service in the sanctuary, this was something that devolved from Isaac to his son. This privilege could not be sold to anyone who was not a son of Isaac. The dignity of the office of the priesthood (in those days equivalent to the birthright) could also not be transferred to an outsider.

וימכור את בכרתו, He sold his birthright, etc. The Torah here had to state the validity of the sale a) because of the reasons we have explained, b) because Esau acted under some kind of duress, c) that Esau sold something for a mere fraction of its real worth. In his commentary on Choshen Mishpat item 227, the Maharik writes as follows: "if someone sold something due to pressing need even at a price significantly below its accepted market value, he cannot retract because he was aware of what he was doing and forgave the difference in value to the purchaser." In view of this ruling the fact that Esau sold the valuable birthright for a single swallow of Jacob's potage did not invalidate the sale. Esau had described his state of exhaustion as: "here I am about to die;" there is no greater emergency than a person selling something in order to save his life. We know from Job 2,4 that a person will give up all that he has for his life. Had Esau not been in such a state, Jacob could not have acquired the birthright from him. When Solomon said in Proverbs 5,22 that the wicked will be entrapped by their iniquities, he had Esau in mind. According to Bereshit Rabbah 63,14 Esau had committed a number of sins on that fateful day and this was the reason that he forfeited the birthright which was transferred to someone more deserving than he.

25:34

ויקם וילך ויבז עשו את הבכורה, Esau arose, went on his way and despised the birthright. The Torah stresses that Esau's despising the birthright was a conscious act. Had the Torah written: "He arose, he went and he despised the birthright," we could have thought that he merely did so unconsciously. The Torah added the word "Esau" here once more to tell us that Esau deliberately showed disdain for the birthright. Even if Esau had not desperately needed to trade something to obtain some of Jacob's potage he would have sold the birthright cheaply at any time if Jacob had asked him to.

26:2

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.

26:3

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.

26:5

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.

26:6

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

26:8

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.

26:11

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).

26:12

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.

26:15

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.

26:16

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.

26:17

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.

26:24

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.

26:26

[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.

26:27

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.

26:28

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.