meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt/Tanakh/Commentary/Radak/Torah/Radak on Genesis/English/merged.txt"}
text: Radak on Genesis
  רד"ק על בראשית
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009
  -
  -Eliyahu Munk, HaChut Hameshulash
  -
  -Sefaria Community Translation
  -
  
  Radak on Genesis
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  בראשית ברא אלוקים את השמים ואת הארץ. The word Bereshit is not in a genitive possessive mode, i.e. “at the beginning of,” as for instance in Jeremiah 26,1 where we find בראשית ממלכת יהויקים, where it means: “at the beginning of the reign of Yehoyakim,” but is a word in its own right as in Isaiah 46,10 מגיד מראשית אחרית, “foretelling the end from the beginning,” or, as in Deuteronomy 33,21 וירא ראשית לו, “He chose the choicest for himself.” In other words: when G’d began to create the universe, He first created heaven and earth. The word בראשית is necessary as one cannot speak of either ראשית or אחרית except in terms of “time.” At that point “time” did not exist yet as it is a concept indivisibly linked to motion. Motion commenced only when the planets were placed in the sky (on the fourth day). These motions were described in terms of “days.” At the “time” described in our verse there were only “moments,” “hours,” etc., but a recurring cycle of time such as days had not yet come into existence.
  ברא, “He created;” the term ברא is used on occasion as applying to something which is not of physical substance such as in Numbers 16,30 when Moses predicts that G’d will “create, יברא” a gaping hole in the ground wherever members of Korach’s clan and supporters stood, into which they would disappear. Clearly, the earth’s crust opening into a fissure is not something tangible, something of substance. The word ברא always means that no “matter” was involved in what G’d is described as “creating.” Job 23,13 makes such a point when referring to G’d: ונפשו אותה ויעש, “whatever He desired, He did.” [He does not have to operate within given parameters]. Similarly, Isaiah 43,7 describes G’d as saying: כל העולם הנקרא בשמי ולכבודי בראתיו, יצרתיו, אף עשיתיו, meaning that “the entire world which is called by My name in My honour, is so called in order that people will say that I have created it, I have formed it, I have completed it.” The message is that G’d created it out of “nothing,” not using existing materials. According to the great sage Maimonides, the word לכבודי, may mean “according to My will.” However, one can also understand the word in its literal sense, i.e. that the world and all that is in it represents G’d’s glory. This would conform to Isaiah 6,3 מלא כל הארץ כבודו, “the entire universe is full of His glory.” Seeing that G’d Himself is invisible, we can only recognise Him and His glory by means of His accomplishments, including His creatures.
  אלוקים. A name which means: Judge, Ruler, and Leader. Seeing that it is a noun occurring in a variety of functions, it is in the plural mode. We find the term applied both to outstanding people, judges, and leaders, also as a description given to certain angels and even planets. During the entire report of G’d’s creative activity it is the only term applied to describe Him, seeing that the chapter deals with His creative power and leadership. From this chapter we derive the knowledge that there are judges on earth and that the entire world was created by a single Creator. He created it in His infinite wisdom when He was ready to create it. In the words of our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 5) anyone who denies this basic fact will find refutation of his denial in the very text of the Torah. For instance, people who argue that the plural mode אלוקים proves that more than one force was involved in the creation of the universe, are confounded by the fact that the Torah does not continue with the plural mode בראו, “they created,” but used the singular mode ברא, “He created.” The great scholar Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra felt that seeing that G’d employed angels, i.e. agents, in His creative activities, the word אלוקים is in the plural mode so as to hint at this fact.
  את. This word refers to something that had already been created. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah, 1,15) report that when Rabbi Yishmael asked Rabbi Akiva the meaning of this word in this context, (seeing normally it means something additional) he was told that just as Nachum ish gam zu had made a comprehensive list of every time the word אך or רק appears in the Torah to demonstrate that it excludes something that we would otherwise have assumed to be included, so the word את and גם respectively include something that we would not otherwise have presumed to be included based on the plain text. To the people who use this principle to argue that the planets, the sun and the moon assisted G’d in His creation, based on the apparently unnecessary word את before the word שמים, Rabbi Akiva replied that it means that sun and moon were included in the term “heaven, sky,” whereas the words את הארץ were meant to include the vegetation found on earth, as well as Gan Eden. Concerning the strange sounding addition “and Gan Eden,” after vegetation, i.e. trees and flowers have already been named, we must understand this in a manner similar to Joshua 2,1 את הארץ ואת יריחו, “the country and Jericho,” where Jericho had, of course, been included in the expression את הארץ. The reason that “Gan Eden” was singled out was that there vegetation was at its most developed, most appealing, just as the city of Jericho was known as the city of palms, i.e. especially desirable. There is also a mystical element to this expression, i.e. Gan Eden” represents a region separate from the remainder of the earth, an area which had been created in its full splendour already on the first day of creation, just as according to that view all the eventual manifestations in heaven and earth had already been created on the first day though not yet become a functioning part of the universe. Accordingly, different parts of the universe, became functional on the days when the Torah deals with them. 
  השמים. Most of our sages (Chagigah 12) understand the word as a reference to the stars and planets in the sky, and Rabbi Maimonides in his “Moreh” agrees that the nine planets including sun and moon were indeed created as part of what is described in our verse as שמים. According to Ibn Ezra the word שמים refers to two locations in the sense of “twice שם,” the word “sham” referring to a location (there). (compare Ibn Ezra on this in a book called ספר השם. The author perceives the term as describing the opposite, outer boundaries of the heavens. The word is used figuratively, as if everything is between the two parts of an anvil) Still other scholars hold that the word השמים referred to with the letter ה, suggesting that it is a known phenomenon, i.e. “the heaven,” in this verse, refers to the firmament which was actually only created on the second day, and that the word is used here only figuratively. These scholars (Rash’bam) hold that the Torah did not mention when the planets were created and not when earth (as distinct from the dry land) was created. [I will not repeat what we have already quoted in our translation of Rash’bam. Ed.] Rashi also agrees that the Torah in its report here did not report in chronological order, but that the reference to “heaven” is a reference to the major planets in the sky. As a result, we would translate: “at the beginning of creation of heaven and earth, the earth was chaotic until G’d gave the directive: ‘let there be light.’ There are still other scholars who understand the expression שמים as referring to “fire,” i.e. the very elementary “fire” the “highest” of the 4 basic elements of which the physical universe is composed. On the other hand, the word ארץ, respectively הארץ, is then understood as the lowest of the 4 elements which form the basic raw material of the physical universe. It would have had to predate “nature,” i.e. the orbiting planets, as “orbiting” is possible only if these orbiting planets have something to rest on. According to some of our sages the fire is a result of the friction created by the motion of these planets when rubbing against their respective bases. Alternatively, we could say that G’d created “beneath” the moon [relative to earth which is considered as subject to the direct influence of the moon, such as the tides; Ed.] a single raw material which He “clothed” in 4 different-looking phenomena, so that the basic raw material of the globe would be a single material, appearing as if cast in a mould. All the phenomena in the sky would have been created simultaneously in their natural state. The reason “light” is mentioned separately is because we would not have understood the report of what transpired on the fourth day, i.e. assigning functions to this “light.” Ibn Ezra also writes in this vein, making the point that what Moses wrote down in the Torah related only to the part of the universe which is subject to development and therefore to disintegration. The word שמים refers to the רקיע, the sky, the firmament whose creation is reported as having occurred on the second “day.”
  ואת הארץ, According to Maimonides the “earth” mentioned here is a collective term comprising the 4 basic raw materials the globe consists of in various combinations. The word ארץ as distinct from the word שמים, is referred to again in verse 2 as well as in verse 10, seeing that in verse 1 no details had been given of what the word ארץ means, i.e. that it is a phenomenon comprising several basic elements. In other words, whenever ארץ is mentioned after the very first time, it is a reference to some or all of the basic elements it consists of. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על פני תהום ורוח אלוקים מרחפת על פני המים. Having first mentioned in verse 1 that G’d had created heaven and earth, and that the word ארץ included the 4 basic elements which earth consists of, the Torah now says that the creation of the earth had originally been lumped together with the creation of the heaven, seeing both were created in their final complete state. All the 9 planets were called into existence at one and the same moment. The author views the “9” planets, גלגלים, “orbiting planets” as consisting of the 7 fixed stars whose orbit was well known to astronomers in antiquity; he views as the 8th “planet” the stars in the sky known as the signs of the zodiac, the mazzalot, as well as other celestial phenomena. The 9th is considered by him as a kind of “super-star” which provides the impetus for the motion of all the other phenomena in the celestial regions. This super-star is presumed to orbit earth once every 24 hours. In its original state the earth was not complete, i.e. there was chaos, seeing that the earth was completely submerged in water. Whereas heaven had been created in a perfected state, symbolising life, earth, in its original state, being chaotic, symbolised death, as pointed out by Bereshit Rabbah, 2,2 describing heaven as “life,” death being unknown in those regions, whereas “earth” is described as תהו ובהו, meaning that “death” is a basic phenomenon in these “lower regions.” According to our author, we learn from this Midrash that the four basic elements of which earth consists are basically “dead, inert” substances. They possess no will or intelligence of their own as distinct from the creatures in the celestial regions. They have been equipped with certain natural functions and they cannot vary them. If any one of them for some reason left its natural place in the universe it will be returned there in due course. 
  וחשך על פני תהום, “darkness prevailed over the deep.” The word תהום refers to a place in which there is an abundance of water extending to a great depth. The atmosphere above the waters was dark, seeing the light from the celestial sources was not able to penetrate this atmosphere and to provide light for it. This “atmosphere” had not yet been equipped with the ability to absorb and diffuse such light. In any area where there is no light there is absolute darkness. If there was darkness prevailing above the deep waters, it is clear that the deep waters were completely shrouded in darkness. The reason that G’d did not create earth in its completed state as He had done with the heaven, is to show the intelligent people on earth that earth had not always existed but had been created by G’d. Most people are intelligent enough to believe this, i.e. that He Who had created the laws of nature also had created the universe itself. It follows that He Who created it all, also has the power to change any of it at will. The appearance of light in the celestial regions, creation of the sky itself, the dry land becoming visible, are all phenomena which were not in evidence at the beginning of the creation. The people who do not believe in the universe having been created are a small minority [in the author’s time, late 12th and early 13th century. Ed.] The very appearance of the dry land on the globe is a powerful argument against their belief, something they cannot defend with sound arguments. If everything in this universe were to proceed according to “natural law,” i.e. without a Creator having set firm limits to the manner in which the oceans can flood the earth, there would hardly be a place on earth which would not be submerged in water. After all, earth has had a higher specific gravity assigned to it by the Creator than water, as a result of which it ought to sink below the water. Seeing, however that it is both cold and dry, it remains cohesive, particles sticking to one another, so that it can maintain its position without moving from its location. Job already refers to this phenomenon in Job 38,38 “whereupon the earth melts into a mass, and its clods stick together.” At this point the author comments on statements in the second chapter of the ספר יצירה the most ancient kabbalistic text, in which three basic phenomena of our earth, i.e. שלוש אמת, “three mothers,” are described, the word being an acronym of the words אש, מים, שלום, fire, water, peace. Fire and water are considered as irreconcilable opposites, so that they can coexist only through the good offices of שלום, a peacemaker, the latter being “air.” It is considered as such as it shares some attribute with water and another with fire. The author’s basic point is that without some Divine intervention fire and water could not coexist in the physical universe. G’d had to intervene in a similar manner to ensure that the waters would not flood the earth completely. This is meant by the author of the ספר יצירה describing air, רוח, as a sort of “wall” restraining the natural impulse of water to flood the earth. [I have paraphrased the author’s words in this paragraph. Ed.]
  ורוח אלוקים, the word רוח here is in the construct mode, to indicate that it functioned as an agent of its Creator, of G’d. Its assignment had been to provide the necessary motion over the waters and to help dry them out in a manner of speaking, as explained by Ibn Ezra. It is also possible that the reason it appears in this mode is because it is such a powerful agent of G’d that it sometimes appears to have Divine force. It is quite common in our use of language that when we want to stress the power of someone or something, we somehow associate it with the name of G’d. In the Book of Jonah the city of Nineveh is thus described as עיר גדולה לאלוקים, (Jonah 3,3) and Psalms 36,7 uses the expression כהררי א-ל, in order to describe towering mountains. [The author quotes more such examples]. 
  מרחפת, we have a parallel to this in Deut. 32,11 על גוזליו ירחף, “carrying him (Israel) along on His pinions.”
  על פני המים, seeing that we have “upper water” and lower water” as will be spelled out in the report of the creative activities of the second day, the word always appears in the plural. Is to keep us aware of the fact that the upper waters contain elements of the lower waters and vice versa. They have not been completely separated. 
  The scholar known as Rabbi Yitzchok ben Shlomoh, popularly known as Yisraeli, explained that the meaning of the words תהו ובהו implies the air in a state of repose prior to it becoming imbued with movement at the behest of the Creator. As a result of the air being stationary, its moisture content distilled into water, which due to its higher specific weight sank to the bottom. The author of the Kuzari, Rabbi Yehudah haLevi, explained the meaning of the words תהו ובהו as the primordial matter, prior to its coalescing into something of definable substance. As long as such primordial matter possesses no quality it is described as “tohu vavohu.” This “tohu vavohu” is alternately referred to by the Torah as “water,” hence in this verse the רוח אלוקים is described as “hovering” over the “waters” instead of as “hovering over the tohu vavohu.” The verse would be describing that at this point G’d wanted to imbue this tohu vavohu with some quality, useful meaning, hence G’d’s spirit moved above it in order to inspire such a change. When something assumes definitive, solid dimensions, it has become qualitatively superior to water which slips through one’s fingers, cannot be held in one’s hand. This mass which has thickened out of a primordial murky liquid something is the earth.  Basically, the difference between earth and water lies also in its malleability when one tries to work it. Whereas nature comprises all manner of substances, liquid, solid, gaseous, earth comprises only solids, and when worked only a small segment of the forces of nature are involved In the ספר יצירה, as well as in the Talmud Chagigah 12 tohu is described as a green line surrounding the universe, whereas vohu is described as a number of water-soaked stones which give off their water (based on Isaiah 34,11). Rav Saadyah gaon explains that what is described as a “green line” in the Talmud is nothing other than the darkness, i.e. the phenomenon from which darkness emanated. It is the intense darkness experienced immediately before the beginning of dawn. Maimonides in the second section of his Moreh, views the word והארץ at the beginning of our verse as meaning the same as the word הארץ at the end of the preceding verse. He says further that in verse two the foundations of the earth are listed in the order of their natural appearance, i.e. earth below the water. Once the Torah mentioned the waters it is clear that earth is below, supporting the waters. The air cleaves to the waters beneath, else what is holding up the waters? Fire, (its habitat) is above the air. When fire combines with air the result is the darkness described as covering the waters. The darkness mentioned in this verse is none other than the fire; the reason fire is described here as darkness is that it did not give off any light, but was transparent. (Moreh 2,30) If this primordial fire would give off light we would be able to see at nighttime. The night would appear to us as if it were aflame. Maimonides therefore did not interpret the words תהו ובהו as something visible to our eyes. Perhaps his opinion in this matter coincides with that of other commentators inasmuch as he and they agree that none of the four elements comprising the physical universe is visible in its pure form, not amalgamated with any of the other elements. He writes further that that the words על פני המים refer only to waters other than the oceans. Only one of the four basic elements appears in three guises in close conjunction with the other elements, i.e. the “upper waters,” the “lower waters,” i.e. the ones above the sky, below the sky, and the oceans.
  
  Verse 3
  
  ויאמר אלוקים יהי אור ויהי אור. The light was already in the heaven, seeing that the luminaries were created together with the planets. Daniel 12,3 refers to this when he compares the radiance of the knowledgeable people in the future to the radiance of the expanse of the sky, describing the latter as זהר הרקיע. In Exodus 24,10 the visions experienced by the elite of the Israelites is compared to וכעצם השמים לטוהר, “as pure as the radiant light of the heavens.” What had been lacking was only that this light had not illuminated the face of the deep as this had not been equipped to reflect such light as yet. Seeing that the directive concerned only the creatures in the “lower universe,” G’d did not introduce His creative activities with the words: יהי שמים, “let there be a heaven,” but the Torah wrote simply: “He created heaven, etc., ברא.” Once the various planets were placed in orbit to perform their orbits [I suppose that the sun only is meant, Ed.] every 12 hours the “lower” part of the universe would be in darkness. At the end of the first period of 12 hours, G’d issued the directive: “let there be light”, i.e that light should replace the darkness in that location. When the wind blows over the water it dries some of the surface of the waters enabling the waters to be illuminated faintly by the daylight above. The primordial light had not become distinct, strong, until the fourth day. Possibly, the words זהר הרקיע describe the light by means of which the heaven itself shines, radiates light, as we have written. In that event, the light described here refers to a different period of 12 hours, a whole day comprising 24 hours. This light would have become missing on the first day from the “lower regions” of the universe. With the absence of this light darkness would have ensued in that region. During the first three days of the creative period, the only reason for such absence of light from part of the universe would be the fact that it was the will of the Creator that it be so. This can be so only if we adopt the view that the light prevailing during the first three days of that period was none other than the “natural” light radiated by the רקיע, the firmament. If, on the other hand, we assume that the light under discussion is the light of the sun, which up until then had shone weakly, seeing that the atmosphere had not been conditioned to let its rays traverse it without hindrance, and that as a result of this during these three “days” total darkness pervaded the universe, there can be no question that these regions had not been conditioned to receive the light from heaven at all, not even a weak diffused kind of light. Total darkness would have prevailed during these “days.” It follows that the reason for this total darkness during these three “days” must have been none other than G’d’s will, His pleasure that it be so. Clearly, although G’d saw that the light “was good,” He decreed in His wisdom that light not be present at all times in all locations. The reason is that the universe needs darkness also, why else would G’d have created it as we know from Psalms 104,20 תשת חשך ויהי לילה, “You bring on darkness and it is night.” Maimonides writes (chapter 30, second part of Moreh) that the principal cause of the coming into existence and the destruction of celestial forces such as the planets is light and darkness respectively, both of which are forces to which these phenomena are drawn. The constant change from extremes of heat and cold subject these celestial bodies to wear and tear. Climates are affected through the change from light to darkness, as well as the properties of the planets themselves. These changes reflect the will of higher forces, i.e. G’d, Who wishes rain, change of climate to occur on earth at certain times. Darkness is the natural state of the “lower regions” of the universe, light acting as something reviving these regions. The scholar Ibn Ezra writes that the light of which our verse speaks originated in the regions above the רוח, the wind (spirit) operating within the atmosphere. When the Torah wrote ויאמר, commonly translated as “He said,” this is merely a figure of speech, just as when David wrote in Psalms 33,6 בדבר ה' שמים נעשו, “that the heavens were created by the word of G’d.” These formulations are used by the Torah to describe expressions of G’d’s will.
  
  Verse 4
  
  וירא אלוקים, He “saw” in His knowledge and wisdom, that the light would be good for the creatures which inhabit the “lower” universe. Even though darkness is also good for them, i.e. useful for them, as we already explained, darkness is not something to which the adjective, attribute טוב, “good,” can be applied. The reason is that darkness entails the removal of light. How can this be described as “good?” Darkness had existed already, was not a new phenomenon, it was therefore appropriate to state that the new phenomenon light was good (in the sense that it added a positive element to the universe which it had lacked.) Moreover “light” is something evident, as opposed to darkness. That which emanates from darkness is generally evil. Kohelet 11,7 already speaks of “how sweet is the light, what a delight for the eyes to behold the sun!” Whenever he mentions darkness he does so in the context of something evil, whereas he relates to light as something good, if only because it is something in the open, something that is not “ashamed” to be seen. The evil of darkness is “visible,” as opposed to its positive aspects, which are concealed. Similarly, every time the Torah uses the phrase כי טוב in the report of creation it means that the phenomenon which has been so described is good for the creatures in the lower regions, seeing that all the acts of the creative process were good, did not contain a negative element. The reason for the word ויבדל, “He separated,” after the word וירא, “He saw,” is that once G’d had “seen” that the light was good, He did not want it to be called by the same name as darkness, although both periods are part of the same “day.” This is why the Torah writes afterwards (verse 5) ויקרא, “He called, He named,” to tell us that the separation between light and darkness was confined to their being called by different names.  It is impossible to interpret the word ויבדל as referring to anything else but the change of the name each part of the day is known by. Normally, the expression הבדל is applied to different substances, whereas light and darkness are neither of them a substance, so that the whole expression appears extraordinary at this point. If darkness is nothing more than the absence of light, how could the term “separated, distinguished,” be properly applied to the absence of something? This is why the Torah wrote ויבדל אלוקים וגו' instead of writing ויבדל האור, or ויבדל without adding a subjective or objective which would have meant that the light itself formed the division, the separation, as the Torah had done when describing the separation of the רקיע and the מים in verse 7. G’d effected the separation between darkness and light by calling them by different names. As to the expression ולהבדיל בין האור ובין החשך, “and to separate between the light and between the darkness,” (verse 18) this refers to the same day, i.e. a separation between parts of the same entity, the daylight hours enjoying the light of the sun, whereas the night receives only the relatively insignificant light of the moon. Relative to the brilliant light of the day such light is minor, whereas relative to the absolute darkness prevailing during the plague of darkness in Egypt it is quite significant.
  
  Verse 5
  
  ויקרא..ולחשך קרא לילה, the period during which there was no light was called “night.” Such a name can be applied to night even though night is something abstract, as is death, מות. We have numerous nouns which are applied to things which are abstract, such as “blindness, nudity, etc.” כסילות, foolishness, פרץ, “a breach,” and similar nouns all describe matters which are not tangible.
  ויהי ערב ויהי בקר יום אחד. The word ערב describes the beginning of the night, whereas the word בקר describes the beginning of the day. During the period called ערב, things which could be seen clearly previously begin to become indistinct, appear confused. The reason is that the sense of sight reposing in the eye cannot be effective without light from the outside. The whole night is sometimes referred to as ערב, i.e. as a continuation of the period when things began to appear blurred. This is similar to all the 30 days comprising a month being called חודש on account of the first day of the month which the Bible calls חודש. (Samuel I 20,18) This first day of the month is called thus as on that day the moon renews itself, having faded from view previously. Job 7,4 refers to the entire night as ערב, and so does Psalms 59,7 ישובו לערב יהמו ככלב, “they return at night growling like dogs.” It is a fact that dogs do not bark during the early part of the night. The messengers of Sha-ul kept watch outside David’s house all night long in order to kill him in the morning (Samuel I 19,11) The word לשמרו in that verse means “to guard him so that he could not escape during the night.” An entire day is never called בוקר. This term is applied only to the parts of the day before noon. As soon as noon has passed we enter a period described as ערב seeing that the sun has embarked on a westerly course. Its light becomes progressively weaker. The period assigned for slaughtering the Passover (Exodus 12,6) is known as בין הערבים, commencing one half hour after noon. In Judges 19,9 we read that this period when the “day” becomes weaker is known as לערוב, “towards evening.” The night is different from the day in that the entire night is described as לילה, not only the period preceding midnight.  The reason is that the stars which help illuminate the night remain visible until dawn. The verse means that combining the periods described as ערב and בקר constitute a day. This is so in spite of the fact that not the entire “day,” i.e. the period when the sun is visible on the horizon is called יום. The word בקר must be viewed as the opposite of the word ערב. It is a period when the intensity and quantity of light visible is far greater than the light available during the night. יום and לילה are also opposites  The reason why the Torah did not write ויהי לילה, ויהי יום יום אחד which would have been so much clearer, is that the word יום is a word which is applicable both to a single day and to a whole sequence of days such asשלושים יום, and we could have become confused, not knowing whether the Torah referred to the word יום as merely a “single day,” or as a period of days. Furthermore, the fact that day is the major phenomenon, and the essence of what is good of everything that exists in our “lower” regions of the universe, whereas night is a minor phenomenon, makes it imperative that the combined period be called יום, and be described as a unified period. 
  יום אחד. There is no need to ask why the Torah speaks about a יום אחד, “one day,” as opposed to יום ראשון, “a first day.” The question would be justified if the Torah had written יום ראשון and the word ראשון were meant to be an adjective describing the concept of numbers as it is when the Torah writes in Exodus 29,39) את הכבש האחד תעשה בבוקר, you are to prepare the first sheep in the morning.” In that instance the word אחד is indeed an adjective portraying the concept “first.” The scholar Moses Ibn Ezra wrote that the reason why the Torah wrote the word אחד, is that the implication of the word אחד is “the first,” in the sense that no one had ever preceded this  Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 3,8) explain the word as an allusion to the fact that the angels were not created until the second day, in order that people should not claim that the archangel Michael supported G’d on His right stretching out the firmament to the south, whereas the archangel Gavriel supported Him by stretching out the firmament on His left to the north. The word אחד confirms that G’d the Creator was alone in His world when He created the heavens (skies). This is also why the prophet Isaiah 44,24 wrote of G’d that נוטה שמים לבדי רוקע הארץ מאתי, מי אתי?, “(it is I, the Lord,) .Who alone stretched out the heaven, and unaided spread out the earth; Who was with Me? The Jerusalem Targum translated the verse in a similar manner, i.e. והוה רמש והוה צפר סדר עובד בראשית יום קדמי, “it was evening, it was morning when He arranged for the first day (to come into being).” Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes (on verse 8) that G’d Himself named 5 phenomena seeing that there was as yet no human being to name them. They are: light, darkness, heaven, earth, and the oceans and man. The reason Ibn Ezra did not refer to “day יום and night, לילה, as having been named by G’d maybe that when G’d reports the creation of the luminaries in verse 14, a time when there had also not been a human being as yet, G’d refrained from naming these luminaries. It appears that the terms “heaven and earth” were actually names given to these phenomena by Moses who wrote the report of creation in the Torah. Similarly, the terms ערב and בקר are in fact terms coined by Moses when he wrote this report. He spoke of darkness and light, even though the Torah specifically credits G’d with naming them. [Actually, there are more, but they do not appear in the report of the creation. Ed.] If we accept this we are left with 5 phenomena named by G’d in the report of creation. Or, one would have to say that what we are in the habit of calling שמים וארץ as well as what are termed thereערב  and בקר, Also, there is no specific mention of G’d “naming” man as ארם in the story of creation.
  
  Verse 6
  
  ויאמר אלוקים יהי רקיע, actually this firmament, horizon, already existed, seeing that it was the atmosphere, the air, just as the Torah speaks in verse 20 of ועוף יעופף על הארץ “and the birds are to fly above the earth,” adding: על פני רקיע השמים “on the face of the firmament spanning the heavens.” What then do the words יהי רקיע mean? They mean that this רקיע should now become something substantial. It should now become capable of sustaining the atmosphere, the air. In other words, this רקיע, which up until this point had been above the waters and had therefore been very wet and weak, impeding the light from above it from properly penetrating to the earth below, should now function constructively. This רקיע did not become “strong” until the earth itself had become dry land, i.e. on the third “day.” Only at that point did the light encounter something solid, i.e. a hard place in the globe so that it condensed into becoming as if frozen due to its proximity to this earth. The רקיע was made on the second “day,” and the words ויאמר אלוקים יקוו המים ותראה היבשה, a directive (verse 9) issued on the third “day,” refers to an existing phenomenon. There are a number of such. This is nothing unusual. This is also the view expressed by Ibn Ezra, who writes in his commentary on verse 9 that “this paragraph is inextricably linked to the one preceding it,” refuting the view that the “horizon” was not created until the second day. But as soon as the wind dried out the earth on the first day the earth became hard enough (dry), and the powerful heat was transformed into what we know as the atmosphere, heat retreating upwards to the region of the “upper” waters. Proof that the atmosphere, רקיע, had already existed before the second day is Genesis 2,1 ביום עשות אלוקים שמים וארץ, “on the day G’d had made heaven and earth.” When something is hidden, not concentrated and its particles have not been defined, it does not yet qualify for the expression בריאה, “something which has been created.” This is what Ibn Ezra wrote, and his comments are perfectly correct.
  בתוך המים, as far as this expression is concerned, it was necessary, seeing that the atmosphere itself was a component of the waters, [just as the Jewish people had been part of the Egyptian population prior to the Exodus so that G’d in redeeming them has spoken of taking גוי מקרב גוי, “one nation out of the very midst of the same nation” (Deut. 4,34. Ed.] 
  ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים, the meaning of these words is similar to the words בין המים אשר מתחת לרקיע ובין המים אשר מעל לרקיע, “between the waters which are blow the atmosphere and the waters which are above the atmosphere.” (end of verse 7). These “upper” waters are normally something that exist only as a potential, awaiting the rising of vapours from the lower waters (oceans) i.e. moist air, to transform them into actual water, i.e. rain, as has been explained by the scientists. The “separation” was needed in order for the upper “waters” to retain the ability to be converted into actual waters as they had been prior to the separation. Only in this fashion would it become possible to also irrigate the high mountains on the surface of the earth. Personally, I am perplexed by what Maimonides wrote in his Moreh, page 235 of Rabbi Kapach’s edition, He compared the separation described here to the separation that G’d had made between light and darkness. How could this be, seeing that here the division is between what is “up,” on top, and what is “down,” below. The division was not a natural division, separation, such as that between light and darkness. How could Maimonides describe “this” division as טבעי, i.e. in the very nature of things? Still, the fact remains that Maimonides is correct, and he has enlightened us who had been walking in darkness, just as he has enlightened us concerning many other things. It is worthwhile to examine what our sages of old have written on this and how their understanding agrees with the result of the researches of the scientists in our time. (14th century)  We read in Bereshit Rabbah 4,2  (a comment attributed by different scholars to two different authors) “at the time G’d said: “let there be an atmosphere within the waters,” the innermost drop of water froze (congealed) becoming what are known as the “lower” regions of heaven, as opposed to שמי השמים, the name by which the “upper” celestial regions are known. Rav says that whereas on the first day the heavens were in a wet, fluid state, they congealed on the second day. The words: יהי רקיע are a directive for this atmosphere to become strong; [to assume firm contours. Ed.] Rabbi Yuda in the name of Rabbi Seymon says that these words mean: יעשה מטלית לרקיע, “let the heaven be equipped with a cover.” The word is used in the same sense as in  Exodus 39,3 וירקעו את פחי הזהב, “they beat the gold plates into thin plates.” Rabbi Chaninah said that a fire issued forth from above and lapped up the wet parts of the Rakia, thereby solidifying the remainder. When Rabbi Yochanan encountered the verse ברוחו שמים שפרה in Job 26,13, “By His spirit the heavens were calmed,” he used to say that Rabbi Chaninah had interpreted our verse correctly. Rabbi Yudan, son of Rabbi Shimon, would say that a fire issued forth from the upper regions and dried out the moisture of the Rakia by means of its heat. Rabbi Tanchuma (Bereshit Rabbah 4,3) said if the Torah had written the words ובין המים אשר על הרקיע, I would have said that the reference was to the substance of the rakia. Seeing that the Torah wrote אשר מעל לרקיע, this refers to the “upper waters” which had been suspended there by a Divine directive. Rabbi Acha added that the “fruit,” i.e. derivatives of the upper waters are the rains which earth receives from these regions. The sages said also that that the upper waters did not separate voluntarily from the lower waters but that they cried. We know this from Job 28,11 מבכי נהרות חבש indicating that the rain descends in droplets, similar to tears. All of this basically conforms to what we have written earlier. The sages (Bereshit Rabbah 4,5) said also that the rakia is comparable to a pool which is covered with a ceiling. Due to the evaporation of the waters in the pool rising, the ceiling appears to break out in perspiration, releasing heavy drops of moisture. These drops of moisture are not salty (as the ocean water below), and they do not mix with the ocean water. This mysterious phenomenon is what is referred to in Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 4 where we are told that in answer to the question which rakia was created on the second day? Rabbi Eliezer says that it was the rakia which is above the chayot [a category of certain angels and their habitat Ed.] seeing that we read in Ezekiel 1,22 ודמות על ראשי החיה רקיע, and there was a likeness above the chayoh resembling the rakia.” These “chayot” are not physical, do not possess a body.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  ויקרא אלוקים לרקיע שמים, after the rakia had become firm, substantial, and it was capable of supporting the luminaries, G’d called it שמים, “heaven.” The name is appropriate, seeing that the rakia was now capable of absorbing luminaries just as heaven is reputed capable of receiving the creatures from the “lower” regions who possess something originating in the “higher” regions, i.e. their souls. One reason why these regions are called שמים is the fact that the luminaries are visible in the sky, heavens. Our sages, (Bereshit Rabbah 4,7) when commenting on these words, quote Rav as saying that the word שמים means a region in which fire and water coexist. Rabbi Acha son of Kahane, quoting Rav, says G’d took fire and water and thoroughly mixed the two, the result being shamayim. This is the reason why, as we mentioned already, the words כי טוב that it was good, do not appear in the report of G’d’s creative activity on the second “day.” Our sages, (Bereshit Rabbah 4,6) also say that seeing G’d’s activity on the second “day” was not completed on that day, the day’s work did not qualify for the description “it was good.” In order to compensate for this omission, we find the words וירא אלוקים כי טוב, “G’d saw that it was good,” twice in connection with His activity on the third “day.”  The first such mention refers to the completion of G’d’s activity involving the waters, whereas the second mention “that it was good,” refers to the earth producing vegetation, the only activity which occurred on the third “day,” according to Ibn Ezra. Maimonides (Moreh, Kapach edition page 235) writes that the reason why the words “that it was good” do not appear in the report of G’d’s activities on the second “day,” is that because the rakia and all that is above it is part of the “waters,” and is called by that name. It is something concealed from most people, and how could one apply the words “it was good” to something that cannot seen by us to be good and useful? Seeing that the congregating of the waters to a single location, thus making the earth beneath appear could be observed universally, the expression “it was good” was withheld until the report about that stage of the creation. Even though the making of the rakia was the underlying purpose which made vegetation on earth feasible, something which is also concealed from us, the result of the achievement of this purpose was universally visible so that it qualifies as being described by the words “it was good.”
  
  Verse 9
  
  ויאמר אלוקים יקוו המים מתחת השמים, the words מתחת השמים refer to the waters beneath the rakia, known as shamayim. 
  ותראה היבשה, The “lower” world consist of 3 parts, corresponding to their respective qualities, ranks, i.e. the inert, mineral, the vegetation, and the living creatures. The report of the development, progressive creation, follows the pattern of beginning with the most primitive and progressing to the most advanced form of life on earth. The inert parts of our globe are not specifically mentioned by a name describing them as a category by itself. We may safely assume that when earth came into being, as part of the overall phenomena of inert objects in the universe, the predominantly large part of the earth consisted of stones and metal and the like. Even though the globe was covered with water it comprised mountains and valleys (submerged in water at that time), all of them solid. While it is true that the scientists of our day argue that two vapours rising from the earth are the reason (origin) of all the stones and metals which they have named as the source or the material that is basic (such as what is mined in quarries) and that these vapours account for the original amalgamation of different elements, we would have to view vegetation as a second stage of such elements fusing with one another in different proportions. The final, and most advanced stage of different raw materials combining in different proportions would be the חי, i.e. living (mobile) creatures. The first manifestation of an amalgam of more than one basic element would have been the dry land becoming visible. Obviously, the highest mountain peaks of the crust we call earth became visible first. Due to the appearance of the luminaries on the fourth “day,” and their giving forth heat, etc., these mountains, i.e. some of the stones they consisted of, became progressively harder, so that we find different kinds of metal scattered among such stony material. These variations occurred at the will of the Creator, of course. According to these scientists, the surface of the earth is roughly parallel in size to the part of the globe covered by water, and about half of the dry land is fit for human habitation. When G’d surrounded the dry land with the oceans, He left on the surface of the dry land a variety of wells, ponds, rivers, etc., to serve the creatures whose habitat was to become this dry land, called earth. This corresponds to what David said in Psalms 104,10 המשלח מעיינים בנחלים בין הרים יהלכון, “the One Who makes springs gush forth in torrents; they make their way between the hills.” G’d, in His wisdom, made the waters in the oceans salty so that they would not become evil smelling, poisoning the air in the process. On the other hand, the waters which are part of the earth’s surface are mainly sweet, as they had been created in the first place. They are scattered in different parts of the earth to provide drinking water for G’d’s creatures who would otherwise die from the effects of dehydration. These “sweet” waters also counteract the dryness of the atmosphere, and generally promote the growth of the plants on earth. G’d was careful not to let the fountains squirt their water indiscriminately across the surface of the earth, but arranged for them to irrigate the valleys between the mountains The usefulness of waters flowing in areas populated by human beings is evident to all of us. The oases found in the deserts are to enable travelers through the desert to sustain themselves, as well as for the benefit of the free roaming beasts that inhabit those regions. This is what David had in mind in verse 11 of Psalm 104 when he wrote ישקו כל חיתו שדי, “giving drink to all the wild beasts.” The salty waters which appear as inlets from the oceans in various parts of the globe are intended to facilitate travel by man on the oceans in ships, seeing that these waters are not turbulent as are the waters of the open sea. Very often travel by boat considerably reduces the travel time, as without these inlets one would have to travel on land for considerably longer distances. These waters were allowed to remain salty for the reason we explained, i.e. to prevent stench emanating from them, a common phenomenon observed in stagnant unsalted waters. Besides, the salt which is part of the waters of the sea can be employed usefully by man when he heats the waters and gains the residue of salt left behind after evaporation of the water. Even hot water geysers (such as the hot springs of Tiberias) are useful for man, the sulphur contained in them being the source of their heat. We also find mountains on the dry land containing salt which can be mined to provide for the needs of man. I have found in Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer, 5th chapter that the diameter of our globe is described as being equivalent to the distance a man can walk in 60 years. [assuming that the average person can walk 40 km per day, this would amount to approximately 870.000 km, hardly compatible with the facts, even if the author referred to the circumference of the globe rather than to its diameter when he wrote: “its thickness,עוביה .” Kimchi writes that Rabbi Eliezer’s view coincides with the opinion of the researchers in his time. Ed.] Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer continues that prior to G’d’s directive at the beginning of the third day, the entire planet was flat like a valley, and the waters covered it evenly. As a result of G’d’s directive, and the waters flowing concentrically, increasing in density, the highest mountains began to become visible, followed by hills, etc. As this phenomenon intensified, the earth as we know it in our times gradually emerged from the sea which had covered it. [the text in my edition of P.d.R.E. is considerably different. Ed.] At any rate, once the waters had complied with G’d’s directive and had become a single מקוה, pool, enclosed by rims, i.e. and or rocks, G’d named this pool ימים, oceans.
  אל מקום אחד, this does not mean “to a single location,” but to a location set aside especially for the oceans. There would not be a new “continent” of dry land subsequently.
  ויהי כן. The waters did indeed flow all together to a single continuous uninterrupted area, and as a result the dry land did become visible. This was one of the miracles performed by the Creator although in the nature of things, the contraction of the waters which had covered the whole earth and had now contracted so that as a result they must have towered high above the adjoining dry land, they did not cascade down due to the laws of gravity. Seeing that it is a law of nature that waters travels downhill, the fact that these waters did not cross the borders imposed upon them by Divine decree must be viewed as an ongoing miracle. This is reflected in the words of Jeremiah 5,22 אשר שמתי חול גבול לים, “in that I set the sand as the boundary of the ocean.” We find a similar expression in Psalms 104,9. This is also commented upon in Bereshit Rabbah 5,7, the editor writing that it is customary for man to empty a full vessel into an empty one. Who would be able to “empty” a full vessel into another full vessel?
  
  Verse 10
  
  ויקרא, up until now this mass of dry land had not qualified for a name, seeing that it had not been visible to the naked eye. The same applies to the waters, which, though they had existed since the first day, had only now been called ימים, oceans. They had previously only been known as תהום, a murky mass of liquid containing some opaque solid particles. The second verse in which we read of these definitions had been written by Moses, had not been said by G’d. What Moses had meant is that at that time there existed something, which in his time was referred to as תהום. Alternately, we could say that the word תהם is derived from the word תהו. This would be an appropriate description, seeing that in the deep waters there is so much confusion and so little light that everything appears as utter confusion, and none of the creatures in that environment can derive pleasure or satisfaction from their existence. There are such locations in the middle of the ocean where the waters are exceedingly deep and far removed from any of the continents of the earth known as dry land by the Torah. Certain of the scientists have already offered proof that earth, i.e. our lower universe, is a sphere seeing that earth itself exists as part of a much greater sphere, the universe. [remember that in Kimchi’s time before Copernicus, the earth was considered the center of the universe or the galaxy, not the sun, as proven by Copernicus in 1543. Ed.] According to the theory proposed by Kimchi or the scientists of his time, one configuration cannot maintain its individuality if it is within another configuration which is different. [If I understand him correctly, he reasons that the earth being spherical is determined by its position within the larger universe surrounded by orbiting planets, which would collide if earth were not dead center, and equidistant on all sides from all the planets orbiting around it. Ed.]; In fact, the very place described by scientists as תהום is an area in which ships cannot navigate, nor fish survive. The word תהום is a figure of speech, borrowed from descriptions of places containing deep waters. The name ים, ocean, on the other hand, is a term describing the location of the water, a word which is not a derivative of any other root or noun. It is not an adjective describing the condition of the water. It is not comparable to the name יבשת, which is called thus because it reflects the fact that it consists of material which is dry. It is a noun in its own right. The noun ארץ, on the other hand, is also not derived from an adjective, but a definition in its own right. The word תהום, though a noun, merely describes a large quantity of water, as distinct from the word ים, which may apply even to a very shallow expanse of water, including areas very close to a sandy beach.
  Concerning the use of the plural mode to describe such waters, i.e. ימים, the scholar Rabbi Yitzchok Israeli writes that it includes two parts of the oceans. It includes what was known as the “great ocean,” the one which spans the better part of the sphere called earth, as well as the southern sea known as “sarndif.” 
  The reason why the Torah does not report that G’d separated the oceans and the dry land from one another is because no absolute separation exists between these phenomena such as the absolute separation between light and darkness. The phenomenon of the tides illustrates this, i.e. the borders of the oceans and the land mass are not constant but vary during the course of the day [due to the influence of the moon’s gravitational pull. Ed.] In Bereshit Rabbah 5,8 Rabbi Yoseph bar Chalafta attributes the plural mode in the name ימים to the fact that the taste of fish caught in different oceans is different from one another, suggesting that the habitat in which one category of fish lived is materially different from one another although both are water.
  
  Verse 11
  
  ויאמר אלוקים תדשא הארץ דשא, on the third “day”. G’d commanded the earth to produce vegetation, in other words, He equipped the earth with the ability, potential, to grow plants of different kinds. This was the second instance in which elements were amalgamated, i.e. employed in conjunction with one another, the product comprising more than one of the basic elements. (compare verse 9) The purpose of these various plants was to serve as food for the land-based living creatures which had not yet been created. The living creatures created on the fifth and sixth day respectively, formed the third stage of employing different elements in conjunction with one another, i.e. in a still more sophisticated manner. The meaning of the word תדשא is equivalent to תוציא דשא, “bring forth herbs.” This דשא must be viewed as a relatively primitive form of grass, a forerunner of the eventual grass, so that a special verb is used to describe this process. The prophet Yoel 2,22 uses the word in that sense when describing primitive plants growing in the desert. Both the words צמח and דשא describe either primitive plants, or plants which have not yet grown to their full extent. The activities of the luminaries on the third day were relatively weak, not comparable to the power assigned to them on the fourth day, as we already mentioned in our commentary on verse 3. Only on the fourth day did their power increase sufficiently to materially influence the atmosphere covering the surface of the globe. As a result, plants of an advanced calibre were then produced by the earth, the trees growing to their full height, etc. This is what is meant by the words spoken by G’d on the fourth day: להאיר על הארץ, i.e. to make their impact felt all over the surface of the earth. This is also what Moses referred to in Deuteronomy 33,14 וממגד תבואות שמש, וממגד גרש ירחים. The meaning of the word להאיר, usually understood only as “to provide illumination,” is in fact twofold. It means “to give light,” as well as “to carry out its assigned tasks.”
  דשא, עשב. “deshe” which would develop into “eyssev.”  Once it had attained maturity, it would grow seed by means of which to perpetuate itself. Other commentators (Nachmanides) view דשא as a primitive herb which does not produce seed, whereas עשב is a superior kind of herb producing seed. 
  Both in the expressions מזריע זרע and תדשא דשא the noun follows the verb, seeing that it is based on the verb. This is meant either to further define the activity represented by the verb, or to lend more importance to it. We find several examples of such constructions in Samuel Ii 12,15 ויצם דוד צום, “David observed a fast;” another example is found in Isaiah 42,17 יבשו בשת, “being utterly shamed.” Still other examples are: Ezekiel 22,27 and Isaiah 5,6.
  עץ פרי, the verb תדשא also includes the command to the earth to produce fruit-bearing trees. The meaning of the expression עושה פרי is that when this tree emerges from the bowels of the earth it is not to be masculine [like certain strains of palms, Ed.] but is to directly produce fruit, much as a woman produces children. The trunk does not need to be fertilised by a feminine counterpart. The tree therefore bears a name which includes its masculine and feminine components. Similarly, what the tree produces is known as פרי. As for the Torah sometimes speaking of פרי אדמתך, “the fruit of your soil,” (Deut. 28,4) when we would have expected פרי עציך, “the fruit of your trees,” this formulation is justified seeing that it is only the fruit which is edible and not the trunk, i.e. the tree itself. Therefore the word פרי appears in a construct form, belonging to אדמתך, i.e. the source which also brought forth the tree itself. We find a similar construction in Hoseah 8,7 צמח בלי יעשה קמח, “a plant yielding no flour. Perhaps the best known such construction is להוציא לחם מן הארץ, (Psalms 104,14) or, as we say in our daily benediction before eating bread: המוציא לחם מן הארץ, “Who brings forth bread from the earth.” Bread does not come forth from the earth but is baked by man; nonetheless its origin is in the stalks growing out of the earth. It is possible, on the other hand, to understand in the term עץ not only the trunk, but the foliage, seeing the leaves and the peel also grow and act as protective covers, shields  [שומרים in halachic parlance, Ed.] Even though these leaves do not serve as food for human beings, they do serve as food for the birds. For these various reasons the expression עץ פרי as opposed to פרי העץ can be justified, i.e. even the parts of the tree which are not, strictly speaking, its fruit, may be described as if they were. There is a popular saying quoted in Chulin 92,יבעון איתכליא רחמי על עליא דאלמלי עליא לא מתקיימין איתכליא, “let the grapes pray for the leaves for without the leaves the grapes would not exist.” [a parable comparing the scholars to the ignorant people, reminding the former that but for the latter there would be no point to their own existence. Ed.] As to the fact that the leaves are also part of the trees, the same applies to trees that do not bear fruit. If it were not so, the Torah would have made separate mention of that category of tree when reporting what had been created on the third day. Consider the fact that David listed the sequence of what G’d had created during these 6 days in Psalm 104. When he referred to the birds in verse 12, mentioning that they sing in the foliage of the trees, he went on in verse 16 to mention the cedars of Lebanon as the place where some of these birds make their nests. These cedars are not fruit-bearing trees, but are referred to as trees which G’d planted. In other words, the non fruit-bearing trees are singled out by David as having been made by G’d for the benefit of the birds. (compare author’s commentary on that Psalm in detail) Moreover, each of those trees is also useful for man who makes all kinds of tools and furnishings out of these non fruit-bearing trees.
  למינו, each species should cleave to its own kind. The word למינה applies also to the different herbs just as to the trees; this is why it is mentioned at the end, i.e. to all the foregoing. The same is true in verse 12 when the Torah reports that earth indeed produced each category of plant so that it could preserve its respective species. Our sages both in Rosh Hashanah 11, as well as in Chulin 60 also display another approach to these verses. Rabbi Chanina bar Pappa explained Psalm 104,31 יהי כבוד ה'  לעולם ישמח ה' במעשיו, “let the glory of the Lord endure forever, let Him derive joy from His creatures.” This verse was supposedly said by the angel in charge of running the universe on behalf of G’d. At the time when G’d commanded the trees to be careful not to lose their individuality but to preserve the peculiarities of their respective genes, the herbs said to themselves that “if G’d had been interested in different plants intermingling with one another, why would He have cautioned the trees against doing this? They reasoned further that if G’d said this to the trees which are very distinct from one another by nature, then surely He is interested in their (herbs) maintaining their own individuality, seeing that they are in so much greater danger of losing it through growing so closely to other species of herbs!” As a result, they were careful to emerge on the surface of the earth, each category according to its species. When the angel in charge of running the universe on G’d’s behalf saw this, he spontaneously broke out in the words יהי כבוד ה' וגו'. 
  אשר זרעו בו, which contained seed of its own kind as part of it. Both the herbs and the fruit contain their seed within themselves. The meaning is that they are equipped with the means to reproduce themselves, to perpetuate their existence on earth as a species. The herbs contain their seeds within pods or peels, the pods acting as protection against these seeds being destroyed. In the case of fruit-bearing trees, the seeds are contained within the fruit. Only the outer part of the actual fruit is eaten, the seeds being discarded. Even figs, which are eaten together with their seeds, can reproduce from the edible seeds within them. The interior of these little grainy particles we eat contain the basic seed needed for them to reproduce. This is the meaning of the words אשר זרעו בו, “whose seed is contained within it.” 
  על הארץ. What is meant is that when such seed falls onto the earth it will develop into a plant of the same kind as the one it had fallen from. Compare the Jerusalem Targum on this translation.
  ויהי כן, it came forth exactly as G’d had directed.
  
  Verse 12
  
  ותוצא הארץ, had the Torah written [in verbatim response to G’d’s directive]ותדשא הארץ , I would not have known that it was only one, as we explained on verse 11. The Torah wanted to make sure that we did not get the impression that the earth suddenly proliferated with a carpet of herbs. The remarkable thing was that although the earth produced only a single herb, ויהי כן, it endured, i.e. survived until it had many others added after the sun had become strong on the fourth day. Alternatively, the meaning of this formulation is that from this moment on the earth always produced all these kinds of plants in their unadulterated form, each true to its species. There never was an occasion when nature suddenly produced a tree combining the properties of two different species. This only happened when man deliberately introduced an additional species through grafting it onto a tree. This is the reason why G’d commanded man not to crossbreed plants or animals. Both Adam and Noach were commanded this as our sages (Sanhedrin 60) state in conjunction with the verseאת חקותי תשמרו בהמתך לא ים, שדך לא תזרע כלאים, “do not crossbreed animals, nor seed your field with a mixture of more than one seed (trees).” (Leviticus 19,19). This referred to statutes G’d had already promulgated prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai. Concerning the mixing of seeds of herbs, no such prohibition exists for gentiles. Concerning the uprooting of such hybrids gentiles are not commanded to do this, and even Israelites are only obliged to do this in the Land of Israel. The entire subject revolves around deliberately upsetting the way in which G’d created His universe.[in the Sefer Hachinuch the applicability of part of this legislation to gentiles is described as מפי הקבלה, “based on tradition.” Ed.] This is also why a scholar questioned what the halachah is according to Rabbi Chanina bar Pappa who had quoted the herbs arriving at the conclusion that they must maintain the purity of their species although the Torah had not written anything about למינו in connection with the herbs. The scholar wanted to know what the situation would be if someone had deliberately crossbred two species of herbs. According to the opinion of Ravina one could not hold such a person culpable for such an innovation. Alternatively, the question it that seeing that the herbs had voluntarily taken it upon themselves to maintain the same standards as did the trees and plants which carried their seed in them, would anyone violating that standard be held responsible for violating a law of nature which G’d had approved even though it was instigated by nature itself? The question was left open.
  וירא אלוקים כי טוב, even though there are herbs which generate heat, they too are included in what is described here as “good,” seeing that they have therapeutic value and by being applied as bandages to injuries serve to cure such injuries.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  ויאמר אלוקים יהי מארות ברקיע השמים, we do not find many occasions when the verb היה occurs within strictly defined grammatical parameters in accordance with the rules applying to differentiating between singular and plural, or the rules applying to distinguishing between masculine and feminine subjects. As a result, the Torah here writes יהי in the singular mode, although G’d gave a directive involving a whole multitude of new phenomena that were to appear in the sky. Compare also Deut 22,23 כי יהיה נערה בתולה, where the Torah employs the masculine pronoun when referring to a young girl, still a virgin. These luminaries were created during the first “day” together with the planets (fixed stars) as we explained on verse 3; however, their light was not transmitted to earth seeing there had not been an atmosphere at yet. [our astronauts only discovered that there is utter darkness beyond the stratosphere when they took the first space flight beyond these regions. Ed.] Besides, the earth was not yet sufficiently dry. Once it had dried sufficiently, in accordance with G’d’s will, it commenced complying with G’d’s directive on the morning of the third “day” to produce herbs, etc. By the fourth “day” it had become much stronger, firmer, so that when G’d gave a directive to the luminaries, these were able to respond in accordance with G’d’s directive. As a result the plants produced by the earth would contain seeds, the trees would bear fruit, etc. This is the meaning of the statement by our sages in Rosh Hashanah 11 that the entire work of creation was created in their full potential, fully mature, i.e. on the fourth day the vegetation, including herbs and trees had attained its full growth. All the creatures created subsequently also were created in their full size, maturity, as appropriate to each separate species. When the Talmud there adds the words בדעתן בצביונן נבראו, this means that the creatures equipped with intelligence possessed it from the moment they were created, whereas those not meant to possess intelligence would not develop it at a later stage either. Man was able to recognise the nature and essence of each creature as well as its function in the universe. This is what Solomon had in mind when he said in Kohelet 3,11 את הכל עשה יפה בעתו, “He brought everything to pass precisely at its time.” The reason the herbs, etc. attained their ultimate size, etc. on the fourth “day,” was because they required the input of the celestial bodies for this, something that had not been present on the third “day.” This is what the sages (Chagigah 12) referred to when they said הן הן המאורות שנבראו ביום ראשון אלא שלא תלאן עד יום רביעי, “these (the ones mentioned on the fourth ‘day’) are the ones which had been created on the first ‘day,’ but He had not placed them in orbit until the fourth ‘day.’” The word תלה means to hang something from the top down. ברקיע השמים, the atmosphere; this is also the meaning of the word when we read על פני רקיע השמים. (verse 20) This region is called רקיע, because, as we explained on verse 8, it is something stretched taut over a large expanse of space. G’d attached it to the heaven, i.e. to the various planets, seeing that it is secondary in importance to them, receiving its light from them.
  להבדיל בין היום ובין הלילה, to create a separation between the day and the night. Up until this point there was either complete light (day) or complete darkness (night).  From now on there would be some light at night. The large luminary, the sun, would provide its light for the day, whereas the smaller luminary, the moon, would provide some light at night. We know from Deut. 33,14 that the influence of the moon on certain crops is beneficial, i.e. that light provided during the night promotes the growth of crops sensitive to such light.
  והיו לאותות ולמועדים ולימים ושנים. The word לאותות refers to hours; the word ולמועדים refers to the seasons of the year and the festivals to be observed during these seasons. For, just as the year is divided into four seasons, a hot season, a cold season, spring and fall, so day and night are divided into 24 hours. The word ולימים refers to the number of days in a month, i.e. 29 and a half days plus 2/3rds of an hour and 73 parts [of the 1080 parts an hour is divided into halachically. Ed.] The word ולשנים refers to years, i.e. solar years of 365 and a quarter days [as opposed to lunar “years,” i.e. 12 x a lunar month. Ed.]  This is implied by the very meaning of the word שנה, which refers to something which occurs again and again, such as the completion of the sun’s orbit around the earth after the four seasons. [the assumption of the astronomers in the author’s time. Ed.] According to Targum Yerushalmi the appropriate translation of the word שנים is לאתין וסימנן, as visible reminders למקדש רישי ירחין ושנין when to sanctify the new moon and the New Year.
  
  Verse 15
  
  והיו, they should also serve as luminaries, i.e להאיר על הארץ, to provide illumination on earth. Prior to the fourth “day” the sun and moon had already been sources of light for the earth. Suspending these luminaries in the sky on the fourth ”day” only made them visible to creatures who possessed a sense of sight. Their light also had an effect on all of these creatures, each according to their physical constitution. 
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  ויעש, “He completed making;” now the Torah reports how G’d arranged that the luminaries give their light onto the surface of the earth.  Each luminary had a certain period assigned to it during which it would function.
  הגדולים, the Torah did not write גדולים which would have described their physical size, seeing that all the planets with the possible exception of נגה, Venus, are larger than the moon. According to our astronomers they are further removed from earth, and this is why they appear to be smaller. The Torah speaks of the relative strength of the light provided by sun and moon respectively. The reason that both luminaries are referred to as הגדולים, is simply because they both appear larger than the fixed stars. Of these two, however, the sun is larger than the moon, as pointed out when the Torah says that the larger one is to shine by day. This also appears to us to be the case when we look at these two luminaries. According to the astronomers the sun is 170 times the size of the moon. The moon, being basically black, does not produce any light of its own but merely reflects the light of the sun, as a mirror reflects light. This accounts for the fact that its light varies in intensity depending on the day of the month, and on its position vis-à-vis the sun on such a day. The Torah therefore describes it as המאור הקטן, the small luminary.
  ואת הכוכבים, for they too function at night, providing some light both when the moon is shining and when it is not on the horizon. The sun, on the other hand, does not shine at all during the night, seeing it is beneath the earth at that time. [the earth being perceived as flat at that time. Ed.] The moon and stars do not shine by day as the light of the sun, which is so much stronger, outshines them. When the Torah speaks of ממשלה in connection with these luminaries, it refers to the commanding influence the light of these luminaries have during the periods when they are functioning as providers of light.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  ויתן, He placed, positioned; after the Torah had written ויעש, that G’d completed the making of the luminaries by enabling them to illuminate the earth, the word ויתן now describes where G’d placed these luminaries to enable them to effectively carry out their assignment. Until the fourth “day” they had not been in the sky of the heaven.
  להאיר, we have already explained this on verses 15-16. There the word appeared alone, and the word לממשלת appeared by itself, whereas here the two expressions appear in conjunction with one another, i.e. “and to exercise dominion, etc.;” the word ולמשול here is in a construct mode, i.e. the two functions are dependent one upon the other, the light exercising the dominion once it has reached the surface of the earth. The word להאיר refers to the light itself, the word ולמשול, to the activity and its impact.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  ולמשול ביום ובלילה, the one, i.e. the sun by day, and the other, i.e. the moon, to govern by night. 
  ולהבדיל, from the time the sun rises it is light, day, and the domain of the sun, whereas from the time the stars become visible in the sky, it is nighttime, the moon’s domain. The night is called “darkness,” even though there is some light in the sky illuminating parts of the earth in a fashion. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  ויאמר אלוקים ישרצו המים, the expression שריצה refers to multiple births, meaning multiple eggs being deposited for hatching. Seeing that the waters and the dry land had been completely separated by now, G’d decreed that each region was to produce offspring to perpetuate the various species of its habitat. The waters were addressed first, seeing they occupy the upper part of the globe. Not only that, but they had been first in the order of creation. G’d’s directive that a rakia be inserted had also preceded His directives to what should happen on earth. When addressing the waters directing that its inhabitants should multiply, G’d employed the plural mode ישרצו instead of the singular mode seeing there are so many different species of creatures which inhabit the oceans. When addressing the earth, ordering that the earth do something parallel, G’d used the singular mode תוציא, to let the reader know how relatively few species of creatures were involved in that directive.
  שרץ נפש חיה, the reason why the word שרץ is in the singular mode has already been explained in connection with the expression תדשא הארץ דשא in verse 11. Another reason why the singular mode was chosen by the Torah here, may be that the word שרץ describes any moving creature, as implied by the Targum, רחשא, as in רחושי מרחשן שפוותיה, (Sanhedrin 67) meaning “they are moving their lips.” The words השורץ על הארץ in Genesis 7,21 also are a description of a certain type of motion on earth. Nonetheless, the word does not lose its original meaning, i.e. that it describes multiple reproduction by a certain species.
  נפש חיה, an expression for anything equipped with the means to move of its own accord. What the earth had produced on the third “day” did not have the ability to move from the spot from which it emerged from the earth. It isנפש צומחת, a living plant, as distinct from נפש חיה, a mobile form of life.
  ועוף יעופף על הארץ, the directive to multiply by means of multiple births applied also to the birds which are flying above the earth. The birds are composed primarily of a combination of factors found either in the air or in the sea.
  על פני רקיע השמים, a reference to the atmosphere as we explained already. The Torah omitted to report specifically that this directive had been carried out as למיניהם, according to their respective species, not because the birds crossbreed, but in the interest of brevity. The word למיניהם at the end of verse 21 sufficed to make this point.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  ויברא אלוקים את התנינים, we do not find the expression ויהי כן in this paragraph. The reason that the Torah had to introduce this paragraph with the words ויברא אלוקים, “G’d created,” as distinct from “the waters brought forth,” or something similar, is that the waters were not capable of producing creatures of such dimensions and capabilities without additional input by G’d Himself. Both G’d and the waters combined to produce these monsters, hence their creation is described by the word ויברא.
  אשר שרצו המים, you should know that in parts of the oceans which are far distant from the dry land there are no fish, seeing the waters by themselves are unable to sustain their lives by supplying the fish with additional food such as plants which grow on land or vegetation on rocks which are close to land, or refuse left by man as food for the fish by the passing ships.  Fishermen do not explore the areas we have mentioned, as it is impossible for their boats to enter such waters without risking their lives. Fishermen are alerted to the fact that they approach such areas by the absence of fish in the regions close to the ones described. The oceans are constantly stormy in such regions.
  הגדולים, this description is justified seeing that on the dry land there are no creatures which are of a size comparable to whales, etc. Compare the stories told in the Book of Job (chapters 40-41) extolling the size and power of these creatures. Some people believe that the various names by which these creatures are described refer to a species and a sub-species, whereas others believe that the descriptions refer to a single species or specimen. Still others believe that all the large sea monsters are known by the collective name of “Leviathan.” The scholar Rabbi Avraham bar Chiya wrote that the reason why the Torah employs the word ויברא in connection with the fish instead of writing ויעש, “He made (completed),” is because fish are not truly fully developed living creatures, seeing they do not possess a lung with which to breathe, and due to their inability to live on land. G’d blessed all these creatures in the water at the time they were created, as we know from Genesis 1,22, although a similar blessing is not recorded in connection with the creation of either domesticated beasts or free-roaming beasts. It was due to this blessing that the various fish and water-based creatures survived the deluge without having to take refuge in Noach’s ark. Furthermore, it is due to this blessing that these marine creatures increase and multiply at all times of the year, seeing the blessing contained the words “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the oceans, and also the birds shall multiply on earth in a similar fashion (during any period of the year).” In this respect both the fish and the birds behave in a manner similar to human beings who can and do mate and fertilise their female partners without regard to the season of the year. The mammals which did not receive this blessing from G’d are only able to create progeny at certain times of the year, something called “the mating season” (compare Rosh Hashanah 11).
  הרמשת, its mobility testifies to it being a living creature.
  
  Verse 22
  
  ויברך אותם...פרו ורבו, the land-based mammals were created on the sixth day, on the same day man was created, seeing that both categories of creatures make their habitat on the dry land.
  את המים בימים, the waters which are in the oceans; for in the rivers and streams the fish do not reproduce at such rapid rates. The directive by G’d to multiply was not addressed to them directly, seeing they do not possess the intelligence to receive and understand such messages. What the Torah means is that G’d’s goodwill towards them was equivalent to His having addressed such a blessing to them directly. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  והעוף ירב בארץ, the emphasis here is on the word הארץ, i.e. even though its origin is in the waters the birds will grow and generally behave more like land-based creatures. 
  
  Verse 24
  
  ויאמר אלוקים תוצא הארץ נפש חיה, on the sixth day both the mammals and man were created, seeing both of them inhabit the dry land on the earth.
  נפש חיה, the word נפש is a general rule, whereas the word חיה describes the detail.
  בהמה ורמש וחיתו ארץ, compare Rash’bam
  ויהי כן, earth complied with the directive by its Creator in producing these creatures
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  ויעש אלוקים, the reason why the Torah reports G’d as ויעש, completing something after having already written ויהי כן signaling that G’d’s directives had been carried out, is that G’d’s directive consisted of 3 parts in addition to the directive to create man, i.e. domestic mammals, free-roaming mammals and creeping creatures. G’d constructed each category in such a way that they would make their habitat on different parts of the earth. This has been emphasised by the words למינה, למחנה, למינהו, being inserted between the names of each category of creatures. G’d did all this in order that one category of creature should not inflict harm, damage on its counterpart by interfering with the other’s lifestyle in its respective domain. This is also the reason why He did not bless them. How could G’d have blessed them with the formula: “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth,” seeing that He did not want that the harmful creatures amongst them would multiply in such a fashion? Some of these animals’ very grazing on the earth would be a form of causing irreparable harm on the surface of the earth. Our sages (Rashi on verse 22) claim that the reason G’d did not extend His blessing to these beasts was on account of the serpent which became a destructive force. 
  הבהמה, these are the animals which live in close proximity to man, are used by him on a daily basis. This includes, cattle, sheep, goats, horses donkeys and camels.
  חית הארץ, this includes “wild” beasts such as lions, tigers, bears, wolves, etc., beasts which are predators. G’d arranged for the nature of these beasts to be such that they do not choose urban areas as their natural habitat. If they would tend to make their habitat on earth indiscriminate instead of confining themselves to virgin regions, they would lay the earth waste, and would take over by multiplying themselves while devouring weaker species. (compare Exodus 23,29) you will find that anywhere in Scripture where mention is made of the destruction of man’s habitat, that the wild beasts took over the regions formerly inhabited by man. (Leviticus 26,22)
  ורמש האדמה, this also refers to specific locations in certain deserts, as mentioned by Moses in Deut. 8,15, when he mentioned the presence of such lethal snakes, etc., in certain areas in the desert. Other creeping creatures are found on a regular basis also in the regions inhabited by man, and those do not pose a threat to man. The expression רמש, refers to a type of motion. Note how G’d in His wisdom arranged all this. The worms which appear to spontaneously develop from decaying vegetable or animal matter have not been mentioned at all in connection with G’d’s creative activities, even though they possess the ability to move.
  וירא אלוקים כי טוב, even though among these newly created creatures there are those which function as predators, and otherwise harmful beings, they still are also useful in many respects as has been proven by a number of scientists who are able to use the stings of wasps, etc., to help extract poisonous venom from human tissue and neutralise it. G’d provided each of the species with limbs or organs suitable to their individual lifestyle. The lion and other predators are equipped with special teeth and claws in order to facilitate their attacks on more peaceful creatures who serve as their food. At the same time, gazelles, deer, etc., which are primary targets of these ferocious beasts have been given musculature to enable them to escape from the clutches of such predators by their superior speed. Each species has been equipped with means to help it to ensure its survival in a hostile environment. This is proved by the fact that these species have not become extinct over thousands of years. Although, basically the animal kingdom can be divided into the aggressors and the victims, G’d has provided nourishment for both types of species. Each type of animal enjoys the food G’d has provided for them in nature. At the same time, each will have to die in due course. The predators will meet death either at the hands of hunters or other stronger predators, or through natural disasters depriving them of their means of survival. Job 4,11 “the lion perishes for lack of prey,” already attests to this phenomenon, as does Amos 3,4 in which the prophet describes that when these beasts succeed in killing their prey they call out in triumph. The prophet Nachum (2,13), as well as many other verses in the Bible testify to the fact that even these ferocious beasts are frequently neutralised by natural disasters. Still, the fact is that none of these predators are genetically unable to subsist on a vegetarian diet, else, at the time when G’d created them and there were only herbs to feed on, they would have perished before being able to even reproduce themselves. If, at that time, the lion had already fed on sheep, one of G’d’s species would have been eliminated from earth, contrary to G’d’s design. He had not created them in order for them to become extinct. It is quite clear from verse 30 in our chapter that originally, G’d had assigned the herbs as food for all חיות, free-roaming animals.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  ויאמר אלוקים נעשה אדם, in connection with all the other matter created in the “lower” regions of the universe, G’d issued a directive to earth phrasing it in the third person, i.e. indirect mode such as תדשא הארץ, “let earth produce herbs,”(verse 11) or ישרצו המים, “let the waters teem, etc.” (verse 24). When it came to creating the human being, the last of the creatures composed of several elements, He said נעשה אדם in the first person. Man was created last, as a sign that he is the crown jewel of creation, to make clear that all the creatures who preceded him in the order in which they were created are to serve as making life more pleasant and convenient for him.  He is to be master of them all.  When the Torah wrote נעשה in the first person plural mode, my father explained this as including the various elements all of which had also been the product of G’d’s creative activity which had aimed at ultimately creating man. G’d implied that in creating man He would make use of all the ingredients in the universe that He had already created. They were all His partners in that respect, supplying parts of the raw material G’d used to make man. We may understand the entire line as if G’d had said to all these raw materials: “let us, you and Me together, construct a human being.” We find that our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 8,3 took a similar approach when they said that G’d consulted when creating heaven and earth. Rashi explains that the plural in the word נעשה is accounted for by the fact that G’d consulted with the angels. They could be included in the “we,” seeing that both G’d and the angels share the fact that they are disembodied intelligences. G’d meant to imply that man would share an attribute with Himself and the angels, namely an intelligence which was not dependent on the body.  We are taught in Bereshit Rabbah 8.3 that the Torah wanted to teach us by the wording of this verse that whenever 2 people who are disparate in stature plan an undertaking involving both of them, the intellectually superior one should consult with the other before going ahead on his own. Furthermore, in the same paragraph of Bereshit Rabbah, Rabbi Shemuel bar Nachman in the name of Rabbi Yonathan says that at the time when Moses had to write down the details of everything G’d had created on each of the six “days,” he balked when he came to this verse. He asked G’d if this formulation would not encourage heretics to think that G’d had a partner (as Divinity). G’d replied: “write it down as I dictated it to you; if someone wants to fool himself into believing that I must have a partner, let him delude himself.” G’d called this crown jewel of His creation Adam, as we are told in Genesis 5,1. (referring to Adam/Chavah). If the reason that G’d called man אדם was that he was made from אדמה, “earth,” this hardly seems to justify the name אדם, seeing that all the other creatures on earth were also made from earth. G’d wanted to distinguish man both by name as well as by body and spirit. Everybody knows that all other living creatures on earth have as their raw material earth, dust; there was therefore no need to remind us that they were inextricably tied to earth. G’d called Man, whose spirit originated in heaven, as distinct from the spirit of the animals, אדם, to prevent his being perceived as part of life in the celestial regions. People should not think that man was simply an angel who had come down to earth. Residents of the celestial spheres have not been equipped with a body at all. The basic elements from which they are formed are none of them raw materials found in our “lower” universe. Even such creatures as שדים, demons, which do possess a body, (Chagigah 16) are totally different from man. Demons, though superficially similar to man, have been constructed from a fifth element, not from one of the four elements. At least this is what we have been told by the scientists of our time. When the Creator formed man using ingredients that are at home in the celestial regions as well as ingredients which are common in our domain, He called this creature אדם in spite of the fact his spirit originated in heaven, seeing his habitat was earth. Even though man has been equipped to make matters spiritual his principal pursuit in life, not one in a thousand does so. Hence, a name that reflects man’s predominant concern with earthly matters is quite appropriate. King Solomon had already lamented this fact in Kohelet 7,28 when he mentioned having found only one “man” in a thousand. 
  בצלמנו כדמותנו, according to the interpretation of my father of blessed memory, the meaning of the word בצלמנו applies both to a physical likeness as well as to a spiritual likeness, the ending נו not applying to two different subjects, “our,” but applying to two different parts of the same subject. It matches the prefix נ in the word נעשה. If we understand the word נעשה as applying to the angels, we must treat the words צלם and דמות as referring to spiritual attributes only, the meaning being that man would be endowed with parts of the spiritual attributes known as צלם and דמות respectively. The expressions צלם and דמות respectively, are sometimes applied to something physical and on other occasions applied to something abstract, spiritual. The word צלם is an attribute sometimes applied to a physical entity, such as in Samuel I 6,5 צלמי טחוריכם, “images of your hemorrhoids,” or in Numbers 33,52 צלמי מסכותם, “their molten images.” The same expression is also used to describe something spiritual, as in verse 27 of our chapter here. The same is true of the word דמות as for instance, in Song of Songs 7,8 קומתך דומה לתמר, “your posture resembles that of a date palm,” or Ezekiel 1,13 ודמות החיות, “and the appearance of the chayot,” (a category of angels shown to the prophet in this vision). The same word is also used to describe physical appearances such as in Ezekiel 32,2 כפיר גוים נדמית “you were compared to a young lion;” or in Psalms 102,7 דמיתי לקאת מדבר, “I am like a great owl in the desert.” The word נעשה is justified seeing that these attributes are means employed by G’d. The letter ב which serves as a prefix to צלמנו, is to be understood as a “helper,” meaning “equipped with our attribute צלם, i.e. our intelligence, we shall produce a creature whom we will endow with portions of these attributes of ours.” We will do this although, essentially, man is of the earth, to wit his name אדם. Alternately, it is possible to understand the prefix ב in the word בצלמנו as a letter that describes that something is equipped with an attribute. G’d would be saying that this new creature called אדם, man, shall be equipped with the attribute known as צלם. 
  כדמותנו, this explains the reason why man would be equipped with this heavenly kind of צלם, in order that he should resemble celestial beings more than other creatures on earth, seeing he has been equipped with intelligence. The prefix כ in the word כדמותנו must be understood as a כף הדמיון, a descriptive prefix in the imaginary sense, seeing that it cannot be understood literally, i.e. earth-bound man cannot be compared in all his parts to celestial beings, else what does he do down here on earth? G’d declares that at least in some respects אדם will be similar to the celestial beings. Man will have a certain amount of latitude concerning whether he will be more tied to his habitat, i.e. איש האדמה, as Noach was after the deluge, or whether he will strive to become more like his celestial counterparts. G’d gives man this בחירה, choice, and it is up to him to choose his path in life. King Solomon expressed this thought when he said in Kohelet 7,29 אשר עשה אלוקים את האדם ישר וגו', the word ישר meaning that “balanced,” Man has as much basic tendency to cater to his spiritual part as he has to cater to his secular, physical attributes. He has been given the additional attribute of intelligence in order to help him make the correct choices. A correct choice is to use the part which is עפרי, i.e. “earthy,” primarily to secure his livelihood, not to indulge his body more by catering to what his senses tell him and by pampering his mortal body. His intelligence is to be used to secure him an infinite existence in his afterlife. Kohelet adds at the end of the verse we quoted, that sadly, Adam has chosen many intrigues, i.e. has not made the best of the choices that were open to him. He refers to the variety of attractions available in our world, which appeal to our senses and tempt us to remain enslaved to the pull of earthiness exerted by our bodies, which are made of earth.
  וירדו בדגת הים, this line stresses that all the creatures on earth had only been created in order to be of use to man. Due to his superior intelligence, man is to exercise dominion over all of these creatures. Man is reminded who it was Who created all these living creatures other than himself. As to the plural mode of the word וירדו, [which seems out of place when אדם is understood as a reference to man the species, Ed.] this mode was chosen because the term אדם includes the male and the female of the species, as we know from the formula of G’d’s blessing in which He is reported as blessing אותם, “them,” although at the time only a single human body had been created. (verse 28) The very term וירדו -as opposed to such terms as וימשול or וימלוך which are far more common terms to express authority, reign or rule, - indicates that this “dominion” is more of a potential kind than an actual one, such as a king ruling over his subjects.  Besides, whereas rulers generally exercise control only over people who are their contemporaries, and cannot extend their authority automatically over subsequent generations of their subjects, the root רדה, implies superiority based on natural law by one species over another. Man is superior to the animals both by reason of his intelligence and by reason of the means at his disposal to establish physical superiority over them. Eventually, by having rescued the animals from extinction during the deluge, man even acquired the right to use the animals as food. Prior to the deluge the “dominion” mentioned here was evident primarily in man using the animals as beasts of burden, etc. The various kinds of birds were used by man to enjoy its eggs, its feathers, etc. At any rate, the right accorded to man to exercise control over the animal kingdom was not fully implemented until after the deluge.
  ובדגת הים ובעוף השמים, actually, the species mentioned here are the most elusive for man to demonstrate his control over. It requires extreme intelligence and skill for man to effectively control either the fish in the sea or the birds in the air. Both of these categories of creatures do not share the same habitat on earth with man. This is the reason why the Torah mentions these unlikely candidates for man’s control before the domesticated beasts, control over which is something we have no real problems with. The Torah, so to speak, tells us that if man can bring his authority to bear on the birds in the sky and the fish in the sea, he can obviously exert his control over those species that share the same habitat as he, i.e. the dry land.
  ובבהמה, the species of animals that grow up in man’s vicinity.
  ובכל הארץ, meaning the beasts on earth, anywhere,  including the free-roaming beasts, חיה. Sometimes the word בהמה includes only domesticated animals, other times the expression חית הארץ includes all mammals on earth. It all depends on the context in which the Torah uses these terms. 
  ורמש, we explained the term previously (verse 25). It is a reference to small or tiny creatures, predominantly living in desolate areas, or even in regions that are not desolate. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 8,12) explain the expression וירדו as a combination of two words, the words רדיה and ירידה, “dominion” and “ decline, descent.” They see in the term a veiled warning to man. As long as man qualifies for the description בצלמנו בדמותנו, i.e. that the spiritual part of him predominates, he enjoys this control over the inferior creatures on earth. Should he forfeit the right to be described as בצלמנו בדמותנו he suffers a ירידה, a decline, not only in the spiritual sense but also in the manner in which the animals relate to him by accepting his authority. In commenting on the meaning of these expressions בצלמנו בדמותנו, the sages say that just as man’s soul is pure, so his body (man) is meant to be pure; just as his soul is holy, so his body is supposed to be holy; just as his soul is able to see without being seen, so his body is to be able to see without being seen. Just as his soul puts up with the problems of the whole word, so his body has to endure all the problems involving his physicality. Furthermore, in order to explain the dual nature of man, our sages explained that G’d had said to Himself: “if I make him out of matter found only in the “upper” regions of the universe he will live forever, if, on the other hand I make him out of materials extant only in the regions of the “lower” universe, he will never attain an enduring afterlife;” therefore G’d decided to make man out of a mixture of matter found in the heavens and of matter found on earth. Now, if man sins he will die, if he will resist sin, he will live. (Bereshit Rabbah 8,11)
  
  Verse 27
  
  ויברא אלוקים את האדם בצלמו, the expression ברא, i.e. a totally new creation, refers only to man’s soul, as indicated by the word בצלמו, in G’d’s image, something that had not yet been created. The Torah wanted to draw a line of distinction between the construction of man’s body and that of his soul. When describing the construction of man’s body, (chapter 2 verse 7), the wording is וייצר אלוקים את האדם עפר מן האדמה, “G’d fashioned man from dust of the earth, etc;” the expression יצר is not one that can be applied to something abstract such as the soul. However, the word עשה, מעשה, is applicable both to bodies and to abstract beings such as souls. As far as the verse (Zecharayh 12,1) ויוצר רוח אדם בקרבו, “He fashioned man’s spirit inside of him,” is concerned, the prophet referred to an instrument used by the body, something like the heart of the brain. These organs are instruments supporting the power of the spirit. The reason why, at this point the Torah (Moses) did not mention the making of man’s body, is because it is mentioned in the paragraph beginning with the words אלה תולדות השמים והארץ. (Genesis 2,4) In that paragraph some other details are mentioned which have been omitted at this point in order to refer to them in that passage in chapter 2. The whole story mentioned there also belongs to the report of what had transpired during these 6 days of creation.
  בצלם אלוקים, a reference to an angel. Basically, whether we speak of “the image of G’d,” or of “an angel,” the common denominator is that we speak of disembodied spiritual beings. G’d is distinguished by the fact that none of the other disembodied intelligent beings (angels) amounts to anything at all, seeing none of them can understand their Creator’s essence. This is an axiom, seeing that G’d is the ultimate cause of their existence. He is the Creator, whereas they are merely creatures. This is why Moses added the word אלוקים, when mentioning צלם, to make sure that we get the point that if man is compared to something celestial, he is compared to a creature in the celestial regions, not to the Creator himself.
  זכר ונקבה ברא אותם, in the following paragraph Moses explains how G’d created man as both male and female.
  
  Verse 28
  
  ויברך..פרו ורבו, the word הפריה describes the fertilisation, leading up to birth; the word רביה refers to the quantitative development of such offspring. Even though, in the first instance this is a blessing, just as it is in verse 22 when G’d blessed the fish, our sages in Yevamot 65 and in Bereshit Rabbah 8,12 understand this verse as a commandment to the human race to reproduce. They say: “man is command to practice this commandment, whereas for woman it is not an active commandment.” Although the commandment was addressed to man in the plural mode,פרו ורבו, encouraging us to think that the commandment applies to males and females equally, this is not so. As far as the blessing contained in this verse is concerned, it applies to both males and females; the commandment part applies only to the males, and is based on the singular mode in the word וכבשה where the missing letter ו which would have made this a plural mode indicates to our sages that as a directive the whole verse is applicable only to the males of the species. They use psychology to arrive at this conclusion, saying that it is in the nature of the male to engage in conquest, כבוש, not in the mature of the females of the species. Even though this matter is the subject of some disagreement among the sages, (on that folio in Yevamot), the halachah has been decided according to the view that only the male is obligated to fulfill the commandment to have children. The defective spelling of the word וכבשה without the letter ו in the middle, gives rise to additional halachic points, such as that it is not the nature of a woman to go out into the public marketplace, and that the male is to be the instigator of marital intercourse and not his wife. (Bereshit Rabbah 8,12)
  ורדו בדגת הים, we have already explained the meaning of this on verse 26.
  ובכל חיה הרמשת על הארץ, the word רמשת here includes both the free roaming beasts and the domestic beasts seeing that all of them move about on the face of the earth.
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  ויאמר אלוקים הנה נתתי לכם, the words נתתי לכם are similar to Genesis 23,13 נתתי כסף השדה, “I had given the money for the field.” Alternately, it could be G’d saying that as soon as He had created them He had assigned these plants as food for man who had not yet been created. This would justify the distant past mode of the word נתתי. “I had given.” The advanced kinds of plants had been assigned as food for man, the fruit of the trees, etc., whereas the more primitive plants, herbs and grass, had been assigned as food for the animals.
  זורע זרע, generating seed; the meaning is similar to the expression מזריע זרע in verse 11
  לכם יהיה לאכלה, only the ones mentioned in this verse. Permission to eat meat would be granted only after the deluge, and we are not sure of the reason for this. Perhaps the reason is that G’d had already foreseen that during the generation of the deluge Noach would be the one who would be directly instrumental in saving the animals, and permission to eat meat became part of Noach’s reward for his labour feeding all the animals in the ark for a full year. Seeing that G’d does not withhold reward from any creature, He would certainly not withhold it from human beings when warranted. We have a parallel example of Nevuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, being rewarded by G’d for a good deed (Ezekiel 29,18) as a result of which G’d told the prophet that He would reward him by making him victorious over the leading military might in his day, over Egypt. 
  
  Verse 30
  
  ולכל ..אשר בו נפש חיה, seeing that any creature possessing a life-force called nefesh chayah is superior to even the most advanced form of vegetation. It is a rule within this universe that inferior beings have been created to be made use of by more advanced types of beings.
  ירק עשב, the word ירק has been placed in the construct mode to the word עשב because generally עשב is not consumed totally, only the green part, ירק, is generally considered as attractive enough to serve as food as long as it is fresh.
  ויהי כן, each of the species G’d had created ate the kind of plant allocated to it as food by the Creator.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  וירא אלוקים, in this verse G’d includes His assessment of the creation of man with that of His overall assessment of all He had done previously. The word טוב applies to all of G’d’s creative activities. This judgment had been withheld until after the creation of man, as it might have been conceivable that with the appearance of man previously created matter would appear in a different light. The verse tells us that in G’d’s judgment, and looking at it after execution of His plan, it appeared just as good as it had during each of the stages the Torah had reported on. Having found confirmation of the success of His blueprint for the universe, the Torah added the word מאד, “very much.” Up until that moment the perfection of G’d’s handiwork was not yet complete. Even though, as a result of these six “days” of G’d’s creative endeavour, something had been lost forever, i.e. the אפס, the absolute nothingness which had preceded creation of the universe, silence this very “nothingness” had now become inextricably interwoven with the “something,” all the phenomena which G’d had called into existence, G’d described the sum total as good. Maimonides, in commenting on the words והנה טוב מאד, (Moreh 3,10) writes: “even death, which appears to constitute a return to אפס to nothingness, G’d considered as something positive, constructive, seeing it is only a prelude to rebirth, albeit sometimes in a different guise than that the previous incarnation. Death is perceived as the result of the ‘nothingness’ which had preceded the universe having become an integral part of this universe. Hence it had become a necessary phenomenon. [these words are mine, I am not sure that I could literally translate the words of Maimonides, themselves a translation, rendered differently by different super-commentaries, such as Crescas, Shem Tov, and Afudi, as well as Abravanel. Ed.]  Having all these considerations in mind, we can now understand the meaning of the Midrash claiming Rabbi Meir  (Bereshit Rabbah 9,5) as saying that in his version of the Torah instead of the word מאד there appeared the word מות, “death.” [a brilliant explanation of this by Rabbi Zeev Wolf Einhorn is that the key here is the word והנה, which is altogether extraneous, and especially the prefix ו in that word. Ed.] (author speaking): “I have found (Midrash Bereshit Rabbati, Albeck edition page 209) that in a hidden archive in Rome there has been found a Torah scroll in a church by Severus (a Roman Biblical, scholar) in which actually (not just figuratively speaking) the word מות had been substituted for the word מאד in our verse. In Bereshit Rabbah 9,7 there is also a view expressed that the words והנה טוכ refer to the יצר טוב, the urge in man which prompts him to do good, whereas the words והנה טוב מאד refer to the opposite, to man’s urge to do evil, to rebel against dictates by the Creator limiting his freedom of action. The reason why this evil urge is considered good, -astounding as the concept sounds at first- is that without it man would not possess initiative, would not engage in building anything, in mastering the potential contained in our earth but waiting for man to harness it. Without this “evil urge” man would not even marry, raise a family, etc. King Solomon in Kohelet 4,4 also describes the evil urge as responsible for man’s competitive spirit. Rav Hunna understands the words והנה טוב as a reference to the יצר טוב, whereas the words והנה טוב מאד he understands as a reference to the יצר הרע, in the sense of it being responsible for man suffering afflictions during his life. To the question how suffering afflictions could be considered as something “very good,” he explains that the repentance which is triggered by man suffering afflictions and examining what he done to deserve them, ultimately assures him of eternal life in the hereafter. Such an approach is also taken by Solomon in Proverbs 6,23 where he invites the reader to examine which route leads to eternal life and concludes by singling out תוכחות מוסר as one of them. Rabbi Zei-ra understands the words והנה טוב as a reference to Gan Eden, and the words והנה טוב מאד as a reference to Gehinnom. Is it then conceivable that Gehinnom is something qualifying for the adjective “very good?” You have to understand this with the help of a parable. A king owned an orchard, allowing labourers to enter into it because he was building a treasure house at its entrance. He announced that any of the labourers who performed their work to his satisfaction would be allowed into this treasure chamber. Those who would be found remiss in their performance record would not be allowed into this treasure chamber. Similarly, G’d announced that all those who would perform the laws of the Torah both vis a vis G’d and vis a vis man, would be allowed into Gan Eden, whereas those who failed to do this would not be allowed entry. Denial of entry to Gan Eden means remaining in “Gehinnom.” In other words, the conditions offered man in Gan Eden are so wonderful that anyone who does not experience them must consider himself as being in Gehinnom. This is the meaning of the words in Psalms 5,5 לא יגורך רע, “evil cannot abide with You.” [not being allowed to dwell in G’d’s proximity, Gan Eden, is equivalent to residing in an evil place. Ed.] There are still other explanations offered in the Midrash on our verse.
  ויהי בקר, יום הששי. Seeing that on this day the creative work of G’d was completed and He had created man on this day, the importance of the day is reflected in the prefix ה. In other words, this significant day had now arrived. In Bereshit Rabbah 9,14 Rabbi Yudan interprets the additional letter ה at the beginning of the word הששי as referring to the additional hour which we add to the holy Sabbath and thereby shorten the number of hours of the sixth day. It is during this hour that the universe received it finishing touches.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויכלו השמים והארץ וכל צבאם, this verse refers to both the hosts of heaven and the hosts of earth, including their respective derivatives, תולדותם. They had all been completed on the sixth “day,” and henceforth there would not be any new phenomena in the universe, unless created by a special act of miracle. The fact is, that already during the first six “days” when the laws of nature were formulated by the Creator, He inserted escape clauses into this system of natural law that would allow Him, if and when required, to temporarily suspend such laws at His discretion. This is explained in Bereshit Rabbah 5,5 where Rabbi Yochanan (or Yonathan) is quoted as saying that G’d entered into an agreement with the oceans that when the time would come they would respond to Moses’ command to be split, etc., in order for the Israelites at that time to cross on dry land. This is the meaning of the words in Exodus 14,26 וישב הים לפנות בוקר לאיתנו, “the sea returned towards morning to its original format.” This is a reference to the condition which G’d had imposed on the sea at the time He set certain rules for it to follow. Rabbi Yirmiyah ben Eliezer added that G’d had not only made such arrangements with the oceans, but also with all other phenomena which He had created  during those six “days;” this is reflected by Isaiah 45,12אני, ידי נטו שמים וכל צבאם צויתי, “My own hands stretched out the heavens and I marshaled their host.” The extra word צויתי, refers to this clause. We also have Joshua 10,13 in which Joshua is described as arresting the sun and the moon in their respective orbits. Had it not been for the provision by G’d at the time of the creation of these planets, Joshua could not have successfully ordered them to perform what would have been an act of disobedience against the rules set for them by G’d. The same holds true for G’d’s dispatching the ravens to feed meat to the prophet Elijah (Kings I 17,4-6), or His ordering the fire not to burn Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah. (Daniel 3,23) G’d had also ordered the lions not to harm Daniel (Daniel 6,26). Similarly, G’d had commanded the whale to swallow Jonah, keep him alive, etc. (Jonah 2,11)
  
  Verse 2
  
  ויכל ביום השביעי, by the time the seventh day had started, all G’d’s work had been completed so that there was no creative activity left for G’d to perform on the seventh day. It is therefore technically correct to state that the meaning of the words is that G’d’s work had been completed, and completion of work cannot be termed “work.” The meaning of the words אשר עשה, therefore is that “all the creative activities which G’d had performed during the preceding six “days” had been terminated with the advent of the seventh day, so that there was nothing left to be done on that day.” We have similar constructions in the Torah, for instance in Exodus 12,16 ביום הראשון תשביתו שאור, which means that on that day leavened things should be in a state of having been destroyed, banished. (compare Pessachim 5) וישבות, He discontinued, what He had completed (שבת).
  מכל מלאכתו, this means that after the sixth “day” G’d did not “create,” ברא, anything new. When the Torah used the expression וישבות, which gives the impression that G’d “retired” into inactivity, this is not accurate; the Torah used terminology that we humans can relate to. There is of course, no such things as יגיעה, fatigue, exhaustion, in connection with G’d. He is, by definition “tireless.” Compare Isaiah 40,28 who describes G’d as לא יעף ולא יגע, expressing exactly these sentiments. Creating the universe was not something tiresome for G’d. Another way of understanding the word וישבות, would be ויפסק, “He stopped, terminated.” This would also fit with Exodus 12,15 תשביתו שאור, “terminate leavened things!”
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  ויברך, this refers to the addition of something beneficial. The seventh day is distinguished by the fact that it enjoys additional good, i.e. additional Divine blessings. These consist of the fact that the Jew is afforded an opportunity to study Torah in a quiet unhurried setting, allowing him to derive the maximum benefit from such study. G’d extended this blessing at the time when He commanded the Jewish people to observe this day as a day of “rest” by sanctifying that day.
  ויקדש אותו, the day was to be sacred in the sense that it is set apart from other days precisely because the Jewish people treat it as such. In other words, its sanctity is due to the way the Jewish people relate to it. This day constitutes a visible sign linking G’d and His people, i.e. that they, just as He, are holy through observing the Sabbath which by itself is testimony to the fact that G’d created the universe. It is a statement aimed at all of mankind announcing that the existence of the universe did not precede the existence of G’d. A researcher has stated that there is a fish in the ocean which does not swim on the Sabbath, spending the entire day resting near the beach or near a rock. Our sages (Sanhedrin 65) describe the river Sambatyon as carrying huge stone down from the mountain every day of the week except on the Sabbath. This is why it is called Sabbatyon. They report further (Bereshit Rabbah Albeck edition pages 92-93) that the hostile Roman governor Turnusrufus asked Rabbi Akiva (in a sarcastic manner) how the Sabbath was different from the other days of the week. He answered: “what makes one warrior greater than another warrior?” Thereupon he told him that G’d had made it such. Turnusrufus enquired how Rabbi Akiva could prove this. Rabbi Akiva then told him about the strange phenomenon of the river Sambatyon resting on that day and not hurling stones down from the mountain. This simply proves that G’d, the Creator, has equipped His creatures with a sign indicating to them that the universe is the product of His creative activity, and had not preceded His existence. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 11,1) also explain the sequence of ויברך...ויקדש in our verse in this fashion when they say ברכו וקדשו במן, “He blessed it and sanctified it by means of the manna,” i.e. by the fact that on that day the manna did not descend from the celestial regions, seeing that G’d already provided a double portion on the previous day.
  אשר ברא אלוקים לעשות, He had created them, whereas it was now up to the plants, animals, etc., to continue the process G’d had begun and to perfect the earth as well as themselves, each species according to its potential.
  
  Verse 4
  
  אלה תולדות השמים והארץ, the word אלה refers to the phenomena mentioned during the 6 “days” of creation. Even though we have been told that G’d created the universe, as is clear from the verbs ויברא and ויעש all referring to G’d Himself doing these things, so where did the derivatives, תולדות come from? The Torah means that indeed G’d had created all these, but He had employed intermediaries, i.e. heaven and earth to whom He had issued directives. In Bereshit Rabbah 12,7 we are told לכל יש תולדות, everything has derivatives. We know that heaven and earth have derivatives. Rain has derivatives as it says in Job 38,28 do you know who is the father of rain, do you know who sired dew? [The concept being described is that none of these phenomena created themselves but were the product of something preceding them. Hence all phenomena that we perceive are derivatives of heaven or earth, which alone had been created by G’d directly, without intermediaries. Ed.] Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said that pearls are derivatives of dew; he referred to the bedolach mentioned in verse 12 of our chapter. Basically, the message of our verse is that everything that does produce derivatives, offspring, is itself slated to die and to disintegrate. This fact is proof that it is a creature and not a creator. On the other hand, if a phenomenon in the universe does not produce derivatives, this is proof that the phenomenon is not mortal, not subject to dissolution but that we are faced with a Creator and not a creature. Rabbi Azaryah in the name of Rabbi added that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s comment was directed toward heaven, i.e. seeing that G’d is eternal and not subject to disintegration He needs no derivatives, “offspring” in order to perpetuate Himself. Everything which is a visible phenomenon is a derivative of either heaven or earth, seeing that the Torah commenced with the words בראשית ברא אלוקים את השמים ואת הארץ “First, G’d created heaven and earth.”  בהבראם, on the very day G’d created the heaven it already began to produce derivatives . This is the meaning of the words: ביום עשות ה' אלוקים ארץ ושמים. This is a reference to the day on which G’d confirmed that heaven was to be the upper waters, rakia, and earth was to be the dry land, yabashah. Starting with that day, heaven and earth each produced derivatives, i.e. a process of evolution began, one that followed rules set by G’d. The meaning of the word ביום is that this occurred simultaneously, i.e. both heaven and earth began this process on the same day, as we explained on Genesis 1,6. Our sages explained the reason for the minuscule letter ה in the word בהבראם as meaning that G’d had used the letter ה as His agent in creating the physical universe. (Bereshit Rabbah 12,10.) The peculiarity of that letter is that all the other letters in the Hebrew alphabet demand an effort to pronounce them, whereas the letter ה demands no effort. The use of this letter here symbolises that the work involved in creating the physical universe did not cause fatigue, etc., to the Creator. ה' אלוקים, this combination of two names to describe G’d occurs here for the first time, not having occurred during the report of the creation. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 13,3 explain it as appropriate saying that now that the universe was complete, also G’d’s name had to be spelled out in full. Ibn Ezra writes (in his book יסוד מורא chapter 12 page 42) that seeing that in this world nothing is permanent and enduring except the soul of man, as long as man did not exist there was no point in revealing another facet to G’d’s name. The only aspect of G’d’s essence which was revealed until that point was the attribute of Justice, i.e. the attribute designed to instill awe in the creatures whom He had created.The superior soul of man is called לב, heart; but the heart is both גוף and something over and beyond merely a physical organ pumping blood. It is called by a name describing something physical, seeing it is the original organ combining spiritual and physical features. Seeing that also all of G’d’s activities had been implemented by means of angels, disembodied agents at home in the celestial spheres, these angels bear His name אלוקים. The name Hashem was co-opted on account of man, i.e. on account of the superior essence of man, the soul, which is of an enduring eternal nature. Man, after all, represented the purpose of G’d creating the entire universe. There is a reason why the name Hashem has not simply replaced the attribute אלוקים used by the Torah to describe the Creator until now, until the birth of Kayin (man’s first derivative, תולדה). We will have more to say on this on chapter 4,1.
  
  Verse 5
  
  וכל שיח השדה, now the Torah fills in details of the report of G’d’s creative activity during the preceding days which had been omitted, including how man had spent the hours remaining on the sixth “day” after his creation. It refers to some aspects of the plants created already on the third “day,” as well as to the animals which had been created on the sixth “day” which share the same habitat as man, i.e. they live on dry land. Seeing that the Torah would shortly have to refer to the vegetation in Gan Eden, including references to the trees of knowledge and the tree of life which are part of the vegetation on earth, the Torah first describes the fact that the shrubs, etc., had not yet been able to grow to their full maturity due to an absence of rain on earth. The fact that even shrubs are significant plants, is demonstrated in Genesis 21,15 where Hagar is described as abandoning her son Ishmael under one such shrub. At this point the Torah informs us that although in response to G’d’s directive on the third “day” that earth produce herbs, etc., and that in response to this directive the earth did indeed produce not only herbs but fruit-bearing trees, G’d had not yet decreed that rain fall on earth, seeing that man the beneficiary of such rain, had not been created as yet. Rain, by itself, without man working the soil does not accomplish a great deal. This raises the question how the vegetation described as coming into existence on the third “day” managed to do so? The Torah answers this by describing vapours which rose from the surface of the waters at that time, and through whose influence all these plants were enabled to develop temporarily. There are numerous plants, shrubs included, which do not depend on man’s labour for their continued existence. The only plants which do require man’s input first and foremost, are the plants which serve as his food. David already referred to this in Psalms 104,14 where he describes that bread is produced from the earth and that rain is required to ensure that this will materialise. If the Torah, at the beginning of this verse, mentions that G’d had not let it rain, prior to mentioning that the vapour had risen  (by itself, without G’d’s input, apparently) and had irrigated the earth, this was to inform us that rain is produced as a result of the vapours rising, forming clouds, etc, but that all of this needs to be initiated by G’d’s goodwill in the first place. The gaon Rav Saadyah, in his commentary on this verse, writes that the letter ו in the word ואד means, that there had not been a vapour rising from the face of the earth which could have irrigated the plants either; in other words that this is a continuation of the statement that there had not been any rain as yet, neither had there been dew or vapour, or any of the types of moisture which we know promote growth. Up until that point G’d Himself had seen to it that these plants developed, until the laws of nature had become activated as they were needed for the sake of man. If the Torah bothered to tell us that just as G’d had not yet initiated rainfall, neither had He caused vapours to rise from the earth to form clouds, (which would have been all that we needed to know) this is a lesson in why no rain had fallen. Seeing that no vapours had risen from the earth, no clouds had formed which could discharge their water at the appropriate time. In Bereshit Rabbah 13,1 the author addresses the apparent contradiction between our verse in which we are told that due to the absence of rain even grass had not yet grown properly, and verse 9 where G’d is described as having made every desirable tree grow in Gan Eden. Rabbi Chaninah there solves the problem by saying that the conditions that prevailed at that time in Gan Eden were different from those prevailing in the rest of the earth, hence trees could grow there. Rabbi Chiyah disagrees, saying that no growth had taken place at that time in either region. How then does he resolve the apparent contradiction? He finds no contradiction, seeing that man’s creation had also been reported already in chapter 1,27, and here it is reported again. At this point, the Torah simply fills in details it had omitted in its earlier report. Whereas the various creatures and phenomena created during the first six “days” had been fully developed, man, as distinct from the other living creatures, had not received its life-force, נפש, from the part of nature producing it, as had the fish or the mammals. Hence this point had to be described graphically, i.e. G’d blowing the soul into Adam’s nostrils.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  וייצר ה' אלוקים את האדם, the word is written with two letters י as is appropriate. We find this fact commented on allegorically in Bereshit Rabbah 14,2 where it is suggested that these two letters י allude to man’s basic urges, contradictory tendencies of either being obedient to G’d or rebelling against His dictates. [there is an obscure reference to two different kinds of development of the fetus before birth, i.e. a seven month pregnancy or a nine month pregnancy respectively, being alluded to by the two letters י. If that is the meaning of the spelling, there is no moral lesson involved here. Ed.] עפר מן האדמה, the Torah here mentions only one of the four raw materials man is made of, seeing it is the predominant one, at least quantitatively, in all land based living creatures as opposed to the creatures whose habitat is the water, whose predominant raw material is the water. In the case of the birds, air is the quantitatively predominant raw material. This fact enables the birds to fly in the air.  Mention of the raw material עפר means that this raw material distinguishes man, is the most visible, the result of G’d’s directive to earth to bring forth a lifeless human being beautifully shaped, functional, awaiting only the soul G’d would insert to turn it into a living creature. מן האדמה, the prefix ה was used here to let us know that only the choicest earth was employed in constructing this golem. Man’s body is superior to the bodies of the other mammals that had also been produced by primarily using earth as their raw material. Proof that this claim is correct is the fact that man alone of all the mammals on earth walks upright. The scholar Rabbi Yoseph ben Tzadik (in a book called olam hakatan) writes that we can understand this by comparing pure oil and impure oil respectively supplying a wick with its fuel. When pure oil is used, the flame rises perpendicularly, not flickering from one side to another, whereas when impure, insufficiently refined oil is used, the flame does not rise in an uninterrupted upward motion. Similarly, the fact that man walks upright is a reflection of the purity of the raw material used in his composition. An additional reason why man is able to walk upright is the fact that he contains the soul whose origin is in heaven. This fact would reflect that whatever grows reflects its origin in the manner in which it grows. Seeing that man’s head is his most important part, it being higher than the rest of his body, it is no more than natural that he would walk in a manner which illustrates the superior importance of his head, i.e. walking upright, head held high. By holding his head high, he symbolically points toward heaven, his origin.
  ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים, G’d blew into man some of the spirit prevailing in the highest regions on earth. Whereas the life force of the animals is described as נפש חיים, something abstract but originating in physical earth, man’s life force is called here נשמה, to alert us to the fact that the origin of this life force is not physical, has not been supplied by earth, in fact could not have been supplied by earth. Our verse illustrates what G’d had meant when He had announced that man would be בצלמנו כדמותנו, “in Our image, Our likeness.” (1,24). This is so in spite of the fact that sometimes man is equipped additionally with רוח and נפש. The expression נשמה is reserved exclusively for describing man, whereas the other two expressions, describing non-tangible animalistic forms of energy called “life-force,” are shared by man and beast. You may argue that the Torah describes all of the living creatures by invoking the term נשמה in Genesis 7,22. We are told there: כל אשר נשמת רוח חיים באפיו וגו', “every creature which had the soul and spirit of life in its nostrils… died.” We must understand that verse as meaning that man who possessed both a נשמה as well as רוח חיים, died.” 
  באפיו, all land-based living creatures, man as well as mammals, need the nose to breathe, i.e. to stay alive. It is the organ through which cold air enters man from the outside and blows on the heart. It is also the organ through which the air exits after it has performed its task. The air exiting through the nostrils is the one left over after digestion, having previously nestled around the warmth of the heart. It (the heart’s task) is divided into three parts as the biologists and anthropologists have told us. It comprises growth potential, sensitivity i.e. ability to move, and the ability to think.
  ויהי האדם לנפש חיה, man now appeared similar to other living creatures that move on their feet, propelled by the נפש, life-force which becomes active as soon as the baby leaves the mother’s womb. Original man is described here as fully mature, not like subsequent human beings who were born by woman, and who could not walk, etc., as soon as they were born. The reason why he could walk immediately was because he was created as a grown up, did not have to grow from being an infant first. The weakness of human beings at birth, and therefore their inability to walk from birth, etc., stems from the fact that while in the womb, the nourishment provided by the mother’s menstrual blood is impure, unlike the animal young who had shared the same food as their respective mothers while inside the womb. This is why these animals are practically able to fend for themselves soon after they have been born. [mobility, i.e. the ability of moving about on its own is considered a crucial part of the definition נפש חיה being  a living creature. Ed.] Both Adam and Chavah resembled the animals in that respect, never having been fed polluted food. This is the reason why our verse uses the term לנפש חיה, to alert the reader that the first pair of human beings was different from subsequent humans in that they were fully developed as soon as they could breathe. As to Onkelos’ translation of נפש חיה, as רוח ממללא,  “talking spirit,” a well known commentary, perhaps the way we have to understand his commentary is that only after G’d blew the נשמה into Adam’s nostrils did he become a creature that could express his feelings and thoughts in words. It is also possible to interpret the expressionויהי האדם לנפש חיה, as man now becoming capable to possess eternal life by being directly connected to the source of eternal life. The words לנפש חיה are to be contrasted to נפש מתה, a life force which is mortal, i.e. which dies as soon as its body dies.
  
  Verse 8
  
  ויטע, the planting of Gan Eden is reported with the same verb ויטע as has been used by David in Psalms 104,16 for describing G’d as planting the cedar trees in Lebanon. At that point David described what G’d had done on the third day of creation; here too the Torah describes a garden whose origin G’d had planted already on the third day of creation. The distinction of Gan Eden is clear from the fact that no other region on earth was deemed worthy of being singled out as warranting G’d’s personal involvement. 
  בעדן, a location so named because it was extremely fertile, its vegetation affording man’s body extreme pleasure when merely contemplating its beauty with his eyes, and even his invisible soul enjoyed its hidden beauty.
  מקדם, in an easterly direction. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 15,3) understand the word מקדם as describing a time frame preceding the creation of man, i.e. whereas man was created on the sixth “day,” the garden was created on the third “day.” Other scholars quoted in Bereshit Rabbah there believe that the word מקדם is a reference to a “date” prior to the creation of the universe. This explanation is based on the Kabbalah. The great scholar Avraham Ibn Ezra (verse 11) writes: “we know that the location of Gan Eden was on the equator, a region in which day and night are of equal duration all year round.
  וישם שם את האדם אשר יצר, Now that the Torah told us this we know that originally, man had not been created in Gan Eden. Perhaps he had been created in a region nearby, and G’d told Adam to take up residence in Gan Eden. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 14,8 state that man had been formed from the earth on Mount Moriah, and that from there G’d had transplanted him to Gan Eden. In Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 31 we are told that Adam offered a sacrifice to G’d on Mount Moriah already. Also Adam’s sons, as well as Noach sacrificed to G’d on that mountain. The reason why when the Torah tells us about Avraham building המזבח “the” altar instead of simply ויבן אברהם מזבח, “Avraham built an altar,” is that this altar had already existed, had been known since Noach’s sacrifice. Adam had prophetic inspiration telling him of the significance of that location for offering a sacrifice. Still, G’d brought Adam to Gan Eden in order for him to appreciate the excellence of its fruit and eating of it without having to toil, deriving great satisfaction both for his body and his soul.
  וישם, the choice of this word suggests that G’d appointed Adam as the gardener for this garden, to prevent wild beasts as well as domesticated beasts from entering there and from eating of its fruit. The fruit of the trees of that garden were reserved for man and his offspring, provided they would be found worthy to do so. אשר יצר, the reason why the Torah wrote these words, seeing we all know that G’d had formed man, is to tell us that man’s habitat, Gan Eden, had been a prime objective of G’d when He created man. (based on the Kabbalists) The letter ה which precedes the word אדם is necessary to help describe, define him, seeing he had no other individual name as yet. The word אדם is both an adjective, a derivative of the noun אדמה, describing a creature formed out of earth, as well as a noun in its own right. This noun has comprehensive meaning, similar to such nouns as חמה, sun, לבנה, moon, זכוכית, glass, etc. The fact is that most of man’s raw material has been directly derived from earth, even though he also contains material from the other three basic elements. The bones making up man’s skeleton, supporting man’s body are formed out of earth, being cold and dry just as the earth itself. Seeing that they are an integral part of the earth they remain more or less intact for many years after the rest of man’s body has long rotted away and dissolved. The scholar Avraham Ibn Ezra wrote on verse 8 that the letter ה in the word האדם in our verse contains a hidden element. I believe that what he had in mind is that the letter ה indicates that the word אדם in this verse is a reference to “man” as the name of the human species. We find that among our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 15,2) there surface disagreements as to the meaning of the whole concept of Gan Eden. Rabbi Yehudah understands the meaning of the term as a great garden originating in a place called Eden. He quotes Ezekiel 31,9 in support of his view. We read there: ויקנאהו כל עצי עדן אשר בגן האלוקים, “all the trees in G’d’s garden envied it” (the cedar described by the prophet in the verses leading up to this one) In other words, Rabbi Yehudah understands the prophet Ezekiel as viewing this garden as having been located in a region known as Eden. His view is buttressed by Ezekiel 28,13 בעדן, גן האלוקים היית, “in Eden, the garden of G’d, you have been.” Rabbi Yossi views עדן as something bigger than a גן, basing himself on the letter ב in the expression גן בעדן, i.e. “a garden within the area known as Eden.” Also, the verse (2,10) ונהר יצא מעדן להשקות את הגן, “a river originated in Eden in order to irrigate the garden, supports his view. [Actually, in the Yalkut another verse supporting the view of Rabbi Yehudah is quoted (בעדן גן האלוקים, in Eden the garden of G’d, which proves that the garden was bigger than the location described as Eden. Ezekiel 28,13) According to the view of Rabbi Yossi the amount of water squeezed from an area of 30 sa-ah בית כורת  can adequately irrigate a half sa-ah. (Taaanit 10) The fountain of that river was within the garden, in the center, so that the vegetation all around it would be irrigated by its waters. According to Targum Yerushalmi, Exodus 15,27 which speaks of the 12 wells in an oasis encountered by the Israelites on their journey, the meaning of the expression מעיינות מים is פיגין דמיין, “springs of water.” At any rate Rabbi Yehudah has two verses supporting his view, whereas Rabbi Yossi could find only one verse supporting him. Rabbi Chanin of Tzippori had an inspiration supporting the view of Rabbi Yossi, and found another verse relevant to our subject in Isaiah 51,3 מדברה כעדן וערבתה כגן ה', “a desert like Eden, and a wilderness like a garden of the Lord.” 
  
  Verse 9
  
  ויצמח, after having mentioned the existence of the garden in the previous verse, it is clear that the words מן האדמה at the beginning of the verse, refer to the soil of Gan Eden. Our verse informs us inter alia that G’d had not planted any non fruit-bearing trees in Gan Eden. All of them were distinguished from the trees in other parts of the earth by their excellence. This is why the Torah added the words נחמד למראה וטוב למאכל, the fruit of every tree in this garden was delicious. The word למראה, refers to the external appearance of the trees, whereas the words טוב למאכל refer to the quality of their fruit. Seeing that Adam did not have much time to enjoy any of this, unless he ate some between the time he repented and was expelled (3,24), Adam’s sons did not get to taste the fruit of the garden at all, and Gan Eden in its entirety has been stored up by G’d for use by the Jewish people in the times after the Mashiach has come. At that time, everyone will be able to experience at first hand what Adam had lost by having eaten from the tree of knowledge. At that time they will all know G’d and the reason why they have been created. This is what the sages had in mind when they spoke of the יין המשומר בענביו מששת ימי בראשית, that in those days we will taste “the wine which has been stored up within its grapes ever since the six days of creation.” This represents the most enjoyable product of Gan Eden. We must not forget that such stories as the one of Gan Eden have meaning both as literal peshat, but also have a hidden meaning which is subject to understanding by people probing the text of the Torah more deeply ועץ החיים בתוך הגן ועץ הדעת טוב ורע, the word בתוך, normally translated as “within,” or “among,” here means literally “in the middle.” (Targum Onkelos) The reason it was dead in the center is that if you want to protect something carefully you place it in the center where it is surrounded, i.e. protected, from all sides equally. Man’s heart, lung, liver, his most precious organs, are surrounded by all manner of protective bone, flesh, and other tissue. These all act like a wall protecting the interior organs from injury. The explanation of the words “ועץ החיים,” is: “G’d had also made a tree of life grow in the center of the garden.” The normal function of this tree, i.e. its fruit, is to reinforce the vital organs and parts of the human being. Anyone eating from the fruit of this tree regularly would enjoy very long life. According to the aggadah, which deals with the hidden meaning of this text, (compare Genesis 3,22, פירוש הנסתר) anyone eating of this tree would live forever. According to Bereshit Rabbah 15,6 Rabbi Yehudah bar IIai is quoted as saying that this tree travels a distance of 500 years, and all the waters dating back to the days of creation  split beneath it when it approaches. [this distance of 500 “years” is a standard expression in the Midrash for the length and breadth of the earth, i.e. this tree’s roots spanned the entire globe. It is therefore a euphemism for one’s whole lifetime, also meaning that every living creature anywhere on earth benefits from this tree. Ed.] Rabbi Yitzchok, in the name of Rabbi Yehudah bar Ilai, adds that not only the trunk and the roots influence all creatures on earth, but also the branches and foliage of that tree. According to this Midrash, the middle of the garden, i.e. the two trees named, could effect man’s life both spiritually and physically in an extraordinary degree. It is possible to understand the verse as meaning that these two trees stood very close to one another. It is also possible to understand the word הדעת, as not being in a construct mode, [as opposed to הדעה which is definitely not in the construct mode, Ed.] so that the Torah meant that the knowledge to be gained from this tree by eating its fruit could be both beneficial and harmful.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  ונהר יוצא מעדן להשקות את הגן, Adam, who had been placed in the garden, had also been instructed to tend it and protect it from intruders, and without water he could not perform the work he had been instructed to perform. However, the Torah attests that Adam did not also have to irrigate the soil; this was accomplished by an external; source of water originating in Eden and flowing through the garden.
  ומשם יפרד, having flown through the garden and irrigated its plants, this river would exit and its course would break up into four main streams. Each of its new river beds would still have enough water to qualify for even the tributaries to be called “stream,” נהר. [the word “tributary” as I have used it, is the reverse of its usual meaning, as it is normally applied to smaller rivers joining a larger stream. Ed.]
  ראשים, this means “parts, offshoots.” Each “tributary” would be an independent stream, eventually branching out into minor rivers.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  שם האחד, it appears from the Torah’s report that the land called חוילה was situated in the immediate vicinity of Gan Eden, and that this is the reason that it is a land superior to other parts of the earth. Just as Gan Eden is superior to other parts of the globe due to its superior trees and their fruit, so this land חוילה has other advantages, as the Torah enumerates, i.e. that this is where gold is found. The reason the Torah prefaced the word זהב with the letter ה, as if speaking of a special kind of gold, is that although gold can be found in other countries also, it is more abundant in this land known as ארץ החוילה. The Torah itself states that the gold found there “is good,” suggesting that instead of quartz containing gold being found there, gold nuggets who are pure gold were there in abundance. Perhaps, being so close to Gan Eden was the reason why gold was found there in abundance and the Torah suggests that the Gan Eden which has been lost to mankind, did indeed exist, to wit that even a land only bordering on it, shows that it is superior to other countries on our globe. The shoham “jewels,” [type of gemstone, which according to Rabbeinu Bachya possessed therapeutic qualities for its wearer and was used later in the garment (ephod) of the High Priest, could also be found there. [Exodus page 1293 this editor’s translation of Rabbeinu Bachya’s commentary] 
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  והבדולח, Rabbi Saadyah gaon, as well as Ibn Ezra say that it is a small spherical white gemstone. This is supported by the reference to כעין הבדולח in Numbers 11,7 where the Torah describes the appearance of the manna. The same scholars believe that this stone is formed by what were originally small drops of dew which had descended on that river. This is the reason why this “stone” is round, just as a drop of dew. Seeing that each individual such stone is so small that it is useless as an effective tool in commerce and industry, this is the reason why the word אבן is not mentioned in connection with בדולח, as opposed to the שהם gemstone which is specifically described as a “stone.” The latter is a large stone, and many different kinds of vessels are made out of its material. Due to its cost, these vessels are found only in the homes of kings and wealthy individuals. The shoham stones on the epaulets of the High Priest had the names of the twelve tribes etched into them. (Exodus 28,9) This gemstone was chosen in preference to others as it is more precious than most, and is found in an almost pure form, not containing any flaws due to discolouration. This river flows in an easterly direction and does not continue through the ארץ חוילה, but flows around it and then enters the sea on its eastern shores. The reason most people called this river Pishon is because its waters help seeds irrigated by them to expand and produce substantial crops. Etymologically, the word פישון, is a derivative of the word פוש found in Jeremiah 50,11 כי תפושו כעגלה דשה, “when you stamped like a heifer treading grain.” Onkelos renders the word פרו, “be fruitful” as פושו in Genesis 1,28.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  ושם הנהר השני גיחון, this river flows in a southerly direction flowing around the whole land of Kush from which it enters Sarnediv known as the great sea, (Mediterranean) according to the experts in geography. After the Torah used the expression הסובב when describing the manner in which the first two rivers wended their way on the surface of the earth, it switches to the verb הלך in describing the flow of the rivers Euphrates and Tigris. It appears that these first two rivers did not cross a certain country diagonally but detoured around it. גיחון, this name appears to reflect the manner in which this river splits up into many smaller rivers. [again we appear to face the concept of “tributaries” as being reversed, the main river creating something like a delta, i.e. breaking up into smaller distributaries. Ed.] The word means “exit” We find it appearing in this context in Job 40,23 כי יגיח ירדן אל פיהו, or in Ezekiel 32,2 ותגח בנהרותיך, as well as in similar instances. Incidentally, the שילוח is also called גיחון, seeing it splits into so many different rivulets in order to irrigate the gardens in Jerusalem.
  
  Verse 14
  
  ושם הנהר השלישי...קדמת אשור, it flows more or less in a continuous direction to the eastern region of what was the land of Ashur at the time the Torah was given. It does not circumvent that country but flows in a northerly direction, seeing that both Babylon and Ashur are situated north of Gan Eden. [In order to make even partial sense of all this, it helps to understand such definitions as “northerly, southerly, easterly,” as relative to the location of Eretz Yisrael, not as relative to the north and south poles of our globe. Rashi already found it necessary to describe the river Nile as running underground for a considerable distance in order to make the Biblical report compatible with the facts as known in his time, much earlier than Kimchi. Ed.] חידקל, this river is so called because its waters are clear and flow rapidly (Berachot 59). 
  והנהר הרביעי הוא פרת, our sages have divergent views on the identity of this river. According to Rabbi Yehudah it is the river Euphrates, whereas according to Rav Hunna it is the river כבר, also in Babylonia, the river where the prophet Ezekiel received prophetic revelations and instructions. (Ezekiel 1,1) The reason it is called פרת, according to Rabbi Yehudah, is that its waters keep increasing until it becomes a navigable stream, and it cannot be crossed on foot or raft, but must be crossed by ferry. Also, the word פרת alludes to these waters continuously increasing (due to its tributaries). According to Rav Hunna the rivers פרת and כבר are not 2 names for the same river, but refer to two entirely different rivers. Rabbi Yehoshua from Sakkinin, speaking in the name of Rabbi Levi, says that when people ask the river פרת why it does not make any sound, the river replies that it does not need to advertise its existence by being noisy, but that its deeds, i.e. the contribution it makes to the people living alongside it are sufficient to make it well known. It could say of itself that if someone plants a tree near its banks it will grow within 30 days, whereas if he plants seeds of vegetables it will sprout within three days. הוא פרת, this river is known by this name in the land of Israel. This is why the Torah did not need to add more details about the region in which this river flows. The river is further west than other countries which have been mentioned. Once this river has reached Eretz Yisrael, it ends up in the ים האחרון, the gulf of Basra. [the reader is reminded that the reference to the Euphrates reaching the land of Israel is most likely the author’s definition of the land of Israel consisting of the lands of 10 nations, not 7, i.e. as promised to Avraham Genesis 15,18. Ed.] The 4 rivers mentioned symbolise that the four directions on earth are all supplied with fresh water by these rivers. Seeing that the land of Israel is considered as in the center of the civilised world, all these rivers touch the land of Israel at one point or another The reason why all this was recorded here is to show how Moses, at his time, was able to provide all these details having been imbued with holy spirit. Otherwise, how would Moses have known all this, seeing that he had not been a world traveler but had spent almost all the 40 years that he was a leader in a narrow desert. Seeing that all these stories recorded in the Book of Genesis do not contain commandments either between G’d and man or between man and man, it is clear that unless G’d had endowed Moses with the requisite knowledge he could not have recorded all these details. G’d’s purpose was clearly, to implant in man knowledge of how the early years of man on earth had begun, after G’d had created the world and had placed Adam in Gan Eden. Our sages, looking for deeper allusions to man’s history in all this, also saw in the 4 rivers mentioned a reference to the four exiles the Jewish people would endure before being redeemed. (Bereshit Rabbah 16,4) There are more explanations about these 4 rivers (on verse 10) in the kabbalistic writings of our sages.
  
  Verse 15
  
  ויקח ה' אלוקים, even though we have been told already in verse 8 that G’d placed Adam in Gan Eden, the Torah repeats this by stating that “G’d took man etc.,” because at this point the Torah wanted to inform us of the commandment which accompanied Adam’s taking up residence in that idyllic place. Our verse also spells out something that had not been mentioned previously, i.e. that Adam was not to treat Gan Eden as a retreat, but that he was made responsible for maintaining it in good order.
  לעבדה ולשמרה, to work it and to preserve it intact. The verse makes plain that G’d removed Adam from a nearby location where he had been created, depositing him in Gan Eden The question is why G’d had not created Adam in Gan Eden in the first place, seeing He was going to transfer him there anyway? The reason is that He wanted him to appreciate the quality of that garden. Had he been created there, he would not have had any means of comparing it to another region on earth, and would not have cherished its excellence. By transferring him to Gan Eden, G’d demonstrated to Adam that He had his best interests at heart. The word ויקח may be understood as similar to G’d saying about Avraham ואקח את אביכם את אברהם מעבר הנהר, “I took your father Avraham from beyond the river Euphrates.” (Joshua 24,3) לעבדה ולשמרה, although the noun גן is masculine, the Torah treats it here as if it were in the feminine mode. The reason is that the work would be performed on the soil, אדמה of the garden, and the word אדמה is a feminine noun. Alternatively, the word “garden” appears in the Bible both in a masculine mode, גן and in a feminine mode גנה, when the letter ה is added at the end. An example of this is found in Isaiah 61,11 וכגנה זרעויה תצמיח, “and its seeds will sprout like those in a garden.” The word לעבדה refers to constructive labour, furthering the growth and fruit-bearing capability of the trees, whereas the word ולשמרה refers to the taking of preventive measures to counter invasion of the garden by predators, and other measures to prevent its deterioration. Our sages, reading into this expression also a moral/ethical teaching, understand the word לעבדה as the dedication to study of G’d’s commandments, whereas the expression לשמרה refers to the carrying out of these commandments in practice. (Sifri Eykev 21)
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  ויצו ה' אלוקים, the commandment mentioned here may either apply only to the specific fruit Adam was not to eat, or it is a dual commandment, the positive commandment being to eat the other fruit in order to keep healthy, and to shun the fruit of the tree of knowledge precisely for the same reason, as it would prove extremely harmful. G’d emphasised the importance of eating in order to keep alive and healthy by repeating and saying אכול תאכל, meaning: “be sure to eat!” Such repetitions are always used in the Torah when the Torah wants to underscore a point. A well known example is Deuteronomy 11,22 שמור תשמרון, where the Jewish people are warned insistently not to become guilty of violating the preceding commandments by ignoring them. A similar repetition is found a few verses earlier (11,13) when the performance is urged with the words שמוע תשמעו, “be sure to listen (and carry out).” Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 15,6) claim that Adam had been commanded 6 commandments. This verse was written where it was to illustrate that chronologically, this was immediately after he had received these commandments. They said furthermore that the word ויצו referred to the  prohibition to commit idolatry. This word has again been used to describe such a prohibition in Hoseah 5,11 כי הואיל הלך אחרי צו. “because he followed the path of idolatry.” The word Hashem in that verse refers to the law prohibiting cursing G’d by invoking His name. (compare Leviticus 24,16) The word אלוקים in the same verse refers to the need to deal with offenders of the law by legal means (compare Exodus 22,27) The words על האדם in our verse refer to the prohibition to shed human blood, something spelled out in greater detail in Genesis 9,6. The word לאמור alludes to illicit sexual relations including incest. The prophet Jeremiah 3,1 refers to widespread non-observance of this legislation even among the Jewish people. The seventh law was spelled out in detail, i.e. not to eat flesh while the animal from which it stems is still alive. This law was not applicable before Noach had thanked G’d for his deliverance, as all flesh had been forbidden as food until that time.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע, one of the operative, though apparently superfluous, words in this verse is the word ממנו, “from it.” Seeing that the verse had already commenced with the words ומעץ, “and from the tree,” this word appears redundant. It may therefore have been inserted in order to emphasise the severity of the effects of ignoring this warning. Alternately, the word refers to the fruit, seeing the fruit of the tree had not been mentioned at all previously. Interestingly, G’d had not forbidden Adam to eat from the fruit of the tree of life, but, on the contrary, the fruit of this tree was included in the instruction to eat “from all the trees of the garden you shall surely eat.” This subject is dealt with at greater length in the kabbalistic writings of our sages.
  מות תמות, mortality will be decreed for you as something occurring far sooner than would have been the case otherwise. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 19,8) explain that the word ביום does not refer to a day of our lives, i.e. a period of 24 hours, but refers to a “day” in G’d’s calendar, i.e. 1000 years in terms of our lives. Man was henceforth not to reach the age of 1000 years. Adam, who had been slated to live for 1000 years, actually lived only 930 years, having bequeathed the other 70 years to his descendants. They base this on Psalms 90,10 ימי שנותנו בהם שבעים שנה, “the number of years of our lives is 70.” [according to Rabbi David Luriah the words לבניו in this Midrash refer specifically to David. Ed.] According to the above we must conclude that the sages of the Midrash consider death per se as a curse, based on Deuteronomy 30,15 כי הרע הוא המות והטוב הוא החיים, “for life is good and death is evil.” As to “knowledge of good and evil,” there are a number of explanations of these words. (Ibn Ezra) It may refer to the intimacy experienced between man and his wife when engaging in marital intercourse. The fruit of that tree created the mating instinct in man. The word טוב refers to copulation that is permitted and the word רע would refer to copulation which is forbidden. Adam was full of knowledge, and it is preposterous to assume that he had no concept of what is good and what is evil before he ate from that tree. However, he had lacked the biological urge to engage in marital intercourse. This is proved by the fact that after both he and his wife had eaten from the tree of knowledge they are quoted as saying that “their eyes were opened and they realised that they were naked,” in the sense that they lacked something which they had not been aware of needing. (Genesis 3,7). The meaning of the words והייתם כאלוקים, (3,5) is “you will be like the angels.” The common denominator between Adam and the angels at that stage was that both the angels and man had no inkling of the mating instinct. It is true that merely by observing the animals’ behaviour they realised that the males and females engaged in such activities, however they had no understanding of how such a process of creating progeny applied to themselves. Alternatively, we may understand the serpent as not having the slightest idea of what the concepts טוב ורע, “good and evil” represented. Even though Chavah is not quoted in the text of having used these words, it is quite impossible to assume that the entire dialogue between the serpent and Chavah has been recorded here. Unless there had been some discussion between them before the words recorded in the text, whence did the serpent know that G’d had forbidden the fruit of the trees, as it had claimed to know? She must have learned such details from the words of the woman. Furthermore, the very opening remark of the serpent, אף, suggests that this is a continuation of the preceding parts of the dialogue which the Torah did not consider worth reporting. Nowhere else is the word אף used as the opening remark in a dialogue. (Ibn Ezra)
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  ויאמר ה' אלוקים, G’d did not utter these words audibly, as is the meaning of the word when applied to human beings, but He “spoke” to Himself. Alternatively, G’d did utter words to that effect without directly addressing Adam, but Adam happened to hear these words. When the Torah speaks of “G’d speaking,” we must understand this as a sound created especially for that particular occasion. Seeing that Adam overheard the words אעשה לו עזר כנגדו, “I shall make for him a suitable companion,” he had entertained the hope that when all the animals paraded before him that he would encounter among them the helpmate, companion, G’d had spoken of. This is how we must understand the words in verse 20 ולאדם לא מצא עזר כנגדו, that he had not found a suitable helpmate when reviewing all the animals and naming them. The Torah inserted these words between reporting on the commandment not to eat from the tree of knowledge and the sin, in order to make plain that man’s sin was due to the influence of the woman, as he had not eaten from this tree before she had been formed and been given to him as a mate, companion. Clearly, also when G’d gave Adam the commandments and forbade him to eat from that tree, seeing that the woman had not been created yet, she could not have heard this commandment from the mouth of G’d, but only from the mouth of her husband. The woman was clever enough to know that G’d had created both her husband and her. She presumed that communication from G’d took place by means of both her and her husband’s intellect, seeing that they were the only creatures who had been endowed with superior intellect.
  לא טוב היות האדם לבדו, it is not good that he has no partner seeing that among the beasts he cannot find a partner, as none of them is on a par with him.
  אעשה לו עזר, an assistant when the need should arise. Solomon, in Kohelet 4,9, paraphrased this when he wrote: טובים השנים מן האחד, “two are better than one alone.” Furthermore, woman was a necessity if man was to leave offspring behind to insure the continuity of his species.
  כנגדו, she should be constantly present to attend to his needs; the prefix letter כ is to be understood as in Samuel I 9,13 כהיום, and as in Numbers 11,1 כמתאוננים, and as in Hoseah 5,10 כמסיגי גבול, in all of which instances the letter כ serves to emphasise what follows. (compare Genesis 25,31 where Yaakov insists that the sale of the birthright be effective immediately with the words כיום, “as of today”) Other explanations of the word כנגדו are that if and when her husband would embark on a sinful path of action, it would be woman’s task to prevent him from doing so by opposing it; these are familiar to all my readers, I am sure. The basic difference between man the species and woman his mate who were not initially created as two separate individuals as opposed to all the other living creatures, is to distinguish him favourably from all those other creatures. It draws attention to the fact that man is made from superior raw materials, and that as opposed to the other creatures among whom the male does not enjoy an advantage over the female, man, i.e. the male of the human species, does enjoy such an advantage. The male of the human species enjoys a position of authority vis a vis his female counterpart. The reason that he enjoys this right is the fact that woman is –after all- one of his own original limbs, and a person does have control over the various parts of his body. Seeing that the male of the human species had been the principal creation, woman became an adjunct to him, so that it is logical that man possesses superior strength to woman, and that also the power of his intellect is more manifest than that of his female counterpart.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  ויצר, this time the word is spelled with only a single letter י, not as in verse 7. In other words, a letter י' which is part of the root of the verb יצר has been omitted from the written text of the Torah. The meaning of the line is: “seeing that G’d had already formed from the earth all the living creatures and all the fowl of the sky, etc.” The expression חית השדה in our verse includes also all the domesticated mammals. This is clear from verse 20, where Adam is portrayed as naming all of them. All of these creatures had been created before Adam had been created. G’d told Adam that he would have authority over all these creatures. He was challenged to name them in accordance with the special qualities each animal possessed; their characteristics should be alluded to in their names.
  לראות, G’d did not need to see how clever Adam was. The exercise was designed to show his descendants what a brilliant forbear they had had, someone who had at one glance been able to determine the essence of each of these creatures. Adam was clever enough to divine the nature of the birds which, though described in 1,20 as having been produced by the waters, are treated in our verse here as if they had been products of the earth (or even of the sky). The Talmud, which describes the origin of the birds as being puddles of water, i.e. combination of water and earth, did not tell us anything Adam had not known already and taken into consideration when naming the birds. (Chulin 26) Alternately, the reason the Torah speaks of G’d having fashioned all the categories of creatures listed in our verse as stemming מן האדמה, is that G’d brought all of these creatures to Adam from the earth, seeing that this was the habitat on which all these creatures developed to their maturity. Proof is the fact that even the birds which fly in the sky are described not as flying in the sky, in the atmosphere, but as flying over the ארץ, emphasising that they too are an integral part of “earth” as opposed to the fish whose habitat is not “earth” but the waters. When fish leave that habitat they die. Seeing that this is so, G’d could not parade them in front of Adam who was on land and could not determine the nature of the various water-based creatures from his present vantage point. As a result, the names of fish actually vary, depending in which ocean they are found, and in what climates they make their habitat.
  וכל אשר יקרא לו האדם נפש חיה, the meaning of this line is as if the Torah had written: וכל נפש חיה אשר יקרא לו האדם שם, “and any living creature whom Adam assigned a name, etc.” הוא שמו, that remained its name. We find something analogous in Ezekiel 39,11 מקום שם קבר, which is the same as if the prophet had written מקום קבר שם, “a place as a grave there.” There are numerous other examples of what we might consider at first glance as an unusual syntax. The name Adam assigned to each creature described the body, contours of the animal in question. The expression נפש חיה in our verse includes every creature that moves. This expression is the Torah’s way of telling us that Adam realised that no creature is really a “living” creature unless it consists of a male and a female of its species, ensuring that they can reproduce and keep the species alive. This brought home to him the full meaning of his having no female partner. He realised that G’d had done this in his own interest, to show the world that he was not on the same level as all the other creatures.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  ויקרא האדם...ולאדם לא מצא עזר כנגדו, he saw all these creatures parading before him as males partnered by a female, whereas there was no such partner available for him. We find a similar construction in Exodus 24,1 of the Torah writing ואל משה אמר עלה אל ה', or in Genesis 4,23 נשי למך or in Samuel I 12,11 ואת יפתח ואת שמואל. According to Tur, quoting Rabbi Joseph Kimchi, our author’s father, what gave rise to our author supplying other examples of such a strange syntax is the fact that Adam is portrayed as if viewing himself from the outside, as a third party. The names Adam gave the animals were all in Hebrew, seeing that this is the language he spoke. This is also the language in which G’d addressed him. G’d had called him אדם since he was a product of אדמה. Similarly, Adam called his wife חוה, to reflect the fact that she was the mother of the human race, i.e. אם כל חי. Chavah in turn called her son קין, describing him as an acquisition קנין of an איש, a man, paralleling G’d Who up until then had been the Only One who had acquired an איש, meaning her own husband Adam. (Genesis 4,1). Similarly, when Lemech named his son נח, he mentioned that the name symbolised the hope that his son would provide comfort for man, זה ינחמנו, (Genesis 5,29). The way these names reflect words in the Hebrew language closely related to such names, all prove that Hebrew was the language spoken at that time. The fact that we do not know the meaning of all the other names mentioned in the Torah for people of that era only proves our ignorance, knowing neither enough Hebrew nor being endowed with the level of wisdom possessed by our forefathers. We will have to await the end of our exile to once again qualify for the command of Hebrew at the disposal of our ancestors.
  
  Verse 21
  
  ויפל, the word תרדמה describes a sleep far deeper  than ordinary sleep every night,שינה , and שינה itself is a deeper sleep than תנומה. The reason why G’d made Adam fall into such a deep sleep was to ensure that he would not feel the surgery being performed on his body. Although, if G’d had wanted to, He could have performed painless surgery while Adam was awake and watching the proceedings, we must always remember that G’d does not perform miracles unless they are absolutely necessary. When there is a solution to a problem within the parameters of well known laws of nature, G’d makes use of them. Putting Adam into a deep sleep known as תרדמה was not something miraculous, seeing that such deep sleep does occur quite frequently in some people’s lives. Our sages (Sanhedrin 39) state (surmise) that if G’d had removed this part of Adam’s body (skeleton) from him while he had been aware of it, he might subsequently have detested Chavah, remembering how she looked before she was fit to be presented to him. [The Talmud there illustrates the manner in which Rabban Gamliel’s daughter explained to the Roman Emperor who had claimed that G’d had stolen a rib from Adam, why it had been necessary to do this in a clandestine fashion. She invited the Emperor to watch her prepare a piece of raw meat and to observe every step before this piece of meat was fit to be served on the table. Having watched this, the Emperor lost his craving for the meat in question. Rabban Gamliel’s daughter told the Emperor to imagine what Adam would have felt like if he had had to watch how his mate was produced step by step. Ed.] Not having watched any part of the process, but being presented with a beautiful female all of a sudden, Adam was bound to be overjoyed and grateful to G’d not only for having taken care of his problem, but for the manner in which G’d had taken care of it. He realised, of course, that men in the future would not have their wives “manufactured” in the same way. We already explained on verse 18 why the other females of the species were not literally created through removing part of the male’s body and building it up with externally secured tissue made from earth. Having described Adam as in a state of תרדמה, the kind of sleep induced by an anesthesia, why did the Torah add the words ויישן, “he slept?” The Torah wanted us to know that the deep sleep lasted only until the operation had been performed and the wound had been closed up. After that Adam only slept the kind of sleep which is a form of quiet relaxation. It is possible that the sleep referred to in our verse as ויישן, was actually Adam’s first experience of sleep since he had been created. We must not forget that all the details we heard about man occurred in the second half of the sixth “day” of creation. This day was so full of activities that it did not end until the children Kayin and Hevel had been born (Sanhedrin 38).
  ויקח אחד מצלעותיו, concerning the precise meaning of these words we find a disagreement among the sages  (Bereshit Rabbah 17,6). Some scholars believed that when G’d created Adam he had two faces –seeing that the Torah reports G’d as having created אותם, “them,” not “him.” They understand man’s original appearance to have been something like the Siamese twins, and the word צלע meaning the same as when used in connection with the “sides” of the Tabernacle (Exodus 26,20) Other scholars understand the word צלע literally, as referring to one of Adam’s ribs. This is also the way Onkelos translates it. תחתנה, as if the Torah had written תחתיה,”in its stead.” 
  
  Verse 22
  
  ויבן ה' אלוקים את הצלע, the word צלע here has to be pronounced on the last syllable. The Torah says, in effect, that G’d “integrated” this צלע to be an integral indistinguishable part of Chavah’s other limbs and organs. She became basically a creature similar in all respects to Adam himself, except for her specifically female features.
  ויביאה אל האדם, after Adam had woken up G’d brought Chavah to him to be his mate. In other words, when Adam awoke he saw her standing upright facing him.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  ויאמר..זאת, for on the first occasion when G’d brought the domesticated animals, the free roaming beasts and the birds to be inspected by Adam, he had not seen among them one that would qualify as his mate. The reason was that none of them matched him in physical features even, not to speak of intellectual compatibility. However, this time, finally, when G’d brought Chavah to him, he recognised immediately that he had found a truly compatible mate. He did not only realise this by comparing her visible features, but he became aware that part of his body, or at least one of his ribs, had been removed, which confirmed his impression that Chavah must indeed be his other half.
  לזאת יקרא אשה כי מאיש לוקחה זאת, note that he did not say לזאת יקרא אדמה, “this one must be called אדמה, (as the feminine form of אדם). The reason he did not call here this was that she, as opposed to him, had not been formed directly from earth, but from refined matter, i.e. his own rib. Even though subsequent human beings who are born by woman and from sperm supplied by the male, are still referred to as אדם, although they do not originate in the אדמה, the custom is justified just as is the fact that the Jewish people whose ancestor was Yisrael, are called בני ישראל, “Children of Yisrael” though their genetic connection to the original Yisrael is extremely tenuous.
  The word איש is a general term for man, also sometimes used to refer to a specific human being. This is why sometimes the word is used as describing people in general, such as ואיש לא נעדר, and “no one was missing,” (Isaiah 40,26) or גדעון איש ישראל, “or איש ואשתו, “male and his mate” (Genesis 7,2). Seeing that the man is the predominant partner and the woman’s husband, seeing she is as if literally one of his organs, he is often referred to as אדון, “master.” In Judges 8,23 we read ויאמרו איש ישראל אל גדעון וגו'. The meaning is not that a particular Jewish man said something to Gideon, but that the Jewish people at that time suggested to Gideon that be become their ruler on an ongoing basis, even his children having a claim to succeed him. The reason why Adam did not refer to Chavah as אישה, as the feminine form of איש, was to avoid confusion with the word אישה when it means “her husband.”
  לוקחה זאת, the letter ל is pronounced as a long syllable, whereas the vowel kametz is shortened into a chataf kametz. When Adam referred to Chavah merely as זאת, “this one,” as if she were merely some chattel, he did so because he did not refer to her alone but to her entire species, i.e. the female of the human species. `
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  על כן יעזב איש, some commentators believe that these words were spoken by Moses, not by Adam. The correct interpretation is that they were spoken by Adam, seeing that he was aware that he would father children, for this was why he had been created, in order to populate earth and ensure that his species would be perpetuated on earth, just as all the other species of living creatures. The plain meaning of our verse is close to the words of Targum Onkelos: על כן ישבוק גבר בית משכבי אבוהי ואמיה, “for this purpose a man will leave the house of his father and mother, etc.” The point of all this is that the Torah did not give permission for man to leave, move away from his parents, in order to devote himself to his wife instead, but in order to fulfill the commandment to found his own family, have children. Man is supposed to live in a separate dwelling, separate from that of his parents, in order to have and raise his children.
  והיו לבשר אחד, this means that they are to be as if they were made of the same flesh. It is a reminder to man that the wife of the first male was indeed made of the same flesh as his own. When the two joined in marital intercourse, they did indeed become once more one flesh. In the future, when engaging in the act of procreation, they would relive the experience Adam and Chavah had when their separate bodies joined for the first time after Chavah had become a person in her own right. Our sages (Sanhedrin 58) explained this verse as words uttered by Adam with holy spirit, i.e. prophetic vision. The words were meant as a warning to the descendants of Noach not to engage in incestuous sexual relations with one another. The reason the Torah mentioned this as a warning to mankind in general is because mankind in general is responsible for the survival of the human race, having come so close to being wiped out altogether because of promiscuous sexual practices. The line does not mean that this prohibition commenced only as something applicable at a later stage in history, it applied to Adam himself and his direct offspring. All the seven “Noachide” laws applied to Adam already, with the exception of the prohibition of consuming flesh or tissue from animals that were still alive. This law did not have to be promulgated until after the deluge, seeing that consumption of any kind of meat was forbidden until then.  The same folio (58) in the Talmud understands the word ודבק in our verse literally, meaning a prohibition of engaging in homosexuality. Only embracing one’s wife in an intimate sexual embrace is permitted, not embracing any other human being in such fashion. Even embracing one’s fellow’s wife in such an intimate embrace, though something heterosexual, is prohibited, this is why the Torah added the pronoun “his” when referring to “his wife, באשתו.”
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  ויהיו ערומים, with a dagesh in the letter ו 
  ולא יתבוששו, this verse tells us that until after they had eaten from the tree of knowledge they had not experienced a feeling of shame due to the fact that their entire bodies were fully exposed. Seeing that they had not yet engaged in sexual intercourse due to their not having experienced a desire for copulation, their sexual organs did not appear to them as any different from all their other organs. They had no reason to be ashamed of them.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  והנחש היה ערום מכל חית ה שדה אשר עשה ה' אלוקים, It is in order to ask in what fashion the serpent conversed with Chavah. If G’d had opened the serpent’s mouth by means of a miracle, as He did when Bileam’s ass started speaking to him (Numbers 22,28), why did the Torah not report, as it did in that verse that “G’d opened the mouth of the serpent?” If, on the other hand, if, as in the view of Rabbi Saadyah gaon, the conversations reported in the Torah between both the ass and Bileam and the serpent and Chavah were conducted by an angel on their behalf, why was the serpent punished and cursed for all times? Besides, how is it possible that G’d assigned to an angel the task to seduce Chavah to sin against G’d? Furthermore, what reason was there to introduce the serpent into the story at this point? Why did the Torah have to write: “and the serpent was the wiliest of all the beasts of the field, etc.?” If the serpent was unable to speak, i.e. to communicate with Chavah in his own right, how do we know that it was such a clever creature? If we are to assume that the angel was dispatched to subject the woman to a test of her faith and obedience, how was the serpent to blame for the outcome? Besides, it would have been so much more appropriate for the angel to test Adam himself, seeing it was he who had been commanded by G’d not to eat from the tree of knowledge? Chavah had heard of this only second hand from her husband! The whole subject is extremely confusing, when we look only at what has been revealed to us by the text. We need to resort to the writings of the Kabbalists to make better sense of this whole episode.(Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 13)[in that chapter’s introduction, the point is made that jealousy and envy, some of the most destructive character traits, exist also in the celestial regions, and that when the angels who had not been delighted at man’s creation in the first place, saw how clever Adam was, and how he had named the animals immediately upon looking at them, they became afraid that their dominant role in G’d’s entourage would be jeopardized now. They therefore schemed to seduce man into sinning against His Creator in order to safeguard their role as being closest to G’d. Thereupon, Samael, the most powerful angel, the one who had 12 wings whereas all the others had only 6 wings, took his underlings with him to take a closer look at what went on in the terrestrial regions. He found that in those regions the serpent was by far the most intelligent of the beasts, and he could not find another beast as capable and willing to fall in with his wicked plans. We are informed there that the serpent was huge, and looked like a camel and Samael was riding on it. The sages, with their insight into then hidden aspects of the Torah, wanted to illustrate how G’d sometimes amuses Himself to make playful use both of the “camel,” i.e. the serpent, and its rider, i.e. Samael. Another comment offered by the sages (Shabbat 146) is that after the serpent had engaged in sexual relations with Chavah, it had left behind within her some of the spiritually poisonous residue, which had contaminated her personality. This was so pervasive that until the Jewish people accepted the Torah at Mount Sinai they had not been able to totally cleanse themselves of that poison. The other nations of the world never cleansed themselves of this spiritually poisonous material. Students of such mystical aspects of the Torah will understand what I refer to, but I have no intention to use my commentary to dwell on such matters, having been warned by my teachers not to reveal what the Torah clearly had not seen fit to reveal to one and all. We will relate to such allusions only in the same way as the sages have seen fit to do themselves. Hopefully, those who are attuned will understand what the sages had in mind to convey to us. Some commentators, cited by Ibn Ezra, say that the serpent did not speak at all, but managed to convey its meaning to Chavah by whistling, hissing to her. Chavah was clever enough, according to that view, to understand what the serpent was trying to communicate to her. It seems very far fetched to credit Chavah with understanding what the serpent tried to hint to her in such a fashion. It is even more far fetched to credit the serpent with understanding what Chavah answered her in Hebrew. The scholar Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes that the serpent did indeed speak, and it used to walk upright, just like man. Originally, G’d had equipped the serpent with superior knowledge and intelligence, i.e. “more crafty than any of the beasts of the field, but not as crafty as man.” this was also the opinion of our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 20,5) This is what they write: At the time G’d punished the serpent, He said to it: “here I had made you so that you are king of the all the beasts, something that you had not been satisfied with. I enabled you to walk upright just like man. You were not satisfied with this either. Now you will have to crawl on your belly and eat dust.” We must ask ourselves that if all this is so, why the Torah had not mentioned that the serpent had enjoyed such distinctions, that the Torah’s report of G’d’s creative activities makes no mention of this, as it did in Genesis 1,26 when man’s distinction over the other creatures is introduced by G’d saying “we will make him in our image, etc?” Furthermore, when G’d cursed the serpent, mention is meant of it having to crawl and having to eat dust. Why did the Torah not also mention that G’d deprived it of its superior intellect? This would have been the most severe part of the punishment and the Torah does not mention it at all? The most likely answer to all the points that we have raised is that the serpent was enabled, -miraculously,- on that occasion, to speak in a voice and language Chavah could understand, even though the Torah did not write specifically that “G’d opened its mouth,” as it did in connection with Bileam. seeing that this represented something far more extraordinary [Bileam’s ass speaking, which occurred in a world that was post Gan Eden, as opposed to an idyllic world where such miracles were not out of the ordinary. Besides, Bileam’s ass had saved her master from death by opening her mouth, whereas the serpent’s speaking had led to Chavah’s and her husband’s eventual death. Ed.] Still. The question remains why the serpent was punished if G’d Himself had put these words in its mouth? We need to answer that the serpent had already planned its craftiness how to set a trap for man to discredit it in the eyes of G’d so that it would replace man as the superior creature on earth. G’d was aware of all this, and all He did was to follow the principle in Shabbat 104 of בא לטמא פותחים לו, “when someone is bent on defiling something, one facilitates this for him.” Furthermore, G’d had to make sure that Adam (mankind) knew that the serpent had been punished with good cause. [this editor is astounded by the use of Kimchi of the quote in Shabbat 104 as it is my understanding that whereas when planning to do good one enjoys heavenly assists, when planning to do evil one is merely not interfered with. Besides, this saying applies to human beings who have freedom of choice; whoever heard of this saying applying to animals? Ed.] היה ערום, clever. Seeing that the word refers to intelligence, it is spelled with the vowel shuruk to distinguish it from the adjective arum naked, which is spelled with the vowel cholam. [in our editions of the Torah both words are spelled with the letter shuruk representing the vowel shuruk. Ed.]  Seeing the word occurs in the plural, the letter מ does not have a dagesh, compare מחשבות ערומים in Job 5,12 where it means :“the designs of the crafty ones.” When the word is used to described nudity, the letter מ is written with a dagesh. Compare Job 22,6 ובגדי ערומים תפשיט, “You leave them stripped of their clothing.” When the Torah wrote here היה ערום, it meant that the serpent possessed extraordinary powers of imagination, totally superior to other animals in this respect. Our sages generally describe the fox as crafty, able to scheme, something other animals are not credited with doing. (Berachot 61) This is not the same as possessing didactic intelligence, something reserved for man. When the Torah adds the words מכל חית השדה, it excludes the domestic animals, בהמות as not possessing even a modicum of such powers of imagination, The serpent at that time was superior to the fox in its ability to scheme. אשר עשה ה' אלוקים, even though all these creatures had been constructed out of the same raw material, G’d had given added an advantage to different ones of these creatures. Some had been granted greater physical prowess, others greater power to scheme. ויאמר אל האשה, the serpent deliberately avoided speaking to Adam, but spoke to the woman. It knew that it would be easier to seduce the woman because women’s minds are more easily swayed. (Shabbat 33) אף כי אמר אלוקים, the fact that the Torah commences its report of this conversation with the word אף is proof that there had been an exchange of words between the serpent and Chavah prior to this already. It is likely that Chavah had told the serpent about the great honour G’d had bestowed on them to place them within the Garden of Eden. To this the serpent had replied that it did not view this as proof that G’d loved them especially, but as proof of the contrary, that G’d hated them. Granted that G’d had elevated the human species as compared to the animals, but He had not elevated them to the status of becoming potential competitors of His by forbidding them to eat from all the good trees in the garden. The Torah decided to omit the introduction to the dialogue between the two and to concentrate on its essence. This is a style the Torah employs on a number of occasions. One example is the spies telling Joshua that they had heard while in Jericho clear evidence that G’d had as good as given the country into the hands of the Israelites already. They are not quoted as telling Joshua about their personal experiences during that mission. No doubt they had reported this. (Joshua 2,23) The meaning of the word אף here appears to b: “on the contrary, even more so.” We have a number of parallel verses in which the word אף is used in this sense, for instance Job 4,19 אף שכני בתי חמר, “how much less those who dwell in house made of clay.” Or, Kings I 8,27 אף כי הבית הזה אשר בניתי, “how much less this House which I have built.” The serpent did not refer to G’d’s holy name. Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes that this was because the serpent did not know G’d’s name Hashem. According to our explanations of the serpent’s sudden ability to speak in a manner comprehensible to Chavah being an ad hoc miracle, G’d did not allow the serpent to use His holy name. It is beyond our imagination to assume that G’d would allow a beast to bandy about His sacred name, something that is His exclusively. A careful reading of the text will reveal that even Chavah did not use the holy name of G’d. The bald-faced lie of the serpent was its claim that G’d had said מכל עץ הנן, that man had been forbidden to eat of any of the trees of the garden, this was part of its shrewdness, pretending as if Chavah had told her this, though the serpent was perfectly aware that Chavah had said no such thing. He wanted to challenge Chavah by saying “what good is your being in Gan Eden, seeing you cannot enjoy any of its fruit?”
  
  Verse 2
  
  ותאמר, not so, said Chavah; G’d did not deny us the fruit of more than one single tree which is בתוך הגן שאמר לנו לא תאכלו מממנו ולא תגעו בו פן תמותון in the middle of the garden of which He has forbidden us to eat on pain of death. Perhaps it is in the nature of that tree  that its fruit causes death to anyone eating from it. The meaning of the word פן in that verse is the same as אולי or שמא , “maybe.” G’d told Adam that he would certainly die if he ate from it, as the Torah wrote literally in 2,17 “on the day you will eat from it you will certainly die.” Seeing that she had not quoted the prohibition correctly as G’d had not said anything about maybe dying as a result of eating from the tree, we must assume that Chavah had invented this word meaning for it to apply to touching the tree, an addition which had been altogether her own. She meant to say that G’d so loves us that He denied us to touch the  tree as a safeguard against eating from it. An alternate way of explaining the words פן תמותון is similar to פן תשיב את בני שמה which Avraham warned Eliezer about (Genesis 24,6) which meant “do not bring back!” or Genesis 30,24) פן תדבר עם יעקב, “do not speak to Yaakov, etc.,” G’d warning Lavan.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  ויאמר, the serpent in its craftiness, said: לא מות תמותון, not as you say that G’d loves you so much that He forbade eating you to protect you from dying, but the reason is that not only will you not die from eating, but He made you more afraid so that you will not acquire the additional advantage by eating from it,
  
  Verse 5
  
  כי יודע...ונפקחו עיניכם He knows that your mental eyes will be opened to be like angel יודע טוב ורע, who know good and evil. The serpent had heard these words only from Chavah herself in her previous words. (verse 1)
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  ותרא האשה, she believed the words of the serpent and saw with her heart כי טוב העץ למאכל וכי תאוה הוא לעינים, as the Torah had already described this tree in its own words in 2,9 when we were told that all “the trees of the garden were pleasant to look at and good to eat.” The tree of knowledge did not distinguish itself in external appearance from the other trees of the garden. Therefore, Chavah argued, there is no reason to believe that we will die if we eat from it. She agreed that the serpent had spoken the truth when it said that the distinction of this tree must lie in the spiritual benefits its fruit bestow on us not in the taste of its fruit. The serpent must be right when saying that we will become G’d-like (verse 5). ותקח מפריו ותאכל, and afterwards she gave to her husband who at that time had been in some other location inside the garden; she brought him some of the fruit and told him what the serpent had said to her and why she had eaten from the fruit. They then ate from the fruit jointly. This is the meaning of the additional word עמה. In other words, Chavah ate from the fruit twice, whereas Adam ate from it only once. It is important to understand this. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 19,5) explained that the word גם which is supposed to add something means that she fed the fruit also to the animals and the birds. We need to reflect on this statement by our sages.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  ותפקחנה עיני שניהם, their mental eyes. This is why the Torah continues with וידעו, “they knew,” and not with ויראו, “they saw.” They “saw” the same objects they had seen previously. However, after having eaten from the fruit of the tree of knowledge they experienced a biological urge to engage in sexual relations with one another. Adam’s organ stiffened as a result of this feeling of desire. This became a source of shame for them as it meant that one his organs was out of his control. The punishment in this instance fitted the crime. They had removed themselves from the control of their Creator by ignoring His instructions. As a result, an organ of theirs had removed itself from its owner’s control. Furthermore, engaging in sexual relations other than for the purpose of reproduction is a shameful activity. This is why they felt shame now. They felt ashamed to be seen in such a state by G’d and this is why they hid themselves.
  עירומים, the word is spelled with the letter י here to make the syllable sound longer.
  ויתפרו עלה תאנה, they sewed a fig leaf. They used this leaf as fig leaves are wider than those of other trees. They sewed one to another until they had enough to make aprons out of them to cover their genitals. Some of our sages (Berachot 40) say that the tree they ate from was a fig tree. They wanted to rehabilitate themselves with the very material with which they had sinned. Other scholars maintain that the tree they ate from was the wheat tree. They base themselves on the fact that infants do not display any signs of intelligence until they have graduated to eating cereals. Still other scholars believe that the tree was the etrog tree, as the Torah wrote ותאכל מן העץ, “she ate from the tree.” Clearly, she ate fruit. The words from “the tree” therefore allude to the fact that the trunk of the tree was as edible as its fruit, and only the etrog tree was known to have edible wood. (2,17) Rabbi Yehudah ben Simon, quoting Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, says there can be no question that G’d has not revealed the type of tree it was in the past, nor will He do so in the future. Consider what it says in Leviticus 20,16, והרגת את האשה ואת הבהמה, “you are to execute both the woman and the beast” (who engaged in sexual relations with one another). Granted that the woman sinned, but why does the beast have to die if the woman sinned? The Torah decrees this in order that people seeing the beast should not be able to point at it, saying: “here is the beast that caused her mistress to be stoned to death.” G’d would not want the tree which innocently became a passive partner in Chavah’s sin to be stigmatized throughout human history, forever more. Hence the identity of the tree has never been revealed. If G’d was concerned with the reputation of one of creation’s derivatives, how much more so would He be concerned with the reputation of a tree which was a direct creation of His. [consider the fact that G’d, personally, is credited with having planted all the trees in the garden 2,9] The scholar Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra wrote (verse 6) that the two trees, i.e. the tree of life and the tree of knowledge, were situated in the middle of the garden and were not ever found anywhere else on earth. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 19,6) explain the matter as a parable, the fig tree serving as metaphor, just as in Judges 14,4. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  וישמעו, some commentators explain what happened not as G’d’s voice “walking,” but as Adam and Chavah walking and hearing the voice of G’d while going for a walk. If that were correct, the word “they heard” should have been written after our being informed that they had been walking in the garden. Besides, the word מתהלך should have been in the plural mode. The correct interpretation of the verse is: while Adam and Chavah went for a walk they heard the voice of G’d “going for a walk.” We have a precedent for this, i.e. the “voice” of the serpent being described as “walking” in Jeremiah 46,22.
  לרוח היום, towards evening, when the day becomes cooler and the breeze blows. He recognized at once that the voice belonged to G’d, and that G’d had come to speak to them about their sin. As a result, they hid among the trees of the garden out of shame over the fact that their genitals were exposed. Even though they had made these חגורות for themselves by sewing together the fig leaves, these were not enough to hide the areas of their bodies they felt ashamed of. They were perfectly aware, of course, that it is impossible to “hide” from G’d, else their entire intelligence would not have amounted to much. The Torah merely describes that they reacted in the time honoured human fashion when one is ashamed and wishes to hide the source of one’s shame. The reason why the Torah informs us that they heard G’d’s “voice” before they heard what He had to say, is that the Torah wishes to teach us something about good manners. 1) G’d wanted to give them an opportunity to hide; 2) one should not frighten people by addressing them suddenly without a person having had a chance to compose himself first in order to receive a visitor and to meet such a visitor after preparing for his visit. One should either knock on the door, or try and make voice contact by inquiring if the person is at home, etc. (Massechet Derech Eretz ) The reason why the Torah had to mention the expression רוח היום is that the wind carried the sound of the voice to them.
  עץ הגן, the word עץ here does not refer to a specific tree, but to the category of “trees,” as opposed to other, smaller plants. They took refuge due to their feeling of shame.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  ויקרא..איכה, He called out  “where are you?” G’d used these words as an opener for the conversation, not because He was unaware of their whereabouts. We find a repeat of this when G’d opened His conversation with Kayin (Genesis 4,9) or with Moses (Exodus 4,2).
  
  Verse 10
  
  ויאמר..כי עירום אנכי, the word עירום is again spelled with the letter י serving to elongate the syllable commencing with the letter ע.
  
  Verse 11
  
  ויאמר...המן העץ, the letter ה in the word המן is like the letter ה in Kings I 29,19 הרצחת וגם ירשת, “did you really expect to get away with murder and inheriting (the murdered man)?” The question is merely rhetorical, it does not require an answer.
  
  Verse 12
  
  ויאמר...האשה אשר נתת עמדי, he meant to say that “You G’d are the cause of my sin, seeing that You have given me such a woman who seduced me to eat from the tree.”
  
  Verse 13
  
  ותאמר...הנחש השיאני, “if I did indeed seduce Adam it was only because the serpent seduced me first. You have created my seducer.”
  
  Verse 14
  
  ויאמר כי עשית זאת, he did not have an answer to this, no excuse whatsoever. Adam and Chavah, though their excuse was indeed feeble, at least had some sort of an excuse, whereas the serpent had no excuse whatsoever. This is why G’d immediately proceeded to curse the serpent, without even waiting if the serpent would try and come up with an excuse. This is what Solomon had in mind when he said in Kohelet 10,11: ואין יתרון לבעל הלשון, “a slanderer (the serpent) has nothing going for him at all (having bitten without provocation).” (compare Taanit 8) Our sages (Sanhedrin 29) say that the serpent did have an answer ready but that G’d did not give it a chance to use it seeing it had initiated this seduction. (The Talmud, quoting one of the possible excuses of the serpent, cites the well known phrase: “if the words of the student are at variance with those of the teacher, whose words does one have to heed?” Whatever excuse the serpent could have used, it had no answer to the accusation why it had engaged in seduction.)
  ארור אתה, the serpent would be deprived of the legs with which it had been created. The meaning of the words על גחונך תלך is that this will be the practical result of this curse. Whenever the Torah speaks of a curse it involves the loss of something, being deprived of something. On the other hand, every time a blessing is mentioned in the Torah it implies that the recipient will experience additional goodness, spiritually or materially. G’d cursed the serpent first, seeing it had been the cause for Adam and Chavah being punished. Our sages (Berachot 61) learn from here that one always begins with cursing the least important party deserving to be cursed, for instance the sages in Bereshit Rabbah 20,4 point out that the period of gestation of a large pure animal, such as a cow, one fit for consumption by Jews lasts 9 months, whereas their impure counterparts require 12 months before they are born after the mother animal has been fertilized.  Smaller mammals require 5 months in the case of pure animals and dogs 50 days, cats 52 days, pigs 60 days, marten 70 days, deer and fox 6 months, whereas all the other creeping animals require 6 months before their embryos are ready for birth.  Lions, elephants, cougars, etc., require 3 years, whereas the serpent requires 4 years to reproduce. Some animals require even 70 years according to that text. Furthermore, in the same section of Bereshit Rabbah we are told that the dog in line with other impure animals requires 50 days whereas the larger impure mammals require 12 months. Basing ourselves on the wordingארור אתה מכל הבהמה ומכל חית השדה would mean therefore that the snake’s disadvantage vis a vis other impure animals will be proportionate to that of other impure animals vis a vis the pure beasts. [the ratio supposedly is 7 to 1. If an impure large mammal requires a gestation period of 12 months, then the snake being cursed requires a period of 7 years, i.e. seven times 12 months. There are inconsistencies in that Midrash, as well as inaccuracies which I cannot account for. Ed.] 
  על גחונך¸ as the Targum says, i,e. “on your belly.” This is also the way the Targum renders Leviticus 11,42 הולך על גחון. This is all very similar to the Talmud Baba Metzia 59. Basically, the curse consisted of the serpent which had been the most superior of the animals, haughty because of its height and its ability to walk upright, was now reduced to move in the way lowly worms move on earth. The fact that the serpent had bragged about its superior status, caused it to be dealt with especially harshly, seeing it had exploited its position by plotting to cause havoc.
  ועפר תאכל כל ימי חייך, the punishment fitted the crime. “You, the serpent were jealous of the human beings seeing they were allowed to eat the fruit of the trees in Gan Eden, and you schemed in order to seduce the woman into eating something forbidden; as a result you yourself will feed on the lowest kind of nutrient and the least tasty food on earth, i.e. dust.” If you were to argue that the very curse with which the serpent had now been afflicted was, in fact, a blessing in disguise, seeing that its food supply could be found all over, and it would never have to go hungry, Rabbi Chilfai in Bereshit Rabbah 20,5 has already explained that this is not as simple as it appears. The supply of earth is quite limited, what appears on the surface of the earth as a sort of powder is so only superficially, whereas lower down there are many ingredients which are quite inedible even for snakes. In fact, due to its ignorance of this, the snakes may inadvertently eat things which are harmful to their intestines.
  כל ימיך, these apparently superfluous words teach that even in the Messianic era this curse will not be lifted. This is what Isaiah 65,25 had in mind when he described that future and mentioned that the snake will eat dust as its bread. As long as the species snakes, serpents, will not become extinct this will be its diet.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  ואיבה אשית, you, the serpent, made the woman feel as if you had her best interests at heart, as if you loved her; and as if your advice to her was motivated by love; I, G’d, will turn this love into hostility. בין זרעך ובין זרעה, between your offspring and between her offspring. The hostility between the serpent and the human species will not be an unalterable condition of life, seeing that in the Messianic era this enmity will be resolved and as we know from Isaiah 11,8 in those days an infant will suckle at its mother’s breast next to a snake’s lair without worrying. הוא ישופך ראש, when he finds you he will smash your head whenever he is able to, whereas ואתה תשופנו עקב, when you slither along the ground on your belly and are unable to harm him higher up, you will bite his heel. The words ישופך and תשופנו describe inflicting of injury and smashing respectively, as we know from Job 9,17 אשר בשערה ישופני, “for he crushes me for a hair.” [with minimal provocation. Ed.] All of these verses are dealt with by the kabbalah, the interpretation of the text along mystical lines.
  
  Verse 16
  
  אל האשה...הרבה, the word הרבה here is in the infinitive  mode.
  עצבונך והרונך, the word עצבון appears again in connection with man eating bread, (verse 17), both words describe the pain and discomfort associated when woman as well as man try to achieve their major tasks, woman to have children, man to produce food from the soil. Everything will be achieved only with toil and wearing oneself out in the process. Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra explained that the pain referred to is the pain involved in a virgin losing her hymen. The word הרונך, on the other hand, refers to her subsequent experience when pregnant and carrying a fetus in her womb. My own father, of blessed memory, explained the word עצבונך as applying to the discomfort experienced during pregnancy, and the word הרונך as applying to the long period the pregnancy lasts. [as opposed to the almost immediate birth after fertilization which occurred in Gan Eden when Chavah bore Kayin and Hevel. Ed.] Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 20,6) understand both words in a figurative manner, i.e. the frustrations experienced by the parents in raising their children in their image. They interpret the word תלדי as referring to the physical pain involved in giving birth, and the word בנים as referring to the mental anguish involved in raising these children.
  תשוקתך, the meaning of the word is equivalent to תאותך, “your physical desire.
  והוא ימשול בך, but he will rule over you, as a master over a slave telling him what to do. In Bereshit Rabbah 20,6 we are told that the numerical value of the word הרבה, i.e. 210 is an allusion that a fetus carried by its mother for 212 days before being born, is a viable baby.” [Each of the words הרבה ארבה, apparently counts as 1 also, in addition to the letters in the word הרבה. Ed.] This is the kind of baby born after 7 months pregnancy. Concerning babies born after 9 months of pregnancy, the Talmud Niddah 38 (also the same Midrash) states that a woman gives birth (normally) after 271, 272, or 273 days of pregnancy. Concerning impure large mammals the sages say that birth occurs 12 months after fertilization. Chiyah bar Ada, who attended the lecture of Rav and failed to comprehend what Rav explained to him. Upon trying again to explain the matter to him, Chiyah bar Abbah still did not understand it Upon being asked by Rav why he had such trouble understanding the matter, he said that his ass was in labour trying to give birth and he was nervous, fearing that the ass would die due to complications. Rav told him that an ass being overdue or giving birth a few days prematurely was nothing to worry about, seeing we do not know the precise day it is anyways beyond our power to arrange for the birth to occur on that precise date.. If she gives birth prematurely, she would not give birth in fewer days than corresponded to the respective lunar months. If she gave birth late, she would still not exceed the number of days in a solar year. Thereupon Chiyah bar Ada quoted the verse in Job 39,1 “do you know the precise season when the mountain goats give birth? Can you mind the time when the hinds calve?” [he meant that how can I be unconcerned?. Ed.] Rav answered him by quoting the very next verse in Job 39,2: “Do you know the season they give birth, when they couch to bring forth their offspring? He replied: “The one verse refers to smaller mammals, [whose period of gestation is shorter] the other verse refers to larger mammals, whose pregnancy is lengthier.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  ולאדם אמר..מן העץ, the words מן העץ must be understood as “from the fruit of the tree.”
  ארורה האדמה, the earth would be deprived pf part of its goodness. It would not respond to Adam’s efforts to cultivate it in full measure, i.e. many of the seeds he would plant would fail to germinate and grow. Bereshit Rabbah,20,8, quoted by Rashi, writes  that instead of producing useful plants, the earth would henceforth also produce weeds and harmful plants. Not only that, but that these plants would germinate certain parasites.
  בעצבון תאכלנה, you will have to work the soil until you will be able, finally, to eat its produce, whereas up until now you did not have to toil in order to assure yourself of your food supply. All you had to do was to pluck the fruit from the trees in Gan Eden. When the Torah had spoken of Adam’s task in Gan Eden being לעבדה ולשמרה, (2,15) the amount of physical work required to attend to that task was minimal. Now he would have to work intensively, as illustrated by the metaphor “you will eat your bread in the sweat of your brow” (3,19).
  תאכלנה, a reference to the harvest. We have similar constructions, where at first glance one might think that the text refers to eating what is inedible. Adam was not meant to eat אדמה, soil, anymore that the people who sat at King Solomon’s table were meant to eat the table. (Kings I 2,7) באוכלי שולחנך, refers to the people mentioned in that verse, eating from the food served on the king’s table. We find more such examples, such as Isaiah 36,16,ואכלו איש גפנו ואיש תאנתו, where the reference is not to people consuming their vineyard and their fig tree, but the fruit of their vineyard and the fruit of their fig tree, although the prophet mentions only the source of that fruit. We have elaborated on this in our volume on Hebrew grammar מכלל in the first section of that book.
  כל ימי חייך, as long as the human species will exist on earth. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  וקוץ ודרדר, in lieu of the seed you plant beginning to sprout, the earth will produce thorns and thistles, which are not only useless, but which harm the plants your seed will produce, so that you will have to engage in eradicating them
  ואכלת את עשב השדה, you will eat the grass of the field instead of the fruit of the garden.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  בזעת אפיך תאכל לחם, if you prefer to eat bread to eating grass, herbs, you will have to toil in the sweat of your brow in order to produce cereal grain which can be turned into bread. Even though the whole body will perspire, not just the brow, the Torah mentions the face especially, seeing that this is where his perspiration will be most visible. Furthermore, a face does not begin to perspire until one has exerted oneself considerably. Man will have to be fatigued by a variety of strenuous activities before finally being able to consume bread. He has to plough, to sow , to remove weeds, to cut the grain, to thresh the kernels in their husks, to winnow, to grind the kernels into flour, to knead the dough and to bake it.
  עד שובך אל האדמה, seeing that you have chosen to prefer your close connection to earth rather than that to the celestial regions in which your soul originated, כי עפר אתה ואל עפר תשוב, when you die, no part of your heavenly origin will remain behind on earth. The reason why the Torah emphasized the physical element earth rather than any of then other elements which are part of the human body, is that earth, including the bones which are cold and hard and man’s basic skeleton, and are the element predominates in the human body.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  ויקרא האדם, when Chavah had originally been placed before him, he had named her just as he had named all the animals, the name חוה, however, was her individual name, not the name of the female of the human species. It is possible to explain that after Adam and his wife had eaten from the tree of knowledge, Adam gave her this name, seeing that due to having eaten from that tree, their libido had been awakened, and they knew that they would reproduce themselves. This is why Adam added: אם כל חי, the meaning of the word חי here referring to the kind of living creatures who possessed the power of speech. Generic names for human beings such as חי here, are also found in Psalms 145,21 ויברך כל בשר, where David does not refer to the animals blessing the name of G’d, but only to the human species doing this. The same applies to Isaiah 66,23 יבא כל בשר, where the prophet predicts that all of humanity in those days will come once a month to Jerusalem or even weekly, to pay their respects to the Lord in Jerusalem. [probably those living near Jerusalem will come once a week, whereas those living farther away will come only once a month. Ed.] The letter ו in the word חוה instead of the letter י was to distinguish her from the beasts of the field.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  ויעש ה' אלוקים לאדם ולאשתו כתנות עור, seeing that they had been naked, but had made themselves the aprons made from fig leaves, to cover only their genitals, G’d now provided them with protective clothing for their entire bodies, probably also having in mind different climatic conditions outside the garden. ולבישם, “He dressed them in those coats. There is no point in asking how G’d made these coats. Surely, by comparison to the entire universe which G’d had created, making leather coats was a very insignificant accomplishment by comparison. When we find a sage saying in the Midrash (Torah Shleymah by Rabbi Menachem Kasher items 176,and 186 on our chapter) that these garments were made of skin, i.e. that man had consisted of bones and flesh without an outer layer of skin. G’d now provided the skin as a protective cover. (attributed to Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 20) [the Talmud Niddah 25, discussing when an aborted fetus is to be treated as a human being in some respects, states hat the fetus is not covered with a skin until it is fully formed inside the mother’s womb. Ed.] We do not understand how this solves any problem at all. They would have been worse off than before, even their genitals having remained exposed, as these too are covered by skin. Some scholars claim that the skin was skin of the serpent which G’d had removed from it and clothed Adam and Chavah in it. Yet other scholars claim that G’d commanded one or two of the larger mammals to remove their skin, and that Adam and Chavah then proceeded to dress themselves in those skins. There is no need for all these fancy explanations, i.e. speculations. G’d simply issued a directive and the tunics came into existence, just as the material from which the first set of Tablets was made by G’d had to come into existence by miraculous means. Our sages (Sotah 14) record the opinions of the great scholars Rav and Shmuel, the former saying that the meaning of כתנות עור is “coats, tunics, made from material removed from skins.” Shmuel said it refers to raw material from which the skin (man’s) derives pleasure. To be specific, it refers to cotton. Our sages also say (Midrash hagadol on this verse) that these garments belonged to the things that were created in the twilight zone of the 6th day of creation, immediately before the onset of the Sabbath. Rabbi Simlai (Sotah) uses the opportunity to tell us that the Torah commenced with acts of personal kindness by G’d for His creatures, and ends in the same vein. Here, in Bereshit, we are told about G’d, personally, providing clothing for Adam and Chavah, whereas at the end of the Torah we read of G’d, personally, burying Moses. (Deut. 34,6)
  
  Verse 22
  
  ויאמר ה' אלוקים...כאחד ממנו, G’d included Himself when speaking about the angels, just as He had done when about to create man in 1,26, when He had saidנעשה אדם בצלמנו, “Let Us make man in Our image.”
  לדעת טוב ורע, we already explained that the term לדעת טוב ורע refers to perceptive powers equal to that of the angels in our commentary on 2,17. In Bereshit Rabbah 21,5 Rabbi Pappus explained the words כאחד ממנו to mean “like one of the ministering angels.” Rabbi Akiva violently disagreed with him, saying “you have overstepped the boundaries of permissible interpretation, i.e. דייך פפוס. What then is the meaning of these words? G’d has placed two paths in front of man, one is the path of life. If he chooses the other path, he automatically abandons the path of life. Rabbi Berechyah, quoting Rabbi Yochanan, said that as long as man was single he was similar to the “One,” i.e. immortal. The moment his one side had been removed he became a split personality, i.e. that is the meaning of “knowing good and evil.” The opinion of the Onkelos sides with that of Rabbi Akiva  who interpreted the word כאחד as being similar to the One and only One, having received his knowledge of good and evil directly from Him. In other words, his choice over good and evil stemmed directly from G’d, not from the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
  כאחד, the word achad spelled with the vowel patach does not necessarily have to be in a construct form. Ibn Ezra does not agree that this is grammatically possible.
  ועתה פן ישלח ידו,.originally, Adam had not been forbidden to eat from the tree of life, but, on the contrary, had been commanded to eat from it, as we explained on 2,17. This tree was one of the trees of the garden from all of which Adam had been instructed to eat. As long as he would eat from the fruit of that tree, he would lengthen his original life span. However, as soon as he had violated G’d’s commandment by eating from the tree of knowledge, his punishment was premature death, i.e. death before he had attained the life span originally set for him. Therefore, G’d did not want him to remain inside Gan Eden so that he would not now take from the fruit of the tree of life just as he had taken from the fruit of the tree of knowledge. If he were to do that he would live far longer than G’d meant for him to live. It was the nature of that tree to reinforce man’s natural powers and to extend his life span. Seeing that Adam had violated the commandment he would now receive his punishment, i.e. shortening his life span. It was appropriate to expel him from the garden on that account to prevent him from eating the fruit of that tree. The meaning of the words גם מעץ is a reference to the other tree he had eaten from without permission. G’d reasoned that if He allowed man to remain in the garden and commanded him not to eat from the tree of life, he would once again violate His commandment just as he had done previously concerning the tree of knowledge. The meaning of the word לעולם is not to be understood literally as “forever, but describes a long period of time. It is similar to the meaning of the word לעולם in Exodus 21,6 where it cannot possibly mean “forever,” seeing that the servant who is the subject in that verse does not live forever.
  
  Verse 23
  
  וישלחהו , the expression here means “expelled.” It is also used in this sense in Jeremiah 16,6 שלח מעל פני, “expel from my presence.
  לעבד את האדמה, seeing Adam had not been content with light duties in Gan Eden, while he lived from the fruit of the trees, something which was effortless, and he had preferred to violate G’d’s commandment, he would now have to leave the garden and perform hard work, as already indicated in verse 17. אשר לקח משם, to the same place he had been taken from by G;d when He had brought him to Gan Eden. Alternately, the meaning of these words could be in accordance with Onkelos, “the place from which he had been created;” a reference to the earthly part of him, not the divine part of him.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  ויגרש את האדם, this is not a repetition, but the Torah explained that simultaneously with Adam’s expulsion from the garden G’d had placed the cherubs there as guardians מקדם, in the East. It is possible that the entrance of the garden was in the east, and that is why the cherubs were placed at the entrance. They were beings who appeared to the onlooker just like cherubs, in order to put fear into Adam, to discourage him from attempting to return to Gan Eden, this is why it continues with the words לשמור את דרך עץ החיים ואת להט החרב המתהפכת, the revolving sword blades held by the cherubs were meant to frighten Adam. Seeing that the sword was not real, but only appeared so to Adam, the Torah speaks of the להט החרב, “the blade of the sword,” and not the sword itself. The word להט does not describe something of substance but something imaginary, flashes of the spectacle being what is frightening to behold. When this “fire, flame” keeps revolving around itself, as described here, this increases the fear inspired in the person watching such a spectacle. In Ezekiel 32,10 we have a similar expression עופפי חרבי, when G’d is described as frightening people by “brandishing My sword.” There is an additional element in this, i.e. the spectacle is meant to inspire feelings of remorse over what he had done in Adam. Once Adam felt remorse, the way would be paved to full repentance. Once he had done תשובה the frightening spectacle would disappear and he would return to the garden from time to time, alternating between performing work there and working the soil outside. (one opinion in Bereshit Rabbah 21,8) All these matters have also been discussed in their mystical dimension in the writings of the Kabbalists. In Bereshit Rabbah 21,9 the word להט is understood as applying to certain angels, as mentioned in Psalms 104,4 עושה מלאכיו רוחות, משרתיו אש לוהט, “He makes the winds His messengers, fiery flames His servants.”  המתהפכת, a reference to G’d’s servants revolving, be they mane, women, or spiritual, disembodied beings such as winds, or even angels.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  והאדם ידע את אשתו, seeing that their libido had developed, they engaged in marital relations, Chavah became pregnant and gave birth after 7 or 9 months. The formulation of the words here does not prove that Chavah gave birth immediately after becoming pregnant, as stated by the Midrash (Sanhedrin 38, and Bereshit Rabbah 22,2) The words used here are the same as when Sarah’s pregnancy is reported (Genesis 21,2) and no claim has been made that Sarah’s pregnancy was so short-lived.
  ותלד את קין, she bore a son whom she called Kayin, to symbolise what she meant when she said קניתי איש את ה'. Even though the word קין is a composite of 2 different roots, such a construction is quite common. 'קניתי איש את ה, the meaning of these words is: “I have now produced a human being in this world who was not the result of a direct activity by His Creator, which makes me a partner to G’d the Creator.” G’d has given this human being His divine soul also, just as He had given it to the creation of His own, Adam, into whom He Himself literally blew this soul. The rest of this human being grew and developed within my body. The word קניתי as used by Chavah here is similar to G’d being described asקונה שמים וארץ  by Avraham in Genesis 14,22 where it meant that G’d owns heaven and earth because He made it, produced it. The reason why Chavah attributed production of the child to herself was that she, rather than her husband, provided the home for the fetus during the whole period of its development. She credited the attribute of Hashem without mentioning the attribute elohim of G’d, seeing that she considered that with the birth of Kayin the universe had become complete, human offspring having been missing up until now. This was the last time, in the normal cause of events, that G’d’s creative talent elohim would need to be called for, as from now on all the pieces were in place for the earth to function on the basis of natural law. This was already intimated at the conclusion of the sixth day (2,3) when the Torah wrote אשר ברא אלוקים לעשות, “which G’d had inititated, now to continue to function normally.” We already explained this attribute in connection with the construction of the world; G’d’s attribute אלוקים refers to טבע, natural laws, as we explained on 2,4. From hereon the holy name of G’d appears sometimes as His attribute אלוקים, and sometimes as His attribute י-הוה, and only very rarely do we find a combination of both attributes. Every time such a variation occurs there is a good reason for it. The scholar Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra wrote in this vein in his commentary on our verse here, pointing out that Chavah reminded us that the attribute elohim is constantly present among the human species on earth, no less so than it is in the celestial regions. His words are well worth remembering.
  
  Verse 2
  
  ותוסף ללדת את אחיו את הבל, the construction of ותוסף ללדת instead of ותהר עוד ותלד, “she again became pregnant and gave birth,” supports the words of our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 22,2 that the two brothers Kayin and Hevel were born as twins. The birth was additional, not the pregnancy. Our sages added further that not only were these two brothers born as twins, but that a twin sister was born at the same time to each of them. This also is in line with a statement by Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah in the same Midrash that on that day three miracles occurred. 1) Adam and Chavah had been created on that day. 2) They had engaged in marital intercourse on that same day. 3) They produced twin children on that same day. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchoh phrased it as follows: “2 human beings united on the bed and eight descended from the bed.” He referred to Kayin and his twin sister and Hevel with two twin sisters. [in my count this makes only 7. Actually, in my version of Bereshit Rabbah, it says that “seven” descended from that bed. Ed.] The Torah fails to mention why Chavah called her second son Hevel. [In fact, the Torah does not say that it was Chavah who named Hevel. Ed.] There is nothing unusual in the Torah not providing the reason for the name Hevel, as there are hundreds of names which have not been explained in the Torah. None of the names of the people in the generations between Sheth and Noach have been explained. Perhaps, the reason why Chavah called the second son Hevel is an allusion to Psalms 62,10 כי הבל בני אדם כזב בני איש, “men are mere breath; mortals illusion.” Perhaps Chavah expressed her realisation that even the good found in this material world may prove short-lived, illusory, as her brief sojourn in Gan Eden had taught her. Seeing that both her husband’s and her own life had become very difficult compared to what it had been like, she showed that she had assimilated this truth as being something she had to bequeath to her offspring now that she had children. It is immaterial in this connection if Hevel was named by her or by her husband.
  ויהי הבל רועה צאן, as the brothers grew up, they divided their occupation in accordance with their respective needs. The one who became the shepherd was interested in eating the dairy products obtainable from the sheep and goats. He was also in need of the wool of the sheep to make clothing. They restricted themselves to these vocations, seeing that G’d had not permitted the eating of meat but only grass, fruit of the trees, and bread after backbreaking labour, as we have explained. The generations until the deluge adapted themselves to this lifestyle. It was only in Genesis 9,3 that G’d permitted killing animals for the purpose of eating their meat.
  
  Verse 3
  
  ויהי מקץ ימים, it was some time after Kayin had become a farmer tilling the soil, that he offered a gift to G’d. The Torah is deliberately vague about how much time had elapsed, writing only מקץ ימים, at the end of a number of years. It is reasonable to assume that the word ימים refers to years rather than days, as it is clear from Leviticus 25,29 that in that verse the word ימים represents the number of days that make up a year. It would seem therefore, that after having worked the soil for a full year Kayin offered a gift to G’d, part of what he had harvested. He did this in the spot in which his father Adam had offered prayer and had offered a sacrifice of his own as an acknowledgement of his gratitude, his sons presumably having been in attendance. Although the Torah does not spell out the composition of Adam’s sacrifice, the Talmud in Shabbat 28 suggests that it included a one-horned ox, basing itself on Psalms 69,32 משור פר מקרן מפריס, “ox with horn and hooves,” His sons imitated him, each one bringing a gift from what his labour had produced. The offering was meant to be an expression of man’s gratitude to G’d for the success of his endeavours. מפרי, the Torah is vague about precisely what the offering consisted of, other than saying that it was part of the fruit produced by the earth. We know nothing about the quality or quantity of this offering. Seeing that when describing Hevel’s offering the Torah adds the words: “from the firstborn of his sheep and from their best ones,” it is reasonable to assume that Kayin’s gift, by comparison, was stingy, in fact represented an insult to G’d rather than a grateful acknowledgment of G’d’s part in making the earth produce a crop for him. This is why his offering was not welcome, was rejected. Had Kayin at least brought of the best quality of the produce he had grown, the Torah would have mentioned this to his credit, just as it had done in the case of Hevel’s offering. As a result of the philosophical contrast expressed by these two offerings, i.e. Kayin’s flax and Hevel’s wool, mixing these two fibres in one garment has been outlawed by the Torah for the Jewish people. The lesson for us is that the gifts proffered by a Kayin and the gifts proffered by a  Torah-observant Jew are not compatible with one another.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  והבל הביא גם הוא, this could have been before Kayin brought his offering, or it could have been after Kayin had brought his offering. In the event that Hevel had brought his offering first, we must understand the words גם הוא, “also he,” as referring to the story as such, not to the specific incident.
  מבכרות צאנו ומחלביהם, this brother brought a gift which was honourable, generous. Mention of the word מבכורות emphasises that the reason he brought from the “first,” is that before enjoying the fruits of his labour himself, he wished to express his gratitude to G’d. Only after that would he use the milk and the wool for his personal consumption. He also included in the gift the best quality, seeing that not all were of the same uniform quality. The word חלב is used in that sense on the author’s book ספר השרשים. ומחלבהן, there is a letter י missing before the letter ה as would be customary in a plural mode. The Torah did not mention that Hevel built an altar on which he presented his gift, as it did when describing Noach offering animal sacrifices in Genesis 8,20. It seems to me that Hevel did not slaughter the sacrifice (sheep) but left it bound but alive, expecting heavenly fire to descend on it and to consume it. The same had happened when his father had presented the ox which we described earlier as Adam’s offering. There was no point in slaughtering these animals since there was no one who was allowed to eat the meat thereof. In Bereshit Rabbah 22,5 there is an opinion that Hevel offered the animal without stripping it of its skin, and without cutting it up into pieces, whereas in the future all animal sacrifices would have their skin stripped and their bodies cut up into pieces. There are still more differences of opinion concerning the nature of these offerings, some scholars saying even that they were meat-offerings, i.e. that the owners consumed some if not most of the sacrificial meat. According to the view of the scholars who hold that Hevel brought a meat-offering, the word מחלבהן would describe the fat parts burned up on the altar, similar to the fat pars burned up on the altar in any other meat-offering the Israelites would offer in the future. The text permits us to draw conclusions in both directions, seeing it appears to be deliberately inconclusive. It is possible that the words היא העולה, best translated as “this is the type of burnt-offering” in Leviticus 6,2 tips the scale in favour of those who believe that it must have been a burnt-offering, also considering the fact that we have no record that they were allowed meat when the part of a sacrificial offering.
  וישע ה' אל הבל ואל מנחתו, the reason why G’d turned with goodwill towards Hevel’s offering was that He observed that Hevel’s attitude throughout had been honourable, pure, not make believe, as if he only did what he perceived to be his duty. The nature of his offering testified to his good intentions.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  ואל קין ואל מנחתו לא שעה, but to Kayin and to his offering G’d did not turn benevolently. His intention had not been good and pure; G’d does not need to accept gifts proffered reluctantly, as He is not in need of them. How did Kayin find out that G’d had not looked with favour on his offering? He found out that Hevel’s offering had been accepted, fire descending on it from heaven and consuming it. Nothing of that kind happened to Kayin’s offering. This caused Kayin dismay and anger and his face became downcast. The expression נפלו פניו, describes that someone feels insulted, depressed..
  
  Verse 6
  
  'ויאמר ה, the reason that G’d addressed him was in order to discipline him and to bring him back to a lifestyle that would endear him to G’d. He wanted to teach him how to repent, something of the utmost importance for subsequent generations. He taught him that there is atonement for sinners if their repentance is 100% sincere.
  
  Verse 7
  
  הלא אם תיטיב שאת, when your heart will be good and your deeds will be of benefit for you. The meaning of such terms as כפרה, סליחה, is like נושא עון in Exodus 34,7. The scholar Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra explains the concept שאת mentioned in our verse as derived from נשיאה the lifting of something, the opposite of ויפלו פניו, Kayin’s face having “fallen.” G’d told Kayin that if he were to become good, mend his ways, then his face would be “lifted,” he could hold his head high. G’d Himself would raise his face for him. In Bereshit Rabbah 22,6 the words אם תיטיב שאת are understood as a blessing, whereas the words ואם לא תיטיב are understood as a curse, quoting Leviticus 20,19את עונם ישאו. Another approach, also taken from the Midrash: “if you will improve your ways I will forgive all your previous sins, if not the very sin you were guilty of will weigh even more heavily in the scale.” (seeing you have spurned My offer of forgiveness). Rabbi Berechyah, quoting Rabbi Shimon bar Ami, explained Psalms 32,1 אשרי נשוי פשע כסוי חטאה to mean: “hail the man who towers above (is higher than) sin,” as opposed to the sin which towers above man.”
  ואם לא תיטיב לפתח חטאת רובץ, as if the Torah had written not in general terms לפתח, “at the entrance,” but לפתחך, “at your entrance.” The word רובץ, crouches, lies in wait, is in the infinitive to underline that the temptation to commit a sin is ever present for such people. Sin is a constant peril, an obstacle waiting to trip you up. It awaits you both coming and going. The apparent contradiction between the masculine mode רובץ, and the feminine mode for sin, חטאת instead of חטא, is a reminder of the evil urge, the נחש, the serpent, masculine, the force causing sin, being very powerful.
  ואליך תשוקתו, its desire is centered on you; it is constantly engaged in trying to seduce you by making you stumble.
  תשוקתו, a word meaning desire, greed, lust. The word also occurs in this context (more or less) in Song of Songs 7,11 ועלי תשוקתו, “His longing is for me.”
  ואתה תמשול בו, he will have control over you only if you do not actively remove him (it) from your presence. If you want to, you can control it, govern it, resulting in your humbling it before you. By saying these words G’d demonstrated to Kayin the immense power inherent in his possessing free choice. Moses repeated this thought at the end of his life when in his parting speech he said to the Jewish people (Deut. 30,15) ראה נתתי לפניך היום את החיים ואת הטוב ואת המות ואת הרע. “See here, I have placed before you this day life, and the good, or death and the evil.” Moses added the admonition: ”choose the life!”
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  ויאמר קין אל הבל אחיו, apparently, Kayin had no remorse, did not try to respond to G’d’s promise and warning. Proof is that he proceeded to do something far worse than what he had been guilty of thus far, by killing his brother.
  ויאמר קין, Kayin accused his brother of being the cause that G’d had rebuked him. As a result his anger had intensified. He did not attack Hevel physically at that time as he was afraid of the reaction of his father. He kept his fury under control until the two of them were alone together in the field. This is when he killed him out of jealousy.
  The word אל in our verse is to be understood as equivalent to על, upon. We have a similar use of the word אל in Ezekiel 18,6 אל ההרים לא אכל, “he did not eat upon the mountains.” There are numerous examples in Scriptures of such a use of the word אל. In Bereshit Rabbah 22,7 the subject of the conversation between the two brothers is described as follows: They were discussing how to carve up the earth between them. They agreed that one of them would lay claim to the real estate, whereas the other would own all the movable objects on earth. Thereupon one of them claimed that the ground the other stood on belonged to him, whereas the second one claimed that the clothing his brother wore actually belonged to him. Kayin, who had laid claim to the earth, told Hevel to fly off as he did not want him to set foot on his earth. Hevel countered by telling Kayin to strip off his clothing. The resulting feud led to Kayin killing Hevel. Rabbi Yehudah bar Ami said that they quarreled about whether the original woman had died immediately after having eaten from the tree of knowledge, and that G’d had given Adam a substitute for her, [so that they had both not been the children of a sinful mother and therefore not inherited a tendency to sin, Ed.] or if they had been born of Chavah, Adam’s original wife. Yet another opinion (Rav Hunna) quoted in the Midrash describes the subject of their quarrel as being the extra twin sister born with Hevel. Hevel claimed her as his wife, seeing she had been born with him, whereas Kayin claimed her as his wife, seeing he was the eldest. We need to understand why these scholars in the Midrash offer so many divergent views as to what Kayin and Hevel quarreled about. Not only this, but in the commentaries dealing with the mystical dimension of the Torah, the kabbalah, we find yet more opinions on this subject. Moreover, in the Jerusalem Targum the version of our verse is equivalent to: ”Kayin said to his brother: ‘lets go outside and have a talk.” When they had gone outside, Kayin said to his brother that there is no justice and no judge in the universe, that there is no afterlife, neither is there a reward or punishment. If there were, why would G’d have rejected his offering and accepted that of Hevel? Hevel disagreed, saying that there was a judge (G’d) that there was justice, and that there was a judge, There was reward and punishment and there was an afterlife beyond the material physical world they lived in. The world had been created as an act of love, not as Kayin had said that there was no love. Proof was the very fact that his offering had been accepted, seeing that he had served his Creator faithfully. Seeing that their argument had become not merely philosophical but personal, Kayin attacked his brother Hevel and killed him.
  
  Verse 9
  
  'ויאמר ה, the reason G’d spoke to him now was only in order to show him that he could not hide his deed from G’d, and that whatever man does, or even plans to do is fully known to Him. Kayin had thought that by burying Hevel he could hide his deed from G’d, just as he had been able to hide it from his father. This is why he had killed Hevel in the field where there had not been any witnesses. The additional reason why G’d addressed him was to inform him of his impending punishment. The reason that G’d phrased His remarks as if He questioned him, saying: אי הבל אחיך, was only an opening line, just as He had asked Adam in 3,9 איכה, “where are you?,” knowing full well where Adam was hiding. He also had asked Moses in Exodus 4,2 מזה בידך, “what is this in your hand?,” knowing full well that Moses held a staff in his hand. There are more such examples of a question by G’d being for purposes other than to obtain information not at His disposal. Seeing, however, that He had not said to Kayin: “why did you kill your brother?” Kayin thought that G’d was not yet aware of Hevel being dead. He denied all knowledge, saying: לא ידעתי, השומר אחי אנכי, claiming that Hevel had gone about his work just as he, Kayin, had gone about his work.. He added, gratuitously, that he could not be expected to know the whereabouts of his brother all the time, seeing he had not been hired to be his keeper. He acted far worse than his father at the time, as Adam had never denied that he had done wrong. He had only made excuses for himself. Adam was well aware that G’d was well informed about all such matters, and that even though He had commenced the conversation with a question, it was not because He had not known the answer.
  
  Verse 10
  
  ויאמר...דמי אחיך, He said: “the blood of your brother whom you have slain cries out to Me from the very earth, and the sound of its cry is what I have heard and what caused Me to confront you.” This was, of course, a figure of speech. מן האדמה, upon which you spilled his blood. The fact that the Torah uses the plural mode when referring to blood, writing דמי instead of דם, is not especially significant, as the word דם occurs frequently in the singular mode and also in the plural mode. (Compare Leviticus 20,9 and Leviticus 20,11 to mention just as few examples.) Actually, the justification for treating the word דם as both singular and plural is the fact that on the one hand it is an entity, but at the same time it contains 4 different categories of moisture. Onkelos explains that the reason why here in particular the use of the plural mode is appropriate is the fact that by killing Hevel who had not yet been married and sired children, spilling his blood also meant spilling the blood of the children he would now never have. He may not even have had marital relations with his wife as yet, just as his brother Kayin had also not yet had marital relations with his wife until after he had murdered Hevel (comparer 4,17).
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  ועתה ארור אתה מן האדמה, the curse will be spelled out in the verse following, where G’d explains that Kayin will experience that the source of his curse is the very earth he had used to hide his crime. This earth would not continue to provide its strength for Kayin.
  אשר פצתה את פיה, a reference to soaking up Hevel’s blood, [not as in the case of Korach being actively involved in swallowing Hevel. Ed.] We have a similar incident in Job 16,18 ארץ אל תכסי דמי, “Earth, do not cover my blood!” Also Ezekiel 24, 7-8 uses similar language, i.e. כי דמה היה על צחיח סלע שמתהו לא שפכתהו על הארץ לכסות עליו עפר, “For her blood remained within her, she placed it on a smooth rock. She did not pour it upon the ground to cover it with dust.”
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  כי תעבד, G’d cursed the earth because Kayin’s occupation involved getting his sustenance from the earth. לא תסף תת כוחה לך, even though the earth had already been cursed ever since Adam had eaten from the tree of knowledge, now G;d added another curse on account of Kayin. He said that even the amount of yield that the earth had been in the habit of providing since being cursed previously, it would not be capable of producing for Kayin the murderer. It is entirely possible that this new curse was restricted to the results Kayin’s efforts would have, and does not mean that all other human beings, farmers, were made to suffer for Kayin’s act of fratricide. Possibly, it applied only to Kayin and his direct descendants until the time of Noach. Maybe it even applied also to the descendants of Sheth until Noach. It seems that with Noach’s birth, Lemech his father, had knowledge that the curse had run its course. We read in Bereshit Rabbah 22,10 that in the view of Rabbi Eleazar the word לך in our verse means that whereas the earth would not yield up its strength for Kayin, it would do so for others. On the other hand, Rabbi Yossi bar Chanina is on record that the curse applied both to Kayin and to others. It appears more likely that the word לך in our verse is indeed restrictive and means that other people farming the earth would experience better success than Kayin. [Kayin’s failure as a farmer would demonstrate to the others that he, and not they, had indeed been punished on an ongoing basis for his having committed murder, hoping to benefit by it at the expense of his brother. Ed.] There is no question, however, that the first curse earth experienced after Adam had eaten from the tree of knowledge was a permanent curse still in effect nowadays. The word בעבורך in 3,14 has a different connotation entirely from the word לך, meaning “on your account,” not “for you personally.”
  נע ונד תהיה בארץ,  this is yet another curse, one that most certainly applied only to Kayin personally, a curse which resulted in his not being able to feel at home permanently in any one place on earth. This was something psychological, forcing Kayin to adopt a nomadic lifestyle, trying his luck at growing things by moving to a new location every time he experienced crop failure. G’d did not kill him outright, something that every murderer deserves. The reason was that killing him now would be counterproductive as it would leave the earth without males other than Adam, and Adam could not be expected to sire more children after he had lost the two sons he had helped produce. We know, that even with Kayin surviving, the trauma of what happened prevented Adam from maintaining marital relations with his wife for 130 years. (5,3) Although G’d had not killed Kayin, he was under sentence of exile in addition to the earth having been cursed as an instrument of providing his livelihood. The words נע ונד are as if the word נע had been repeated, stressing the seriousness of the curse. Our sages, in commenting on the line כל הורג קין שבעתים יוקם, “that anyone killing Kayin, he (Kayin) will be avenged sevenfold,” explain that seeing that Kayin personally had not been executed for his murder, people would reason that murder goes relatively unpunished. In order for people not to draw such a conclusion from what had not happened to Kayin, the curse of murdering even someone already as guilty as Kayin, had to be highlighted in such terms. (Bereshit Rabbah 22,12)  Another reason explaining why Kayin was not subjected to immediate execution is that Kayin, being the first murderer, had not known that the penalty for murder is execution. Subsequent generations knowing the penalty for murder, could not expect to be treated so leniently. It is even possible to consider Kayin’s killing Hevel as having been an inadvertent killing, seeing that he did not know what injury would prove fatal. He had never seen a person who had been killed, and when hitting Hevel he had not thought that he had injured him fatally. If that is so, the penalty of exile, i.e. נע ונד תהיה בארץ, “you will not be at home anywhere on earth,” is exactly the penalty devised by the Torah for people who killed inadvertently In Torah Shleymah on our chapter item #96 the word נע is understood to mean that Kayin will be forever on the move, whereas the word נד is understood to mean that he will not be able to sit down and relax but that his body will remain in constant motion, much like that of a drunken person. Once he had repented, one of these curses was removed from him, as we know from Genesis 4,15 וישב בארץ נוד. The Torah did not say, however, בארץ נוע, because he was not able to settle in one location for long. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  הן גרשת אותי...מעל פני האדמה, a reference to the soil of Eden, near the garden, where his father and mother had taken up residence. This is what the Torah had meant with the words לעבוד את האדמה אשר לקח משם, “to work the soil from which he had originally been taken.” (3,23)
  ומפנך אסתר, “and I have to hide from You, seeing that You are angry at me and have hidden Your face from me. I am in a position where everybody will be entitled to kill me, seeing You have withdrawn Your protection from me. Even the wild beasts will be entitled to kill me as I am forced to roam around a fugitive on earth.” In Bereshit Rabbah 22,11 Kayin’s complaint is “yesterday You expelled my father, and now You expel me. Am I supposed to hide from You, how could I?”
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  ויאמר לו ה' לכן כל הורג קין שבעתים יוקם, I have decreed that anyone killing Kayin will be punished twice sevenfold for that deed, irrespective of whether the killer is man or beast. The number “seven” mentioned here is not to be understood literally, but is a figure of speech for multiples of one. The number is used in a similar sense in Leviticus 26,21 where it also does not mean that G’d will punish the Jewish people sevenfold for each of their sins, but He warns them that their punishment will be very severe. In Proverbs 24,16 שבע יפול הצדיק וקם, the meaning is also not that the righteous will fall down seven times and rise again, but that even if a righteous person falls on bad times repeatedly, being righteous, he will recover. These many ways in which a killer of Kayin would be avenged could be that his killer will be afflicted with numerous sicknesses, diseases, not with just one. They would afflict him successively, until he will succumb to the last such disease. According to Torah Shleymah on our chapter item #114 G’d told Kayin that in consideration of the fact that he now displayed fear of and reverence for G’d, he would have his lifespan extended for seven generations. Onkelos explains the expression שבעתים as receiving punishment spread over seven generations. Just as Kayin’s eventual death was suspended for 7 generations, so he who killed him would experience a similar fate. Eventually, Lemech killed Kayin. He was the sixth generation after Kayin, but the seventh counting from Adam.
  וישם ה' לקין אות, He gave him a sign in his heart, i.e. He fortified his self-confidence which had been shattered. G’d made the various beasts and men who would be born after him be in awe of him so that they would not attack him. We will come back to allegorical material pertaining to this verse when we explain verse 23.
  
  Verse 16
  
  'ויצא קין מלפני ה, He went forth away from the presence of the Lord, from one place to another, away from the proximity of Gan Eden, the area where G’d’s presence was most in evidence, until וישב בארץ נוד, a play on words, i.e. he moved from place to place, נד. Eventually, he settled down in an area east of the Garden of Eden, a good distance away from where his father and mother lived. Even there he remained restless due to the curse he had been smitten with. The Torah merely informs us that if and when he did settle down for short spaces of time, it was in that vicinity, east of Eden. His wife and children lived there permanently, whereas he was always on the go, doomed to roam on the surface of the globe. Of course, at intervals he would return to his wife and children, even building towns for them.
  
  Verse 17
  
  וידע קין...ויהי בונה עיר, at the time when a son was born for him he was engaged in building a town to serve as residence for himself and his children in subsequent generations. All of this was east of Eden. This is why he named the town the same as he named his son, i.e. Chanoch.
  
  Verse 18
  
  ויולד, he called the first one מחויאל with the letters ו and י, whereas the second one he called מחייאל with two letters י. The first one has dagesh in the letter ו and is read with the vowel kametz, whereas the second letter י in מחייאל is not heard. We have a similar example in Jeremiah 37,13. All the names mentioned here are a reminder of certain events in the lives of the fathers naming the sons. This was a very common method of people remembering important occurrences in their lives in former times. Sometimes, the Torah recorded the event in question, other times it did not. In Bereshit Rabbah 23,2 an attempt is made by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to see in these names proof of the father’s rebellious attitude. [Basically, according to this line of approach, the names reflected the fact that Chanoch, or the respective father naming his son, wished for the name of G’d to be uprooted from the earth. Ed.]
  
  Verse 19
  
  ויקח לו למך, it appears that the generations prior to Lemech and even subsequent to him did not marry more than one wife. Lemech, who was the first one to marry two wives, was also the first one of whom disagreements between him and his wives have been recorded. The two wives were jealous one of the other so that Lemech had to scare them that he would kill them if they would disturb his domestic peace.
  
  Verse 20
  
  ותלד..אבי ישב אהל ומקנה. The word אבי, is the same as “the first of,” The meaning of יושב אהל ומקנה is that he dwelled in a tent to supervise what was happening to his herds and to tend them. Apparently, the need for a tent, i.e. temporary shelter, was due to his leading his herds to pastures far away from his home. People prior to him were content to graze their flocks within walking distance of their homes. The letter ו at the beginning of the word ומקנה is to save having to write the word רועה. We find similar constructions in Proverbs 20,1 לץ היין, where it refers to someone drinking wine, the author saving himself the word שותה by writing the letter ה in front of the word יין. It is also possible that the meaning of the letter ו in front of the word מקנה means “with.” A similar construction occurs in Exodus 1,5 in the line ויוסף היה במצרים, where it means that when one combines Joseph (and his family) who were already in Egypt with the number of Israelites descending to Egypt now the total comes to 70. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  ושם אחיו...אבי כל תפש כנור ועוגב, he was the first man to invent music and musical instruments. The reason why the Torah uses the term תפש, “holding in one’s hand,” is probably because the instruments such as guitars and violins have elongated parts which are held by hand.
  
  Verse 22
  
  וצלה גם היא, the word גם relates to the sons of Adah, both of whom had acquired special skills. Tzilah, contrary to her function, to be decorative, also acquired another skill, giving birth to a son or sons. The son mentioned here is mentioned by name because he too excelled in a new skill, becoming a coppersmith. The reason why he was given a dual name, Tuval Kayin, might be that when born he was simply called Tuval. When Kayin died, this name was added to his original name to provide a memorial of sorts to his ancestor Kayin.
  לוטש כל חרש נחשת וברזל, sharpener of copper and ironcraft; this description by the Torah, as opposed to the previous introduction of artisans as אבי, “father of, i.e. inventor of or discoverer of, maybe that his predecessors had already worked with these metals and had fashioned tools and vessels out of them. Tuval Kayin’s contribution may have been that he learned how to sharpen these tools so that they did not have to be replaced by new ones all the time. The word לטישה in this sense occurs in Samuel I 13,20. During the period described in Samuel, the Israelites had to travel to the land of the Philistines to have their agricultural tools sharpened, as they were not allowed to have weapons made of metal. The word חרש אבן is found in Exodus 31,6 where it describes the parallel art of working with stone. (compare Samuel I 15,15 and Joshua 8,7 where the word תפש appears in a related manner)
  ואחות תובל קין נעמה. The reason the Torah mentions this is to inform us that Tuval Kayin did not have a brother, as opposed to his half-brother יבל, but that the sibling he did have, i.e. a sister, was called נעמה According to Bereshit Rabbah 23,3 this Naamah became the wife of Noach, being the only surviving individual of the offspring of Kayin. She was called נעמה in recognition of her good character. Other scholars in the same Midrash do not agree that the Naamah who became Noach’s wife was the one mentioned here. They attribute the name Naamah here to this woman’s ability to play music on these instruments.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  ויאמר למך לנשיו, our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 23,4 state that when Lemech wanted to sleep with his wives they refused him. They used several arguments, one being that they were afraid of the deluge and they did not want to give birth to children already doomed. Lemech countered that if Kayin whose deed of foul murder had resulted in suspension of his death sentence for 7 generations, then he, Lemech, who had killed inadvertently, accidentally, would not be punished for far longer than that, and his wives had no reason to worry. Even if a deluge would come tomorrow, he was free from the taint of sin and would not become its victim. He went further, saying that even assuming he had deliberately killed a man or a child, G’d would forgive him, seeing he had many merits which would offset one such sin. Kayin had not had such merits even before he killed his brother but had sinned so that G’d had rejected his offering, and still his sentence had not been carried out for seven generations. This is how he arrived at the expression שבעה ושבעים as opposed to שבעתים the period during which G’d had suspended the carrying out of the sentence of death on Kayin. He appealed to G’d’s patience to extend this patience to him. It is also possible that Lemech’s logic was totally foolish, as hinted at by Rashi, as the wives of Lemech did not worry about retribution for Lemech’s sin but the long overdue retribution for Kayin’s sin, something that would include all of Kayin’s offspring. We have to assume that Lemech’s speech to his wives took place before his wife Adah had given birth to Yaval. Some of our sages (Tanchuma 11), claim that Lemech was blind and that when whenever he went out hunting a child (Tuval Kayin) would serve as his guide. When the child spotted the animal he would tell Lemech to draw his bow and aim his arrow in a certain direction. In this fashion Kayin, while being mistaken for an animal, was killed. Other sages (Bereshit Rabbah 22,12) claim that the “sign” provided by G’d for Kayin to warn people and beasts not to kill him, was a horn which grew out of his forehead. Kayin, being constantly on the move in the field due to G’d’s curse, was mistaken by the boy accompanying Lemech for a wild beast seeing that it had a horn on its forehead. Once the boy and Lemech came close to inspect the “beast” they thought they had killed, the boy told Lemech that they had killed a human being. Lemech then suddenly realised that he had killed his ancestor Kayin and this gave rise to his words איש הרגתי לפצעי וילד לחבורתי, he told his wives not to worry because whereas Kayin had murdered intentionally, he had reason to believe that G’d would delay punishing him for longer even than He had delayed Kayin’s punishment. Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi asked Rabbi Yochanan why our verse mentioned both איש and ילד, would not either have been enough? Rabbi Yochanan replied that the word איש refers to the slain’s physical size, i.e. he was an adult, whereas the word ילד refers to the age of the slain person. [in which case the slain person was not Kayin at all, seeing that  if he was still alive during Lemech’s time he must have been at least 500 years plus at the time he was killed by Lemech who was already married. Ed.] It is also possible to understand the passage as hinting at the jealousies between Lemech’s two wives, especially, since it appears that no one prior to Lemech had taken two wives. This is also why in Talmudic parlance such wives are known as צרות. This expression occurs first in connection with Chanah and Peninah the two wives of Elkanah (Samuel I 1,6). Lemech threatened to kill both his wives if they would continue to feud with one another. He made it plain that he had no reason to be afraid of the punishment for killing them, since G’d would be even more lenient with him than He had been with Kayin who had not had any good reason to kill his brother. Seeing that the number שבעה had already been used in connection with Kayin and his punishment, Lemech used an amended version of the number seven in describing how long it would take for him to be punished.  According to our commentary earlier on verse 15, Lemech intended here to make plain to his wives that whoever would kill him if he were forced to kill his wives, would experience far greater retribution than the one who killed Kayin, concerning whose killing G’d had warned the killer of especially severe (not sevenfold) retribution. The justification for such drastic retribution was that G’d Himself had assured Kayin of protection against being killed arbitrarily, hence the crime would be both against G’d and against Kayin. In practice this meant that the penalty could be paid only by the offspring of the killer. In addition to the killer himself. G’d’s retribution would include those who are close to the killer, for instance. His reasoning was that whereas he would have killed with provocation, Kayin had killed without provocation, ergo anyone killing him would be far more guilty than Kayin had been at the time. Seeing that G’d had not bothered to warn anyone who would kill Lemech of such draconian punishment, he had to go on record himself. The reference to פצע, which seems unrelated to killing, is to a wound which results in the victim bleeding, whereas חבורה is an injury that does not result in blood flowing from the victim. He associated the word חבורה with children, as these, being frail, are more likely to die from injuries that did not result in loss of blood. The word הרגתי is to be understood as the same as אהרג, i.e. a future mode, seeing he is warning of what may yet occur. Alternatively, the references to injuries refer to he himself being injured, and he is warning those who might injure him that he would retaliate by killing them. According to the first explanation the letters י at the end of the word לפצעי and לחבורתי would refer to the people causing such injuries, whereas according to the second explanation these letters would refer to the ones sustaining such injuries. We have numerous examples of such constructions, for instance Psalms 2,6 ואני נסכתי מלכי, “but I have installed my king, etc.” or Psalms 74,12 ואלוקים מלכי מקדם, “O G’d my King from old;” in the former the letter י refers to the passive subject, in the letter to the active party. 
  נשי למך, constructions in which one refers to people close to oneself in the third person, as Lemech did to his wives in this verse, also occur in Exodus 24,1 as well as in Genesis 2,20 and in Samuel I 12.11.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  כי שבעתים, this has already been explained in the previous verse. The purpose of the Torah recording all this for all posterity is to demonstrate that in former times, even during the era of idolatry which began with Enosh, people were convinced that G’d supervises the personal fates of His creatures here on earth, meting out punishment to the wicked and reward to the deserving.
  
  Verse 25
  
  וידע אדם עוד את אשתו, this occurred 130 years later than the last time, as is evident from 5,3. During the intervening years Adam had not sired any children because Chavah had been the cause of his being punished. He had kept his distance from her during all these years.
  כי שת לי אלוקים זרע אחר, seeing that this time she had given the credit to G’d, saying שת לי אלקים, “G’d gave me,” she named the son שת. 
  כי הרגו קין, seeing that Kayin had killed Hevel she had not had any other seed from him. She perceived the birth of Sheth as G’d’s gift to her, compensating her for the loss of Hevel, who had not even left behind any offspring. This is why the Torah immediately continues telling us that Sheth, as opposed to Hevel, had offspring born to him whom he called Enosh. The meaning of the word גם, “also,” here is that “just as Chavah bore a son, so her son also sired a son, not only that but such offspring endured.” The Torah, significantly, does not tell us about Kayin’s offspring other than what we know about Lemech. The reason is that all of Kayin’s offspring was wiped out during the deluge. Noach was descended through Sheth.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  ולשת גם הוא, just as Adam had sired a good son, one in his image, so Sheth sired a good son, one in his image.
  'אז הוחל לקרא בשם ה, some commentators understand the word הוחל in the sense of חלול, desecrating, profaning. Others, including Rashi understand it in the sense of התחלה, beginning. In Onkelos we find two versions. According to one version, people became lax in worshipping G’d in the days of Enosh; according to the other version of Onkelos, in Enosh’s days people began to proclaim the name of G’d, [i.e. what had been something natural up until then had to be reintroduced as it had become practically extinct. Ed.] If the second interpretation is correct, the decline of religious observance was arrested for the first time in the days of Enosh when people found it necessary to pray to G’d when they found themselves in trouble. Up until that time they had not even thought that prayer could be helpful in affecting their fate on earth. They considered G’d’s decree as irreversible under any circumstances. According to what we have seen in the writings of our sages, (Shabbat 118) and according to the understanding of most people, that idolatry was widespread in the days of Enosh, the meaning of the verse before must be that that in Enosh’s time many people began to look upon the celestial phenomena as deities and address them and worship them as gods. They did so because they considered these phenomena as intermediaries between them and the invisible G’d. Seeing that these phenomena had been appointed by G’d to run the terrestrial part of the universe on His behalf, they considered these forces as capable of bestowing favours on those worshipping them. Gradually, such initial errors spread until most forms of idolatry nowadays are totally devoid of any rationale. In people’s minds natural forces are perceived as competing with each other and possessing overlapping domains, so that unless one worships at least several of them one would arouse the jealousy of the one ignored. The matter has become so grotesque that man made statues that neither see, hear, etc., are credited with being able to influence the lives of intelligent human beings. According to the Targum Yerushalmi [not found in the regular editions. Ed.] only Sheth had a son born to him whom he called Enosh, and in his time people began to worship other forces as deities, i.e. applying G’d’s name to them. When the Targum wrote לחוד, “only,” the meaning is that Enosh was the only one of Sheth’s sons who survived, and all of mankind is descended from Enosh, neither offspring of Kayin or Hevel surviving. It is difficult to understand how an expression such as גם הוא, which suggests something additional, can be interpreted by the Targum as the opposite, i.e. as a restrictive clause.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  זה ספר, the word ספר here does not mean “book,” but is derived from the verb ספור, “to count.” The Torah introduces an account of events, providing numbers in order to make these events more intelligible. The objective is to provide us with the knowledge of how many years elapsed from the creation of Adam to the deluge. Kayin and Hevel are not mentioned again. Hevel is not mentioned seeing he left no offspring, whereas Kayin is not mentioned because none of his offspring survived the deluge. Mankind is therefore traced back only to Sheth. ביום ברא אלוקים אדם בדמות אלוקים עשה אותו, the Torah reminds us that on the day G’d created man He made him possessing divine qualities like the angels, i.e. He implanted in man a soul of celestial proportions. If man degraded himself by not observing his Creator’s commandments, the blame cannot be laid at the doorstep of his Creator. The emphasis on man being created male and female (verse 2) is to allude to the fact that the female had seduced Adam not to obey his Creator. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  זכר ונקבה...ויברך אותם, the blessing, mentioned already in 1,28 consisted of his ability to reproduce, fill the earth and conquer it. If man was equipped to conquer others, he must certainly be able to conquer the evil urge within himself.
  ויקרא את שמם ארם ביום הבראם, a reference to 1,26 when G’d had announced His intention to create Adam, saying נעשה אדם בצלמנו, G’d’s purpose in creating him was that he be an אדם, and not another species of בהמה or חיה. Woman too, is included in the description and definition of the word אדם. Proof that woman was included in that term אדם is the plural mode of G’d’s original announcement, uttered before Chavah had been separated from Adam’s body (1,26) וירדו בדגת הים וגו', “they shall rule over the fish of the sea, etc.” This name אדם distinguishes the human species from all other mammals, for, although his body too has been formed from the earth, he possesses a divine soul which originated in heaven. If he allows himself to be drawn by the spiritually negative gravitational pull exerted by the material part his body consists of, he is considered as if no better than אדמה, as if the spiritual soul inside of him had been neutralised. This is exactly what the descendants of Kayin had become guilty of, and this is why the Torah does not bother to enumerate them in this chapter.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  ויחי ארם, after Adam had lived on earth for 130 years, he begat a son in his image and in his form, as we have explained already. (1,26 where this term has been explained) This was possible now, since Adam, after having completed his penitence had become a thoroughly good person. It is possible to understand the word כדמותו as referring to Adam’s body reflecting the quality of his soul, whereas the meaning of the word בצלמו refers to his intellectual qualities. After he had done תשובה, Adam’s intellectual qualities also had fully recovered from the negative fallout they had experienced as a result of his sin. It is also possible that he did not recover these faculties to the full until the last tenth of his life on earth, seeing that the prophet Isaiah 65,20 describes people in the times of the Messiah as remaining adolescent until they attain the age of 100. Adam’s offspring also might have been in an adolescent state until they came of age at about 100 years old, and that is why they did not marry until then. Once they had matured both physically and mentally, they could be expected to reproduce so that their children could be described as being בצלמיהם בדמותיהם, reflecting the good qualities of their respective parents. Our sages (Eyruvin 18) say that during all these 130 years that Adam had lived the life of a bachelor he was generating all kinds of spirits, demons, and the like, (whenever he had a nocturnal seminal emission, these emissions did not go to waste). The sages derive this from the emphasis in our verse that finally Adam “begat in his image in his form,” i.e. up until then he had involuntarily begotten inferior beings. [the Talmud implies criticism of Adam, who, though he flagellated himself in this manner, did not fulfill the commandment to be fruitful during those years. Rabbeinu Nissim, in the name of Rabbi Sherirah gaon, writes G’d had indicated to him at the time of his sin that henceforth his children, if any, would not be true reproductions, i.e. that he just like women sometimes who suffer from giving birth to malformed beings, would produce such malformed creatures. The matter is discussed in Niddah 24. Rabbi Yehudah in the name of Shemuel says that when a woman gives birth to a malformed being with wings, she is still considered as ritually as impure as if she had given birth to a normal human being. While Adam was in a state of disgrace he was unable to sire regular human beings, but grotesque looking creatures with ugly faces, resembling demons. We know that people are in the habit of referring to such malformed human specimens as demons and ghosts. When Adam regained his former good standing in the eyes of G’d, and He lifted the curse from him, he was once more able to father children that could be described as בדמותו כצלמו, in his image.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  ויהיו ימי אדם, it appears that all the people mentioned prior to Noach, whose lifespan is given by the Torah, were included in the ones described as being born בדמותו כצלמו, as reflecting the qualities expected of a human being in the true sense of the word, whereas their brothers and sisters did not. This is why they were wiped out during the deluge. It is possible that the long lives of the people mentioned in this list was a standard set by G’d at the time, and shared by their contemporaries, their siblings. On the other hand, it is possible that only the select list mentioned by the Torah enjoyed such an exceedingly long life on earth. Perhaps the reason G’d granted those generations such long lives may have been to enable them to study phenomena over a long period of time and to record the results of their observations for posterity. A lifespan of 70 years as we know it today is simply not long enough to accumulate this type of knowledge. Once these basic data had become known and recorded, later generations could study them out of books, making it unnecessary for them to live for so many years. The outstanding scholar Rabbi Moses Maimonides wrote in his Moreh Nevuchim 2,47 that only the men mentioned by name in our chapter lived to such an old age. He goes on to write that exceptional sizes, years, and numbers mentioned in the Bible are all just that i.e. exceptional. They do not purport to describe the norms in the time or environment during which such exceptions occurred. There were varying sets of circumstances which accounted for these exceptions.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  ויהיו כל ימי אדם, the reason why the Torah summed up once more the total of the number of years Adam lived since his creation, although anyone who is not a simpleton could have figured this out from the data already provided by the Torah, is in order that the scribe should not make a mistake. Once both the individual numbers and the sum total is provided one can double check the total and no mistake will be made. When the number of the soldiers in the army of Israel is recorded, an individual number being supplied for each tribe, the Torah nonetheless troubles itself to spell out the grand total of all these numbers combined. Compare  (Numbers 1,46 as well as 26,51).
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  ויתהלך, similar to Genesis 48,15 ויתהלכו אבותי לפניו, “before Whom my forefathers walked.” The wording means that Chanoch channeled all his love and desire into fulfilling the will of G’d, and he acquired a deep understanding of the ways of his Creator already at the age of 65. For the remaining 300 years of his life on earth he walked with G’d. In spite of this, he did not neglect his duties of producing offspring. As a result of his ever more profound study of theological matters he came to despise his body, so that when he no longer performed the commandment of being fruitful and multiplying, G’d decided that he had served his purpose on earth, and He removed him from the earth even though he had lived only less than half a normal lifespan. ואיננו כי לקח אותו אלוקים, the word ואיננו is meant to convey that he did not die from sickness, nor did he suffer pains before he died. His contemporaries had not considered his impending death as even a remote possibility, so that they were totally unprepared for it. They did not notice his absence until he had actually died. When the Torah employs the unusual phrase כי לקח אותו אלוקים, this is an allusion to the fact that G’d removed his soul to the heavenly regions. We have the same expression in Psalms 73,24 ואחר כבוד תקחני, “You took me toward honour.” Similar uses of the expression occur in Psalms 49,16 כי יקחני סלה, the thrust of the word לקח אלוקים being that instead of death leading to gehinnom, the party described as subject to G’d taking him, is transported by G’d immediately to his life in the hereafter. On the other hand, the expression cannot be explained in this fashion in Ezekiel 24,16 הנני לוקח את מחמד עיניך במגפה, “see I shall take from you the darling of your eyes, by the plague.” Even though the verse is introduced by the word הנני which always introduces something constructive, positive, and which might mislead the reader into thinking that what follows will be something good, something pleasant, the word במגפה, by the plague, makes it plain that being deprived of his wife is not presented by G’d as a positive experience for the prophet. It implies that not only will the prophet suffer mentally, but his wife will suffer physically. Also in Exodus 21,35 when the expression כי יגוף (same root) is used it is followed by the words ומת, that the party who has been gored will die as a result of such a goring. All this proves that מגפה is descriptive of a painful disease, or injury. On the other hand, it is a sudden affliction, whether in the form of a disease or assault by the horns of an ox. People who have led blameless lives do not experience death throes, but die without experiencing such painful afflictions. By contrast, the popular understanding of the departure from earth of both Chanoch and the prophet Elijah, is that G’d transferred them to their afterlife, Gan Eden, complete with their bodies. Though a widespread popular perception, it is shared by some of our sages (Derech Eretz zuttah 1,9 as well as a remark in Bereshit Rabbah 25) These people imagine both Chanoch and Elijah as leading the kind of idyllic life in Gan Eden that Adam had enjoyed briefly before he sinned. They are presumed to continue in this fashion until the arrival of the Messiah. We may be allowed to ask why in the story here in chapter 5, the Torah concludes the reference to each individual named with the concluding word: וימת, he died, whereas in chapter 10 when the generations after Noach are enumerated, the Torah does not even bother to mention that these people had died. One answer given is that seeing that the people mentioned here died during the deluge their death had to be mentioned, i.e. that they did not die of natural causes. [this cannot not be correct, as the deluge occurred in the year 1556 and several of the people mentioned in our chapter whose ages at death are given, died earlier than that, including Noach’s grandfather Metushelach, and Lemech, his father, who died during the lifetime of his father Metushelach. Ed.]  I believe that the people mentioned in our chapter whose death is reported were righteous people; as a result their death left behind a spiritual void. Not a single one died a violent death during the deluge. This is why the Torah reports their death as a death from natural causes. Only their respective offspring died during the deluge. The people whose life (but not whose death) is recorded in chapter 10 were evil, so that their deaths did not leave behind a spiritual void at all, and their death did not warrant mentioning. Also, seeing that they did not live nearly as long as their antediluvian counterparts, there was nothing special about their dying when they did.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  ויקרא את שמו נח, לאמור זה ינחמנו ממעשינו, our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 25,2) say that לא השם הוא המדרש, ולא המדרש הוא השם, that the name נח is not compatible with the allegorical explanation offered by the Midrash, neither is the Midrash compatible with the name נח. Lemech should not have related the name נח to נחמה, but should have related it to נח זה יניחנו, “this one will bring relief,” as opposed to: “this one will comfort us, i.e. the meaning of the word נחמה. On the other hand, if what he had in mind by naming his son נח, was נחמה, the comfort that he expected or hoped that his son would bring to the world, he should have named him נחמן זה ינחמנו. “this one will bring us comfort, consolation.” The Midrash is absolutely correct. However, if someone finds rest, relief after having experienced troubles, this is in itself his comfort, his consolation. The Hebrew language does not make such fine distinctions when it comes to the names reflecting linguistically accurately what the giver of the name had in mind. When Chanah named her first born son, the one for whom she had prayed in the Tabernacle at Shiloh, שמואל, giving as her reason for this name כי מה' שאלתיו, “for I have borrowed him from the Lord,” she should have called him שאול, if she had taken the words of our Midrash to heart. (Samuel I 1,20) The word שאול means something or someone borrowed. The name שמואל is close enough to make us realise what she had had in mind. In fact Chanah’s thoughts are reflected more accurately in the name שמואל than they would have been in the name שאול. The name שמואל actually contains not only the thought that he has been borrowed, or asked for, but that he had been borrowed, or asked for from G’d. Similar considerations apply to the name יעבץ, derived from עצב, anguish, sadness, (Chronicles I 4,9) His mother mentioned that she named him so because he had been born out of pain. There are more such examples to be found throughout the Bible. According to our sages Lemech must have been a great prophet, for how else could he predict that Noach, his son, would turn out to be a boon to mankind? What did he see or know that caused him to make such a prediction? According to Tanchuma Bereshit 11, people did not know what a plough was and they had to do all their work on the soil by hand. Noach invented the plough, thus becoming a great benefactor of mankind. He trained oxen and donkeys to pull a ploughshare, thus easing the labour the farmers had to perform. This was the relief and consolation he provided for all of the human species. When Lemech referred to ממעשי ידינו, “from what we had to do with our hands,” he meant that henceforth due to his son, animals could perform some of the labour which, up until then had been performed by each farmer literally with his own hands. [In accepting this interpretation, we must assume that the name Noach was not bestowed on Noach at birth. Ed.] The word מעשה as applying to working one’s field, appears in Judges 19,16 ממעשהו מן השדה, “from his work, from the field.” Even though the word מעשה can apply to any kind of work, it is used in the main in connection with work in the field. ומעצבון ידינו, from the frustration we have been experiencing over the work of our hands 'אשר אררה ה, which the Lord had cursed. Lemech referred to 3,17 where G’d had told Adam that as a result of his having listened to his wife, the earth would be cursed and he would have to eat his bread only after experiencing עצבון. In spite of Noach having invented the plough, people after him continued to work very hard to gain their livelihood through tilling the soil. However, he had definitely made their chores easier due to his clever invention. According to the plain meaning of the text, when Lemech had said זה ינחמנו, he had certainly not expressed a prophetic vision with these words, but he had called Noach by that name as a sort of prayer, seeing in his birth a special blessing. [perhaps the fact that he had not become a father until he was 182 years old had something to do with this. Everyone else mentioned in the chapter fathered a son at a much younger age. Ed.] When Rachel gave birth to Joseph, she called him Joseph as a good omen, saying that she named him thus so that G’d might give her another son. (Genesis 30,24). Moses recorded, at the command of G’d, all these vital statistics of the people from Adam until Noach, in order that we, who have inherited the Torah, should know that the universe has not always existed but was created by G’d, an important fact for every human being to be aware of.
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  ויהי נח בן חמש מאות שנה, we do not know why Noach waited for such a long time to sire children, seeing that all the generations who had preceded him generally sired children at about the age of 100. It appears that the early generations did not chase after women during their youth and did not feel the need to mate and settle down until they had become close to 100 years old. When they did marry, their main concern was to leave offspring behind them, not to indulge their libido. They were aware according to what they had observed that they had a long lifespan at their disposal. This belief was reinforced by their confidence that their lifestyle was pleasing in the eyes of G’d. Noach, who had observed the corrupt ways of his contemporaries wanted to hold off siring children, because he was afraid that any children of his might also be displeasing in the eyes of G’d. He waited until he was 500 years old when he felt the urgent need to mate with a woman. It is also possible, that he had prophetic insight, i.e. that G’d told him to get married and to sire children. These children were good, but Cham was not as good as his brothers. Noach did not produce daughters. According to Bereshit Rabbah 26,2 G’d had reasoned that in the event that Noach’s children turned out to be wicked, He did not want them to die in the deluge. In the event they should turn out to be good people, G’d’ did not want Noach to have to construct separate cabins for all of them in the ark so that they could enjoy their privacy. G’d therefore made Noach sterile until he reached the age of 500. According to the view of Rabbi Eleazar, son of Rabbi Yossi Haglili, even Yaphet, Noach’s eldest, was not quite 100 years old when the deluge began and people under 100 years of age were not considered culpable for their deeds in those times.
  ויולד נח את שם, את חם, ואת יפת,  in the opinion of our sages  (Sanhedrin 69) Yaphet was the oldest. They derived this from Genesis 11,10 where the Torah writes ויהי שם בן מאה שנה ויולד את ארפחשד שנתים אחר המבול, “Shem was 100 tears old when he begat Arpachshad 2 years after the deluge.” If Shem had been the eldest, he would have been 100 years old already at the end of or during the deluge, not 2 years later. We think that Shem was born during Noach’s 501st year, allowing for the fact that the year was a leap year, and his wife had become pregnant when Noach married her when he was 500 years old. The deluge commenced in the 600th year of Noach’s life. As a result, Shem was 99 years old when he entered the ark at the start of the deluge. After the deluge he was only 100 years old. How could the Torah describe him as 100 years old 2 years after the deluge? We must therefore conclude that Yaphet was the eldest. This is also how we must understand Genesis 10,21 אחי יפת הגדול, “the brother of Yaphet, the senior.” Even though our sages have arrived at this conclusion, we must wonder why, every time, the three brothers are mentioned together, Shem is always mentioned as the first one. Surely, this suggests that Shem was the oldest. The words “2 years after the deluge,” may be understood as “2 years after the beginning of the deluge.” At that time Shem would have been 99 years old as we have mentioned already. When the Torah speaks of his son being born 2 years after the deluge, we must understand this as at the beginning of the second year after the deluge.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויהי כי החל האדם, a reference to the human species.
  ובנות ילדו להם, there was not really any need to tell us this, seeing that the species cannot survived without females and males. The entire story concerns the females, seeing that the male elite made the mistake of intermarrying with physically attractive, but otherwise morally inferior females, as a result of which the entire human race became progressively more corrupt.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  ויראו בני האלוהים, the sons of the judges, the elite of the species who are here referred to as אלוהים, just as in Exodus 22,27 אלוהים לא תקלל, “you must not curse a judge.” There are numerous similar examples in the Torah of the attribute אלוהים being applied to morally high ranking human beings. Onkelos also translates it in this vein when he speaks of בני רברביא. The explanations offered that the Torah refers to Uzza and Uzael are very far fetched. (compare Torah shleymah on this verse). [The two aforementioned are supposed to have been angels who had voted against the creation of man and who belittled man’s effort to conquer the evil urge. They were supposedly punished by being consigned to earth to experience life on earth by themselves. Instead of proving their superiority, they were the first to succumb to the allurement of physically attractive females. Their request to return to the celestial regions was denied by G’d. Ed.] According to Bereshit Rabbah 26,5 Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai cursed anyone who translated the words בני האלוהים as “the sons of G’d.” He added that when the elite of the people are themselves guilty of the sins they want the common man to refrain from, their efforts are doomed to start with. Another reason offered why these people were referred to as בני האלוהים, (according to both Rabbi Chaninah and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, is that these were the people enjoying carefree long lives, free from sickness and other impediments. [This may have given them the illusion of being able to get away with whatever they felt like doing. Ed.] Rav Hunna, quoting Rabbi Yossi, says that these people were granted such long lives in order to enable them to study the sky, observe the orbits of the stars and make calculations resulting in our calendar.
  את בנות האדם, the daughters of the weaker specimen of the human race. The women were unable to resist the physically superior specimen referred to as בני האלוהים, and as a result if fancied by the latter, they would be taken by them as wives or concubines against their will, and the will of even their husbands. [The Torah describes the first time the law of the “survival of the fittest” was practiced by the human race. The result was the deluge. Ed.] The term אדם next to the term אלוהים simply compares the weak to the strong In the Sifri¸ (Behaalotcha 86) the point is made that when ordinary individuals observed that the judges took the law into their own hands, they reasoned that they themselves would most certainly be able to get away with the same thing, seeing that the judges are supposed to set a good example. Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra understands the expression בני אלוהים, as referring to spiritually superior people, people who knew what G’d expected of them. They chose wives according to what they perceived was suitable for them basing themselves on their reading of astrology. As a result of such careful mating, their offspring were in many instances giants, etc., as we read about at the end of our verse. It is possible that they took women of their choice even against the will of these women.
  כי טובות הנה, Rabbi Yudan, noting the defective spelling of the word טובות as טבת claims that this is a transitive form of the verb, and that the judges when handing over the virgin bride to her prospective husband would first sleep with her. The missing letters ו in the word טבת refer to these girls having been deprived of their hymen.
  ויקחו להם נשים, a reference to married women.
  מכל אשר בחרו, the word מכל, “from all,” includes homosexual unions, and mating between man and beast.
  
  Verse 3
  
  ויאמר ה' לא ידון רוחי באדם לעולם, G’d either said this to Himself, or to Noach. My father of blessed memory (Joseph Kimchi) explained the line לא ידון in the same sense as the word מדון in Proverbs 15,18 as referring to a struggle, strife. The soul G’d had blown into Adam’s nostrils was meant as an antidote to the pull of the raw material man was made of. The body, basically is in tow of the animalistic urges of the animals, something natural, seeing that man’s own body is made of the same raw material as are the animals. G’d now decided to grant man an extension of 120 years to do תשובה, repentance, failing which He would wipe out mankind from the earth. Other commentators, including Ibn Ezra, explain the word ידון as related to נדנה in Chronicles I 21,27 וישב חרבו אל נדנה, “he returned his sword to its sheath.” Actually, if correct, the word ידון should have been spelled with a dagesh in the letterד, replacing the missing letter נ, however, in this instance, instead of such a dagesh, the Torah simply omitted the letter נ at the beginning, as it did in Genesis 25,29 ויזד יעקב נזיד where the letter נ in front of the letter ז has also been omitted. At any rate, the meaning of the expression is that G’d would not let His spirit rest until both man’s body and spirit would be wiped out. Rabbi Yishmael son of Yossi, (Bereshit Rabbah 26,6)  understood this verse as G’d saying that when the time would come to share out reward to the righteous, these people would not participate in it. He was speaking of ידון in the sense of “passing judgment.” Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish as well as his colleague Rabbi Yannai, said that there is no such thing as the popular concept of a hell, gehinnom, lasting a long time, but that at the time when G’d passes out judgment the wicked will be burned by the fiery heat of a flame. They based themselves on Maleachi 3,19 הנה יום בא בוער כתנור, “here a day will come when the fire will burn as in a furnace.” The other sages said that there most certainly is such a thing as gehinnom, as we have a verse in Isaiah 31,9 נאום ה' אשר אור לו בציון ותנור לו בירושלים, “says the Lord Who has a fire in Zion and an oven in Jerusalem.” Rabbi Yehudah bar Ila-i claims there is neither a specific day, nor a specific place such as gehinnom, but fire will come forth from the very bodies of the wicked and will consume them with its heat. He based himself on Isaiah 33,11 תהרו חשש תלדו קש רוחכם אש תאכלתם, “you shall conceive hay, give birth to straw; My breath will devour you like fire.” We have also written what the sages of the Midrash wrote concerning the matter of gehinnom in connection with Genesis 1,31 וירא אלוקים את כל אשר עשה והנה טוב מאד, “G’d saw all that He had made and here it was very good;” the point made there was that the word טוב refers to Gan Eden, whereas the expression טוב מאד, refers to gehinnom. [refer to page 72 in my translation. Ed.] Rabbi Yehudah in the name of Rabbi Ila-i (also in Bereshit Rabbah 26,6) interprets the words לא ידון רוחי עוד, that “these wicked spirits of man will never be allowed to come to rest before Me.” Various sages concur that the generation destroyed during the deluge will neither be judged for an afterlife during the time that the world awaits its own rejuvenation, nor will it be judged (if any are fit) to be resurrected in the world following the interval between our present world being turned into chaos and the subsequent resurrection of the deserving from the former world. (Sanhedrin 107)
  בשגם, the letter ש has the vowel patach, just as the letter ש in Judges 5,10 שקמתי דבורה. The meaning is that “seeing it too is but flesh (and no better than the beasts.).” In other words: “the reason why My spirit will not prevail within man is due to the fact that man like beasts are only flesh.” Even though G’d had implanted man with a divine soul, this soul had been unable to assert itself within him. As a result, G’d said, “I will give him another 120 years during which he has a chance to improve himself, failing which his fate is sealed.” We do not know the special significance of the number 120. This was G’d’s arbitrary decision.
  
  Verse 4
  
  הנפילין, this verse must be understood as attached to the previous verse (2) in which the mating habits of the בני האלוהים had been discussed. After the Torah had criticised the manner in which the physically stronger males grabbed their women, G’d now gave them another 120 years and no more to improve their ways. The people described as נפילים were a group of giants. The reason why they are not described as such, but as “fallen,” is that people who took one look at these giants were apt to fall down ((נפל in sheer fright of such powerful potential opponents. Examples of similar use of the root נפל can be found in Job 14,18 ואולם הר נופל, “even if the mountain were to fall” a truly frightening experience. The Torah simply relates that during these latter days before the deluge there were people of gigantic size These were just a few individuals .
  וגם אחרי כן אשר יבואו בני האלוהים אל בנות האדם, and also after the elite had made a point of mating with the physically attractive בנות האדם there were even more numerous such giants who reflected the genes of their fathers in size and the allure of their mothers in beauty. והמה הגבורים אשר מעולם, these were the ones always remembered in later times as the heroic people of their time אשר מעולם אנשי שם, people whose reputation survived their disappearance from the earth. After the deluge survivors realised that it had been displeasing in the eyes of G’d for those people to have devoted themselves to all the physical pleasures of the world and to aim at enlarging the size of their bodies as well as aiming to increase the number of years they lived on earth. [After all they had perished, and normal sized individuals, such as Noach’s family had survived. Ed.] The physical desires of the survivors of the deluge were far less powerful than that of their forebears so that gradually also their lifespan diminished, i.e. their entire hold on matters physical became a less dominant concern. People in the generations after the deluge, in spite of their other failings, gradually resumed a lifestyle that had been normal before the excesses that the בני אלוהים had indulged in. When the Israelites came to the land of Canaan there were only a very few of the former giants still surviving, mostly concentrated around Hebron (Joshua 15,14) Our sages have a tradition that there were only four such giants  still alive at that time. (Joshua 14,15) In the time of David there appear to have been a few such men in Gat (Samuel II 21,15) Concerning Og, the King of Bashan, the Bible testifies that he had been a remnant of this race of these antediluvian giants (Joshua 13,12). It is possible that those survivors still practiced a lifestyle reminiscent of their antediluvian forebears.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  'וירא ה, seeing that the time G’d had allocated to the people to improve their ways had elapsed, G’d saw that nothing had changed. רק רע כל היום, the words וכל יצר, refer to both man’s urges, the urge to do good, and the urge to do evil. The urge to do good had succumbed to the evil urge, completely. The Torah here calls the planning of wicked deeds based on impulses יצר לב, the urge of the heart. The reason is that the heart is perceived as the origin of all impulses be they good or be they evil in nature. The reason why G’d gave them 120 years extension, although He was well aware that they would not do teshuvah, was only in order for man to learn from G’d’s attributes, and to adopt this attribute for himself. Just as G’d allowed man plenty of time to improve his ways, so man, when dealing with his fellow, should also not be impatient, but allow enough time for people to rethink their evil attitudes. When G’d created the human race He wanted it to be good completely, or at least predominantly. If mankind would turn to be completely evil it could not endure, seeing that G’d had chosen the good. When He saw that the generation preceding the deluge was thoroughly evil, especially in their inter-personal relations, their use of violence as a legitimate tool to gain their ends, their deeds threatened to undermine the foundations upon which G’d had built His universe. He therefore decided to destroy all those who were evil and to save only the few good ones, so that these survivors could form the nucleus of a better human race after the deluge. G’d had found Noach, his sons, and their wives to be good and they were chosen to provide the seed for future generations. Lemech, Noach’s father had died already 5 years prior to the deluge, and Metushelach, Noach’s grandfather, another good man, had lived his life to the full before the onset of the deluge. As a result of these two men having died, there were no righteous people left on earth other than Noach and his family.
  
  Verse 6
  
  'וינחם ה, the expression, וינחם, “He was sorry, He regretted,” has been chosen by the Torah in order for human beings to have at least an inkling of what G’d’s feelings were when He faced destroying His handiwork. Clearly, such emotions as “regret” are not part of G’d’s vocabulary. We have it on the authority Samuel I 15 29 that human feelings such as regret, frustration, are not feelings which can be attributed To Him.
  ויתעצב אל לבו, this too, is a figure of speech, seeing that G’d does not know such emotional ups and downs as joy and sadness. While David in Psalms 104,31 speaks of ישמח ה' במעשיו, he too uses such “emotions” of G’d only as a figure of speech. It is his way of describing G’d’s reactions to seeing that His plans had worked out. Similarly, here, the Torah describes G’d’s reaction when His plans had not worked out. [G’d’s plans not working out can only happen due to the freedom of choice with which He endowed man. Ed.] In other words, the Torah, in telling us about G’d’s reactions, here and elsewhere, reflects the impressions gained by the teller of the story. אל לבו, we are told in Bereshit Rabbah 27,4 that a gentile asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah if it is not true that the Jews claim that their G’d knows all that is going to happen in advance. Rabbi Yehoshua answered in the affirmative. Thereupon the gentile quoted this verse as proof that if G’d had known all of this in advance, how could He have been saddened by it. Rabbi Yehoshua asked the gentile if he had ever have a son born to him. The gentile said that indeed he was the father of a son. He then asked him: “what did you do when he was born?” The gentile replied that he was very happy when he heard the news. Thereupon Rabbi Yehoshua asked the gentile: “did you not know that the son would die one day, and if so why were you happy that another mortal was born?” The gentile answered that there is a time to rejoice and a time to be sad. Rabbi Yehoshua told the gentile that G’d, in spite of His foreknowledge, reacts in a similar manner. G’d was in mourning for the destruction of His handiwork, as we know from 7,10. The reason the Torah makes mention of the words ויתעצב אל לבו and these seven days, is to teach us that the words אבל and עצב can be used interchangeably, i.e. they describe a state of mourning.
  בארץ, the reason the Torah writes this word, which does not appear to tell us something we did not know, is to remind us that the root of the problem of man becoming so corrupt in spite of his having been equipped with a divine soul, is that he was constructed from and anchored in the earth, in the “lower” universe. This is unlike the אדם העליוני, superior man. This is why G’d did not need consolation for people of Noach’s calibre.
  
  Verse 7
  
  'ויאמר ה, G’d either said this to Himself, or to Noach.
  אמחה את האדם אשר בראתי, the prefix ה before the word אדם is meant to tell us that G’d did not mean to wipe out the human species, אדם, but only האדם, seeing that some humans were allowed to survive. In supplying a rationale why the means used to wipe out all these people was the water, Rabbi Berechyah in Bereshit Rabbah 28,2 describes G’d as saying to Himself, that seeing He had made man out of earth, the only element (of the four that man is made of) which could neutralise earth is water. The words מאדם עד בהמה, included the free roaming beasts on earth, חיה, whereas the word רמש refers to the small creatures as we explained already on 1,25-26. Why were all these creatures wiped out also? What had they done to deserve this? They had only been created for the sake of man. If there was no purpose for man on earth, neither was there a purpose for all of these living creatures. Furthermore, seeing that the waters would cover the habitat of all these creatures they would die unless saved by a special miracle. The concern of G’d for all those creatures does not extend to each of them individually, but only to the survival of each of their species. G’d ensured that the species would survive by commanding Noach to take them into the ark with him, or at least to accept all those that came to the ark voluntarily, in pairs. If you were to ask why the deluge had to cover the entire surface of the earth and not only the areas inhabited by man, if G’d had done this, man could have escaped to uninhabited regions and survived thus foiling G’d’s plan. This is why even the highest mountains had to be covered by the waters to prevent anyone from escaping to the mountain peaks. Some of our sages (Sanhedrin 108) claim that the animals had become corrupt, copying man’s corrupt ways, so that they too deserved to die in their own right. They had become guilty of mating with species not their own, thus frustrating G’d’s plan that each species remain pure. Other sages (on the same folio) agree with the first opinion we offered, i.e. that in the absence of man on earth there was no purpose in the earth being populated by animals.
  
  Verse 8
  
  'ונח מצא חן בעיני ה, he found favour due to good deeds performed by him. The Torah uses the same expression in Exodus 33,17 when G’d tells Moses that he had found favour in His eyes. His deeds had been pleasing to G’d. In Bereshit Rabbah 28,9, Rabbi Acha son of Kahana expresses surprise at the words ונח מצא חן בעיני ה', saying that the wording implies that Noach, in his own right, could not have claimed the right of survival, except for the circumstance that he “found favour in the eyes of the Lord, i.e. G’d had to search for a reason to let him survive. [He bases himself on the whole verse being superfluous, as Noach’s merits are discussed in the following verses. Rabbi Einhorn’s comment on that Midrash. Ed.] 
  
  Verse 9
  
  אלה תולדות נח, נח איש צדיק תמים היה בדורותיו, the meaning of the word תולדות is similar to “history of,” i.e. this it what happened to Noach, etc. It concerns both the deluge and what came after. We encounter the same pattern when the Torah introduced a paragraph with the words אלה תולדות יעקב, יוסף in Genesis 37,2 where this is an introduction to history related to Yaakov’s family. In Proverbs 27,1 we have a verse concluding with the words “the day will give birth to.” The root ילד is the root of the word תולדה and תולדות, i.e. it refers to future developments. Developments are matters that are the result of days following one another.
  נח, the name occurs three times in the same verse, when a single mention of his name would have sufficed. In Numbers 8,19 the name בני ישראל occurs 5 times in one verse. According to Tanchuma 5 on our parshah such apparently needless repetitions are an expression of special affection by the writer for the subject described. Such formulations are referred to by Rashi in Numbers 8,19), as well as by Ibn Ezra as צחות הלשון, “stylistic purity.” [repeating Noach’s name 3 times indicates his popularity with G’d at that time. Ed.]
  צדיק, his deeds all reflected fairness, charitable considerations, in contrast to those of his contemporaries who were men of violence.
  תמים, perfect, without flaw; according to Tanchuma 5, he was born circumcised.
  בדורותיו, both in the time of his generation, and the generation following him after the deluge. [this is the reason for the plural ending יו in the word בדורותיו. Ed.] Noach lived for 350 years after the deluge, so that he was a reminder of the deluge to at least 8-9 generations after him. In fact, Avraham was already 58 years old when Noach died, and he was the 10th generation counting from Noach. An easy way to remember this is the line that אברהם בן נח, “Avraham was a son of Noach“ (family member, as all people before the Torah was given) the numerical value of the letters in the name נח have a combined value of 58. According to Bereshit Rabbah 30,9 the word בדורותיו refers to three specific generations, that of Enosh, that of the deluge, and the generation of the Tower of Babel, and the scattering of mankind and the division into many languages.
  את האלוקים התהלך נח, a description of how Noach cleaved to his Creator. All his actions were designed to please his Creator. The reason why this is so remarkable is that it demonstrated the preponderance of his intellect over his baser urges, especially so as it would have been both more convenient for him and more socially advantageous for him to conform to the cultural mores of his time.
  
  Verse 10
  
  ויולד נח, why does the Torah mention this now when it had already told us about his three sons in 5,32? The Torah wanted us to know that these sons were born after Noach had already been certified by the Torah as “walking with G’d.” Mention of these sons here indicates that he raised his sons to believe in G’d and to walk in His ways, also. Had his sons not been good people they would not have been saved at the time of the deluge, even though their father was a righteous person. We have already cited Ezekiel 14,20 in which we were told that Noach’s merits did not suffice to save others beyond himself and his wife.
  
  Verse 11
  
  ותשחת הארץ, the people on earth had become corrupted; we have a similar formulation in Exodus 1,2 where the Torah writes of the Israelites ותמלא הארץ, and the meaning cannot be that the whole earth was filled with Israelites. There are many examples of similar stylistic formulations used in the Torah.
  לפני האלוקים, this expression is meant to inform us that G’d does indeed watch over the actions of His creatures in the “lower” regions of His universe not only in a general way, but sometimes even over the deeds of individuals; now He saw that the human species had become thoroughly corrupted. This is the meaning of the word ותמלא in our verse.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  וירא, a continuation of the words לפני האלוקים in the last verse. כי השחית, the same as והנה נשחתה, i.e. a passive not a transitive hiphil. כל בשר, all of mankind. We find the same expression in Psalms 145,21 ויברך כל בשר, as referring not to all that lives, but to all of mankind. The same expression also appears in this sense in Isaiah 66,23 יבא כל בשר, “all of mankind will come, etc.”
  את דרכו, its norms as established at the time of creation. Just as man cleaving to his wife (only) is described as a norm in Genesis 2,24, so there were other norms all of which were violated by the generation of the deluge. In retribution, G’d now violates the norms that applied to the conditions prevailing on our planet.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  ויאמר...קץ כל בשר, the time had arrived for their destruction from the world. The destruction which G’d had threatened before allowing for the 120 years grace period. Not only had they not mended their ways, but they had become ever more corrupt.
  בא לפני, we have explained the word בא already elsewhere as meaning “that the time had arrived before Me.” The same expression is used in Jonah 1,2 when G’d describes the impending fate of the people of Nineveh in the words כי עלתה רעתם לפני, meaning that the effect of the wickedness had reached Him. The קץ described in our verse is the natural reaction to the effect the wickedness of the people had on G’d when it confronted Him.
  כי מלאה הארץ חמס, the word מפניהם belongs next to the words בא לפני, i.e. on account of the violence they have perpetrated. Our sages (Sanhedrin 108) say behold how powerful is the sin of violence seeing that the generation of the deluge was not wiped out in spite of all their other sins until they had become guilty of indiscriminate violence. Iit was only then that the decree of their destruction was sealed.
  משחיתם, seeing that the people had deliberately corrupted their way of life, G’d matches the punishment to the crime by depriving them of the control they used to exert over nature inasmuch as it effected their habitat, earth.
  את, in this instance it means the same as מן, “from.” A parallel verse in which the word את is used in this sense is Exodus 9,29 כצאתי את העיר, “as soon as I leave the city.” Another such example is found in Genesis 44,4  הם יצאו את העיר “they had just departed from the city.”
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  עשה לך, for your needs so that you will be saved from the impending deluge, as well as the other living creatures in the ark with you.,
  גפר, a type of light wood, like balsam wood, which floats easily on the water. According to Onkelos it is a kind of cedar wood.
  קנים, divided into cabins, small rooms, such as the enclosures allocated to individual birds in a dove-cot. G’d commanded Noach to see to it that each species of animal would have separate accommodation in the ark.
  וכפרת, verbalised from the word כופר, or זפת, waterproof caulking, pitch or tar. Our sages also describe it as such in Shabbat 67.
  מבית ומחוץ, the reason why the caulking had to be applied both from the outside and from the inside, was so that in case the outside would spring a leak or crack due to the violent impact of the waves, the inside caulking would provide insurance against the people inside the ark getting wet.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  וזה אשר תעשה אותה, the measurements and shape are introduced by the word זה. The reason why the Torah uses the masculine mode זה instead of the feminine mode זאת, seeing that the word תבה, ark, is feminine, is because the word זה, “this,” masculine, describes the שעור, measurement, a noun which is masculine. G’d commanded Noach to make the width of the ark one sixth of its length, and the height one tenth of its length.] According to Bereshit Rabbah 31,10 the reason that the Torah gave these dimensions is precisely that shipbuilders are advised to stick to the relative measurements of width, length and height recorded here.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  צהר, this word is derived from the word צהרים, “noon,” an instruction that Noach make a window in the ark that would let in the light after the rain would stop falling, during the long period when the water level would gradually subside. This is what is meant in 8,7 when the Torah wrote ויפתח נח את החלון, “Noach opened the window.” Some of our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 31,11 ) believe that Noach suspended a brilliant gemstone which provided light inside the ark. The words תעשה לתבה, “you shall construct for or inside the ark,” contradict such an explanation. There is no question that Noach had prepared oil for the lamps he took along into the ark. The window mentioned here in our verse is a natural source of light, affixed by Noach in the highest part of the ark.
  ואל אמה, to the uppermost cubit of the slanting roof of the ark. It is called thus seeing that at the top there was no more than one cubit of width between the roof sloping down on one side and that sloping down on the other side. The purpose of the slanting roof was to let the rain run off the ark.
  ופתח התבה, the entrance/exit which was closed after everybody who was entitled to enter the ark had entered it.
  תחתים, a lower deck; the letter י in this word serves a dual purpose, a) to represent the plural mode of the word, as well as 2) a letter describing a relative and not an absolute position. When speaking of the third deck, שלשים, the letter י which would reflect the relative position is unnecessary (seeing it was the top, i.e. highest deck) so that we do not find the dagesh in the י in that word. The י describing the plural mode does appear, just as it does in words such as נכרים, gentiles, or in מצרים, Egyptians. In Bereshit Rabbah 31,11 we are told that the lower deck served as the container of refuse, the middle deck as the accommodation for the family of Noach and the pure animals, [the ones fit as sacrifices], whereas the upper deck served as accommodation for the impure species of animals. Some scholars believe that the lowest deck accommodated the ritually impure species of animals, the middle deck was reserved for Noach and his family as well as for the ritually pure animals, whereas the top deck was for the refuse. Noach constructed sort of a trap door through which he shoveled the refuse.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  ואני...המבול מים, the word מבול after the word המבול is missing, a word which should have been written since we had not heard about a concept called מבול previously. There are some other parallels to this missing construct form when we would have expected it, as in Joshua 3,15 הארון הברית.  The basic root of the word מבול is נבל, in the same sense as in Job 38,37 ונבלי מים מי ישכיב? “who can tilt the water bottles from the sky?” This is a reference to rain emanating from the celestial regions. At the same time the word also contains an allusion to “falling”, מפלה, as in Isaiah 1,30 נובלת עליה, things which fall from the sky and are poured on to earth The word מבול is an adjective describing a certain type of rain. The word גשם on the other hand, is a noun. This is why it is possible to use the word מבול concerning any matter that drops out of the sky, such as snow, fire, hail, etc. Also, this is the reason why the Torah did not need to write גשם מים מתחת השמים, if the Torah had not added the words כל אשר בארץ, I would have thought that the fish had also been meant to die. The word בארץ in our verse therefore means “on the dry land.” The decree of destruction did not include the fish because since they do not share man’s habitat they did not adopt man’s corrupt ways. (compare Zevachim 113)
  
  Verse 18
  
  והקימותי את בריתי אתך, the covenant that I am going to make with you as part of the deal that you and your family will be saved. I will keep this promise for you and your descendants.
  ובאת אל התבה, the ark in which I told you that I would save you from the waters of the deluge.
  אתה ובניך, the absence of a reference to the females, shows that copulation was forbidden in the ark, seeing that the women were to have separate quarters. (Chulin 70) G’d separated them by writing: אתה ובניך, אשתך ונשי בניך, The moral lesson in all this is that a time when the entire human species is being wiped out, it is not appropriate for the survivors to indulge in physical pleasures. All they were allowed to do was to eat enough in order to keep themselves alive and well.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  ומכל החי מכל בשר, a reference to the living creatures on the dry land only.
  שנים מכל, Noach was told that these animals were to be admitted in pairs. G’d specified further, זכר ונקבה יהיו.. תביא אל התבה, after the animals which came of their own accord had been accommodated in the ark. What prompted some of these animals to come to Noach’s ark on their own? They were inspired by the same kind of imagination which unerringly enables them to find grazing land etc. G’d, no doubt, aided their imagination in this instance.
  להחיות אתך, to keep them alive with you by feeding them on a daily basis.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  מהעוף למחנהו, some from each species;
  ומן הבהמה למינה, this includes the free-roaming beasts.
  יבאו, they will come on their own to the proximity of the ark, from where you will bring in the ones which qualify.
  להחיות, we  already explained the meaning of this word.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  ואתה קח לך, seeing that they will come to you in order to survive, you will have to prepare food for them, each species according to the type of diet it is used to. Even the predators will not be allowed to eat flesh while in the ark but would have to subsist on a vegetarian diet. They had, after all, been used to such a diet immediately after they had been created, as we have already explained on Genesis 1,25.
  
  Verse 22
  
  ויעש נח, Noach built the ark in accordance with all the instructions given to him by G’d. He built its dimensions of length, width and height exactly as he had been commanded. He built the many cabins, and collected the various types of plants and fruit to serve as food for the journey.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויאמר ה' לנח, He told him to enter the ark before the onset of the deluge.
  כי אותך ראיתי צדיק לפני, you and your family are therefore entitled to escape the deluge in order to form the nucleus of a new world order afterwards.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  מכל בהמה הטהורה תקח לך, as they will arrive before the ark take them inside with you. Previously, G’d had told Noach only to take the animals in pairs, one pair per species. Only now was he instructed to take 6 additional pairs of each of the species of animal known as טהורה, ritually pure. It is not clear if of the ritually impure animals Noach was to take a single pair or two pairs. How did Noach know which animals were considered ritually pure? It is possible that G’d told him which peculiarities to watch for in order that he should know which to use as an offering after the deluge. Alternately, Noach would know when he saw that some of the animals came to him in lots of seven pairs. This explanation does not suffice for the birds, seeing that apparently all the birds arrived in lots of seven pairs. We must therefore fall back on the explanation that G’d provided Noach with information how to recognise which were the ritually pure animals. In that case, we would also have to conclude that the ritually impure birds did not come to the ark in pairs of seven. What then is the meaning of the words  (verse 3) גם מעוף השמים שבעה שבעה?. “also from the birds in the sky seven pairs each?” Surely, this appears to apply only to the ritually pure birds, and the word גם refers back to the word הטהורה in verse 2. If the birds generally arrived in single pairs, and the ritually pure birds arrived in lots of seven pairs, the reason was not that they be used as offerings to G’d, seeing that Noach is on record as bringing only one offering, and he would be able to bring more such offerings from the next generation of such birds if he so desired. The reason may be that G’d intended for Noach and his family to use the excess number of ritually pure birds as food without endangering any of the species’ chances of survival. G’d had already planned to permit the consumption of meat to the survivors of the deluge, something which had been forbidden to Adam at the time. Even though G’d did not withhold any kind of living creature as food for man, as we know from Genesis 9,3 כל רמש אשר הוא חי לכם יהיה לאכלה, “any moving thing which is a live will be yours to eat,” this was amended for the Jewish people who were to be a nation of holy people. It is in the nature of things that the animals described as ritually pure, טהורות, are superior as food. In the majority, gentiles do not eat the meat of the other animals unless driven to do so by hunger. Keeping this in mind, G’d ordered Noach to take more of the ritually pure animals with him into the ark, to ensure that slaughtering some of them in due course would not deplete the available supply. The principal concern was to keep these species alive, i.e. לחיות זרע, to make sure man would always find a sufficient number of these animals available for his needs. G’d, in His wisdom knew that seven pairs of each would suffice, and that the ark would be unable to accommodate more than that number, and the amount of food needed to keep them alive for a whole year.
  איש ואשתו, male and female The words are not to be understood literally as “man and wife,” i.e. exclusive mates, but are a figure of speech. The best example and proof that the expression is not meant literally, is found in Exodus 26,3 אשה אל אחותה, describing certain boards of the Tabernacle being close matches. No one in their right mind would translate these words as “woman and her sister.” When the Torah here speaks in cumbersome language of מן הבהמה אשר איננו טהורה, meaning the ritually impure animals, instead of simply writing מן הבהמה הטמאה, this is not an unusual stylistic expression. We find similar cumbersome language in similar contexts in Deuteronomy 23,11אשר לא יהיה טהור or in Samuel I 20,24 כי לא טהור הוא. There are numerous more examples. Our sages in Pessachim 3 say that the Torah meant to demonstrate that it is worthwhile to write a few extra words in order to avoid the use of coarse or unseemly language.
  
  Verse 3
  
  גם מעוף השמים, we have explained this already on the previous verse. The meaning of the words: על פני כל הארץ, is similar to what we explained in connection with this expression in Genesis 1,25, where it meant that the animals concerned were distributed across all different parts of the globe. 
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  כי לימים עוד שבעה, G’d commanded both Noach and the animals to enter the ark already seven days prior to the onset of the deluge in order to assign to them their various accommodations and in order to get them used to their change in diet, especially the flesh eating beasts which had to adjust to a vegetarian diet. According to the Midrash (Sanhedrin 108) Metushelach had died during these days and G’d suspended the decree until after the days of mourning for him had expired. He had been a righteous man and it was no more than appropriate that his passing should be noted with appropriate eulogies and mourning rites. We know that these eulogies were spread over a period of seven days from Genesis 50,10 where, even though Yaakov had already been mourned for 70 days in Egypt prior to the transfer of his remains to the cave of Machpelah in the land of Canaan, he was eulogized again. We had already demonstrated that according to the data provided by the Torah Metushelach must have died at the time the deluge commenced.
  אנכי ממטיר, G’d did not make mention of the fountains of the earth bursting forth as it is a well known fact that this usually happens as a corollary to unusual amounts of rain falling on earth. The fact that the rainwater softens the earth’s crust, enables these subterranean wells held in check by the earth’s crust to burst forth without restraint. These additional waters then flood the surface of the globe. After all, as we explained already during the report of the creation, it is the natural tendency of water to inundate the dry areas of the globe. From a scientific perspective, all we have to remember is that the specific weight of water is lighter than that of earth, so that if allowed free reign, earth would always sink to the bottom of the water. The deluge therefore was not an unnatural event but it was a return to what had been natural until G’d had given a directive at the beginning of the third day that the waters concentrate in a single area to enable the earth to become visible. G’d had imposed unnatural restraints on the waters at that time, something that our sages have called an agreement made by Him with the waters, to comply with G’d’s commands when the need would arise.
  היקום, an expression which covers all living phenomena on the face of the globe. The root of the word is קום, the letter י being an addition, just as the root of the word יריבי in Psalms 35,1 is really ריב, quarrel. The expression כל היקום refers to all that remained on the surface of the dray land, excluding fish and the living creatures inside the ark.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  ויעש נח, he entered the ark together with the animals slated for survival, as mentioned in ויבא נח in verse 7.
  
  Verse 6
  
  ונח, The Torah tells us how old Noach was when he entered the ark on account of the deluge that had begun. The letter ו in front of the word נח means the same as the word כאשר. We find parallel constructions of this use of the letter ו in Psalms 59,16 אם לא ישבעו וילינו, “when they are not satisfied they complain,” as well as in Psalms 63 7 ושפתי רננות יהלל פי, “I sing praises when my lips are joyful.” [clearly, one does not sing with one’s lips. Ed.]
  והמבול היה מים, the word והמבול is used both as part of the previous part of the verse and as the end of the verse, i.e. “when the deluge which consisted of water took place, Noach was 600 years old.”
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  "Before the water..." - He went in before they came.  And we don't know the reason why he says in his interpretation that he was of little faith.  Because the text testifies that he was righteous and pure and that he did everything God commanded!
  מפני מי המבול, these words supply the reason why Noach entered. We do not understand the scholar in Bereshit Rabbah 32,6 who claimed that Noach lacked in faith because he did not enter the ark until after the rain forced him to. After all, the Torah had specifically stated that Noach was perfect and did all that G’d had commanded him.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  מן הבהמה, we explained this already on verse 2 of this chapter.
  
  Verse 9
  
  שנים שנים, in pairs. Seeing that a pair is made up of a male and a female, two pairs of each species came. כאשר צוה אלוקים את נח, the animals came of their own accord, but Noach brought them into the ark as G’d had commanded him to do.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  ויהי לשבעת הימים, at the end of the period which G’d had described previously as כי לימים עוד שבעה in verse 4.
  
  Verse 11
  
  בשנת שש מאות שנה לחיי נח, although Noach’s age had already been reported before, here the Torah adds further precise data about the month and the day of the month when the deluge commenced. בחודש השני, there is a disagreement between the scholars of the Talmud if the “second month” refers to a count based on the lunar year or the solar year. According to the view that the world was created in the month of Tishrey, (i.e. that Adam was created on the first of that moth), the month described here is the month of Marcheshvan, whereas according to the view that the universe was created in the month of Nissan, the deluge would have started in the month of Iyar. Rabbi Yonathan (Rosh Hashanah 11) decided that the correct version is that of Rabbi Eliezer who translated the verse בירח האתנים in Kings I 8,2 as the “ancient” month. It appears that this month was called איתנים, seeing it was the month (תשרי) in which the universe had been created. It was only after the Jewish people left Egypt, that they adopted the month of Nissan as the first month of their calendar year, (partially), as we know from Exodus 12,1-2. The verses there make sense only if the other nations had not used the month of Nissan as the first month of the calendar year.
  נבקעו, they began to crack open, and to emerge from below. As a result of tremendous amounts of rain having poured down from the skies, the crust of the earth was weakened, so that the waters underneath found it easy to burst forth in streams all over the place. This process, once started continued and accelerated and even when the 40 days of rain had stopped, the waters kept rising for 150 days due to the waters coming out of the bowels of the earth.
  תהום רבה, the noun תהום here is used as a feminine noun, as it is also in Ezekiel 31,4. However, the same noun also occurs in the masculine mode in Psalms 42,8.
  וארבות השמים נפתחו, the letter ו at the beginning of the word וארבות refers to something in addition. The Torah reports that after the “windows,” or storage chambers of the waters in the heavens had opened and poured down rain in great quantities, also the fountains in the earth below joined in flooding the surface of the globe. We already explained the procedure in our commentary on verse 4. The letter ו is used in a similar fashion in Isaiah 64,4 הן אתה קצפת ונחטא, “You are angry seeing that we have sinned.” Similar constructions are found in Judges 4,21 והוא נרדם ויעף “seeing that he was tired he fell asleep.” Or, Leviticus 9,22 וירד מעשות העולה, “seeing that he had performed the rites of the burnt-offering” he descended.” Seeing there was so much rain, the Torah, using a figure of speech, describes the source of the rain as the ארבות השמים נפתחו, “the windows of the sky having opened.” The term ארבות השמים also appears in Kings II 7,19 where the grain which had been in short supply is predicted by the skeptical captain as being inadequate to supply the necessary quantity even if all of the celestial windows were to be opened and it would rain down from there.
  
  Verse 12
  
  ויהי הגשם, as G’d had predicted so it came to pass; it kept raining non-stop for 40 days.
  
  Verse 13
  
  בעצם היום הזה, on this very date, the 17th day of the second month, after Noach had entered the ark. How do we reconcile this statement with the verses 4-6 from which we deduced that Noach entered the ark already 7 days before the onset of the deluge? We must conclude that whereas the animals entered the ark at the beginning of the seven day period, Noach, who entered with them and made things comfortable for them, still commuted between the ark and his regular home. It is possible that even the animals and the birds still grazed in the vicinity of the ark, knowing that as soon as the rains would start their place was only inside the ark. They did not look forward to having to spend any more time than absolutely necessary for their survival inside the ark. On the seventh day, i.e. the 17th of the month, they all entered the ark for the last time prior to the earth having dried sufficiently after the deluge to enable them to disembark. As soon as everybody was inside, Noach locked the exit door, as well as the window which he had built into the roof of the ark, seeing the waters of the deluge would commence to descend on this very day.
  
  Verse 14
  
  המה..כל צפור, כל כנף, when the Torah used the word עוף it referred to any creature that could fly, יעוף. Now the Torah became even more explicit, writing כל צפור, a generic term for all the larger birds. The expression צפור includes both the ritually pure birds as well as the ritually impure ones. כל כנף, the Torah adds more detail, writing that every creature that has wings was included in those entering the ark; alternatively, the word could be understood as an adjective, i.e. “every feathered creature.”
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  ויבאו שנים שנים, in pairs, just as the first time. They all showed up, not a single one had disappeared or joined another species.
  
  Verse 16
  
  כאשר צוה אותו אלוקים, to place every species in a separate cubicle.
  ויסגר ה' בעדו, He protected him against the chance of even a small hole opening in the ark as a result of the powerful rains which continued for forty days.
  
  Verse 17
  
  ויהי המבול ארבעים יום, day and night, as has been mentioned in verse 12. The night is usually included when the Torah speaks of יום, day. We have learned this already in Genesis 1,8 ויהי ערב ויהי בוקר יום אחד, “it was evening, it became morning, one day.”
  וירבו המים, when the waters had increased for forty days, and the waters of the underground wells were added to the rainwater, the latter were powerful enough to lift the ark and all the creatures inside. Due to its weight it had not risen from the ground until the force of the subterranean geysers lifted it, and the ark now floated on the waters. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  ויגברו המים, this verse adds a new dimension to what we have been told already, i.e. that the waters became turbulent. This is why the Torah adds the word מאד מאד twice, something most unusual. The repeated statement וירבו, that the waters still kept increasing in volume, is meant to tell us that the waters did not only increase in turbulence but also kept increasing in quantity. Whereas originally, the waters could only raise the ark, now, thanks to the turbulence, the ark was driven in different directions from where it had stood originally.
  
  Verse 19
  
  והמים גברו, this too is meant to give us additional information. This is why the words מאד מאד have been added, each of these words alerting us to an increasing power of the waters driving the ark. Now the waters were so powerful that they drove the ark far away from where it had stood originally. The second word מאד hints at the ark rising higher than any of the surrounding mountains.
  
  Verse 20
  
  חמש עשרה, this number describes how much above the highest mount the keel of the ark had risen. ויכוסו ההרים, even the tallest of the mountains were covered by at least 15 cubits of water.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  ויגוע...וכל האדם, the reason the word האדם is mentioned last, is to tell us that even man, who thanks to his intelligence and foresight could have been expected to find ways of escaping this disaster by taking refuge on top of the mountains, etc., was unable to save himself. The 15 cubits of water that covered even the tallest of the mountains made it impossible for any person to survive. The addition of the word וכל, includes even the giants drowned in these waters. The expression גויעה as a description of dying, refers to prompt death, as opposed to lingering death. People who drown die without prolonged agony.
  
  Verse 22
  
  כל אשר נשמת רוח חיים באפיו, both the words נשמת and רוח are in a construct mode belonging to the word חיים, as if the Torah had written נשמת חיים ורוח חיים. Other examples of such a construction are found in Ezekiel 31,16 מבחר וטוב לבנון, “the choicest and best of Lebanon.” Or, Job 20,17 נהרי נחלי דבש וחמאה, “the streams, the rivers of honey, the brooks of cream.” The Torah, when referring to man, speaks of נשמת, whereas when speaking of the animals it describes their essence of life as רוח חיים.
  בחרבה, but the fish on the earth did not die. They were, after all in their habitat. Furthermore, apart from the technical reason why they would not drown in the water, more importantly, seeing that they had never shared the same habitat as man, they had not learned of man’s corrupt ways and become corrupt themselves. We must contrast the implication here that the fish did not die, with definitive statements threatening the death of the fish of the sea as a result of G’d’s retribution to man for his iniquity both in Hoseah 4,3 וגם דגי הים יאספו, “also the fish in the sea will perish,” as well as the statement in Tzefaniah 1,3 אסף עוף השמים ודגי הים, “both the birds in the sky I will sweep away as well as the fish in the sea.” Either what these prophets threaten are exaggerations, or if we are to take these threats at face value, literally, these predictions apply to specific countries but not world-wide. If the prophet speaks about events which have happened since he issued the threat in G’d’s name, he referred to the fish adjoining a specific country being devastated by G’d, but this did not result in a species of fish being wiped out on a global scale. At the time of the deluge there was a wholesale destruction of life on the earth barring the seas, except for the few specimen of each species that survived in the ark. The specimen that were saved did not deserve to die any less than their counterparts, but they were saved in order not to make it necessary for G’d to create them anew after the deluge. It had been inappropriate for G’d to destroy the fish, or even to save them by means of a miracle, as they would not have been able to share the accommodation in the ark, and the ark itself would have sunk if part of it had been converted into an aquarium holding all the fish.
  
  Verse 23
  
  וימח, the word is in the kal conjugation similar to וישע in Genesis 4,4, but it is in a transitive mode. There are verbs which by definition are in a transitive mode though they appear in the conjugation kal. [prominent examples are such roots as נתן, to give, רצח, to murder, etc. Ed.] וימחו מן הארץ, if G’d wiped out these creatures, וימח, is it not obvious that they were wiped out, וימחו? So what do these words tell us? The repetition is to indicate that they were so thoroughly wiped out that not a trace of them remained. [scientists digging for their remains would not find any. Ed.] There were no ruins left behind, concerning which anyone could ever say: “this building had been owned or built by a certain individual.” Our sages in Sanhedrin 108 understand the repetition asוימח referring to their destruction in this physical material world, whereas the word וימחו refers to their obliteration also from the world to come.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  ויגברו, the Torah now describes for how many days this overwhelming force of the water continued to increase, i.e. for 150 days. Moses knew all this due to his holy spirit, [which included not only prophetic visions of the future, but knowledge of the past that no living man had seen. Ed.] We cannot assume that Noach, personally, was aware that the waters kept rising for 150 days and that he passed on this information throughout the ages. What instruments did Noach have to arrive at such a conclusion? All he knew for sure was that the rain had stopped after 40 days. No doubt he had implicit trust that G’d had told him the truth when He had announced that here would be continuous rain for 40 days. Still, he had ways of confirming this by his own observations. If there is a question, the question is what way did Noach have to determine that precisely 40 days had elapsed since the beginning of the deluge? Surely, inside the ark with its windows closed, he could not be sure when it was daylight outside and when it was night? This is assuming that even if he had been outside he could have told the difference between day and night, with the sun blocked out through the clouds all that time. Furthermore, how could he determine that after 40 days the waters had begun to recede? How could he know for sure that seven days had elapsed between the dispatch of the raven and the pigeon on two occasions? We must conclude that Noach was an exceedingly smart man who had prepared [during the preceding 120 years, presumably, Ed.] instruments, such as an hour glass, to measure the progress of time, so that he could measure hours and therefore day and night by means of these instruments, even if he could not see either the sun or the sky. There is no question that lamps were burning inside the ark by means of which one could find one’s way around, serving food, preparing meals and gaining access to where supplies had been stored. The 150 days that our verse speaks about were after the 40 days of continuous rain, which had concluded on the 27th day of Kislev. By adding 150 days from that date on we arrive at the 1st of Sivan, counting the months on the basis of the solar year of 365 days, allocating approximately 30 days to each month. [I know that the author’s arithmetic is problematic. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויזכר, there is no “remembering” as far as G’d is concerned, seeing that He could not have “forgotten” something. When the Torah, nonetheless, uses such terms as “He remembered” as applying to G’d, this is a figure of speech enabling the reader to employ his imagination and to realise that such wording introduces an activity by G’d now which had been latent for a while previously. We have numerous examples of such a term being used when a period of apparent inactivity by G’d had come to an end. Compare Leviticus 24,45 וזכרתי את בריתי, where the subject is that after a period of retribution, events occur which make it appear as if G’d had remembered His covenant only at that time. There are numerous other examples of this type. Here, it describes the fact that G’d concerned himself with the great discomfort experienced by all the people and creatures in the ark after such a long period of being cooped up.
  ויעבר אלוקים רוח על הארץ וישכו המים, G’d made this wind blow over the surface of the globe in order to prevent the waters from rising any further. We find the word שככה used in a similar sense, i.e. suppressing turbulence of matter or mind in Esther 7,10, and in Samuel II 11,20.the words תעלה חמת  describe the exact opposite. The King’s reaction to Haman’s hanging calmed him down, whereas anger, turbulent emotions coming to the surface are described as “rising”, תעלה. The word שככה is therefore aptly translated as something abating.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  ויסכרו, they were shut, i.e. prevented from adding further turbulence on the surface of the waters which had flooded the globe. As a result of the wind blowing, the earth gradually began to dry out, the moisture being blown away, gradually. However, these subterranean wells were not all of them shut off. This enabled some of the waters on the surface of the globe to flow back gradually into the bowels of the earth from which they had come forth. While it is true that at the time these waters had risen to the surface they had found many more apertures through which to rise, and their appearance on the surface had been rapid, now it seeped back at a much slower pace.
  וארבות השמים, those “windows” of the heavens had already closed after the forty days of rainfall. Now no more water inundated the earth either from above or from below.
  ויכלא הגשם, the Torah mentions this to tell us that not even normal rainfall still occurred during this period when the earth returned to normal.
  ויסכרו, the word is spelled with the letter כ,.which in this instance is used instead of the customary letter ג, in the root סגר. The construction is not unique, as we also find it in Psalms 63,12 כי יסכר פי דובר שקר, “when the mouth of liars is stopped.”
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  וישבו המים..הלוך ושוב, this formulation described the gradual nature of the waters abating and the water level on the globe falling. The period this took corresponded to the 40+150 days described during which the waters rose, giving us a total of 340 days. When you add the 3 times 7 days which elapsed for the 3 missions of the raven and the pigeon respectively, you have a total of 361 days, very close to the 365 days described in the Torah as the period which elapsed from the onset of the rain until Noach left the ark. The beginning of the return to normal commenced on the second day of Sivan. As soon as the waters had peaked, they began to recede.
  
  Verse 4
  
  ותנח התבה בחדש השביעי, this is the month of Sivan being the seventh month counting from the end of the rain descending which occurred in Kislev. Even though, as we know, the rains had begun to fall in the month of Marcheshvan, the Torah speaks here of a count beginning in Kislev seeing that the end of the rains and the end of the ark floating around have something in common in terms of stages of the deluge ending. על הרי אררט, perhaps those were the tallest mountain range, or it happened that the ark was in that region on the day in question. At any event, the mountain range of Ararat is one of the highest mountain ranges that we know of. What is clear is that lower mountain ranges on earth did not become visible to people in the ark until the tenth month. The meaning of the line is that the process of the waters diminishing continued progressively until at the beginning of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible. These “mountains” were actually only hills. The process continued unabated. The “tenth” month mentioned here was the month of Av, seeing it was the tenth month counting from the month during which the rains had started, Marcheshvan.
  
  Verse 5
  
  והמים היו הלוך וחסור, the waters kept receding. This construction is not unique, as we encounter it in Ezekiel 1,34 והחיות רצוא ושוב.
  עד החודש העשירי, this does not mean that during this month the waters had already receded completely; what happened was that the waters receded progressively until relatively low mountain tops became visible. The process continued further. The “tenth” month described was the month of Av, seeing it was the tenth, counting from the month of Marcheshvan when the rains had started falling.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  ויהי מקץ ארבעים יום, these words refer to the end of forty days after the waters had begun to recede; personally, I feel that the period described dates back to the day when the ark had come to rest on Mount Ararat. How else would Noach have been able to determine that the waters had begun to recede, seeing that all around him there was only water? Once the ark had come to rest on Mount Ararat Noach could measure how much more of the mountain was becoming visible beneath the ark. Noach knew that the ark had come to rest on something solid. He then waited another 40 days to give the waters a chance to recede still further, before he saw any point in sending out a bird (raven) to determine if that bird could locate a tree which was exposed above the water.
  את חלון התבה, the window of the ark which he had made before departure. The window described here as חלון is identical with what had been described by G’d as צוהר in 6,16. He sent the raven out from this widow. We may legitimately ask that if Noach knew the day on which the rains had stopped as we stated earlier, why did he not open the window of the ark immediately, seeing that no more rain was falling? We may answer that Noach was still worried that the turbulent waves surrounding the ark would come crashing through such an open window. This is why he waited another 40 days until such waves were much below the lower decks of the ark and posed no threat.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  וישלח, why did Noach send out the raven? He had said to himself that the raven is a flesh eating bird and will most likely find remains of dead animals to feed on. [our author understands the word עורב as referring to what is better known as the “black raven,” a type of vulture (corvus cornix) which feeds on carcasses. Ed.] If the bird would return with such remains in its beak, Noach would know that the waters had receded somewhat. The raven returned without anything in its beak, so that Noach did not learn anything new about the state of the waters. The raven returned to its nest, leaving from time to time to see if the situation outside the ark enabled it to survive on the outside. It carried on in this fashion until the surface of the earth had dried out. In Bereshit Rabbah 33,5 the sages view the fact that the raven was chosen as the experiment by Noach in a different light. The blackness of that bird is paraphrased in Psalms 105,28 where the psalmist writes שלח חשך ויחשיך, “he sent darkness and it became dark.” [a figure of speech, meaning that if one pins one’s hopes on something black, one is likely to receive darkness in return, i.e. not achieve one’s objective. Ed.] Seeing that this mission of the raven had proved totally unproductive, after waiting seven days, Noach sent out a pigeon. A pigeon is known to have a well developed sense of imagination and direction, finding its way back after having flown over a route only once or twice. It knows that it was dispatched for a purpose, i.e. to receive some information in return for having been dispatched [we know of carrier pigeons in our time, but if there had been such already in the days of Noach is highly speculative. Ed.] Moreover, it is in the character of pigeons to be attached to their home base, so that they can be depended on to return to their nest. When we have been told in Shabbat 49 that the wings of the pigeon protect it, the meaning is that seeing that the pigeons are being raised as carrier pigeons, transporting messages attached to its wings, the fact that their owners need them alive is their insurance against being slaughtered prematurely. Noach, in sending out the pigeon, was therefore convinced that the bird would return to the ark even if there were places on earth in the meantime where it could make its nest. ולא..ותשב אליו אל התבה,  the Torah describes the return of the pigeon both as a return to Noach, i.e. אליו, and as a return to the ark, i.e. אל התבה. Why was the return of the pigeon described in such detail? It is first described as a return to Noach, seeing that the fact that it did not bring back any bit of vegetation indicated that it had been unable to find any, i.e. had not performed its mission and brought Noach information. Secondly, it did not re-enter the ark as the raven had done. It remained perched on the roof of the ark. It was unhappy at not having brought back some kind of message to Noach. This is why Noach stretched out his hand and brought it back into the ark. The amount of time that elapsed between the dispatch of the raven, and the dispatch of the pigeon, was seven days. How did we arrive at this information? ויחל עוד שבעת ימים אחרים, the addition of the word אחרים, “others,” proves that there had already been a waiting period of seven days 
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  ויחל, the root of this word is חול, it is used in the transitive mode, הפעיל, similar to Judges 3,25 ויחולו עד בוש, “they waited a long time.” 
  
  Verse 11
  
  ותבא...לעת ערב, it came (back) at evening time of the same day it had been dispatched.
  טרף, both vowels in this word are kametz, indicating that the word is an adjective similar to having been spelled טרוף, as a participle. The word implies that the pigeon had torn this leaf off an olive tree with its beak in order to bring it back to Noach. This is the reason why the Torah used the word טרף, to show that Noach realised that it had torn it off the tree and broken it from the olive. [not just from a branch. Ed.] This was not a leaf which had been found floating on the surface of the water.
  כי קלו המים, that they had decreased in quantity. When something is in short supply it is often referred to as being קל, whereas when something is in ample supply it is called כבד. Examples of this are found in Job 14,21 יכבדו בניו,”his sons become ‘heavyweights’ (important, of consequence) We have the expression מקנה כבד, a great deal of cattle (Exodus 12,38) or חיל כבד, an army of numerous soldiers (Kings II 18,17). Why did the pigeon choose a leaf from an olive tree? Perhaps it was the first tree it encountered after flying away from the ark. Or, seeing that the leaves of the olive tree stay on the tree all year round it was the most likely leaf available. According to Sanhedrin 108 the pigeon reasoned that even a bitter tasting leaf eaten in freedom was preferable to being cooped up in luxurious surroundings. In the final analysis, the pigeon preferred to entrust its future to G’d rather than to man.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  וייחל עוד, the word is in a passive mode, the root being יחל. If it had been in a hitpael mode, the letter י should have the vowel patach underneath it, but the fact is that it has the vowel kametz.
  ולא יספה שוב אליו עוד, this is when Noach realised  that the surface of the earth had dried sufficiently and that the pigeon had found a resting place on earth as well as on many trees so that it did not bother to come back to him. This happened in the 601st year of Noach’s life, seeing that the Torah mentions that it was on the first of the first month of that year. (verse 13) Noach’s 600th year had been completed on the 30th of Ellul, and he had entered the 601st year of his life on the first of Tishrey, which is the first month of the year. On the 17th day of the second month he had completed a full year’s stay in the ark. Even though the surface of the earth was “dry” in the sense that it was no longer covered by water, it was still too muddy, and the surface was misleading, seeing that beneath the immediate surface it was soft, spongy. It was not yet ready for walking on without risking that one would break through a very thin veneer of dry earth. This is why G’d had not yet commanded him to leave the ark (until the 27th of that month) At that time, as testified by the word יבשה, the earth had dried sufficiently to make using it as one’s habitat a safe endeavour. Noach did not want to leave the ark until he had been commanded to do so by G’d. He knew that G’d would issue such a command, just as He had at the time commanded him to enter the ark.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  [Began] to dry. It was still like mud, dry on the surface but soft underneath. Noach knew that Hashem would tell them when it was safe to go out.
  
  Verse 14
  
  ובחודש השני בשבעה ועשרים יום לחודש, this is the month of Marcheshvan Our sages (at the end of section 33 of Bereshit Rabbah say that these 10 days represent the 10 days which the solar year is longer than the lunar year. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  וידבר ...צא מן התבה אתה ואשתך, in this verse, as opposed to the phraseology used when he was bidden to enter the ark, Noach and his wife were mentioned together, i.e. an indication that henceforth the mating of man and wife was once again permitted.
  
  Verse 17
  
  כל החיה, a general clause followed by a specific clause. The meaning of the expression כל החיה is “all the living creatures,” as in מכל בשר on a previous occasion, whereas the meaning of the words later on in 9,10 is the same. The verse speaks about the life-force {abstract, i.e. נפש החיה, often equated in the Torah with the life-blood, Ed.] hence the prefixes ב before the words עוף, בהמה כל הרמש.
  הוצא, the letter ו in the middle instead of the letter י is not unusual in verbs whose first root letter is supplanted by the letter ו. Nonetheless the ו is read as if it were a י. We have a similar construction in Psalms 5,9 הישר לפני דרכך, which is spelled הושר, “make Your way straight before me.” Proverbs 4,25 יישירו נגדך is another such example. The meaning of the instruction is: “take them out just as you have brought them in!” 
  ושרצו בארץ, a duplication of the blessing/command after the living creatures had been created (Genesis 1,22. The reason why this time G’d uses the word שרץ previously applied to the multiple births by fish, (1,20) is because this time only a very few of each species left the ark so that they needed the encouragement by being told they would once more be very numerous. ושרצו ופרו ורבו, this is a most unusual sequence, beginning with the word שרצו, implying the very least individuality, switching to relative individuality by the use of the word פרו, implying single births, and ending with the word רבו implying single births at frequent intervals (compare our comments in chapter 1 20 and 28 on the meaning of these terms. In Bereshit Rabbah 34,8 the emphasis in this verse is on the word בארץ, meaning that whereas it had been forbidden to engage in reproduction while in the ark, now this could all be made up for. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  ויצא נח, the fact that the Torah, in this verse, separates the females from the males, may hint that the females were afraid to leave the ark until after the males had left and assured themselves and them that it was possible again to live outside the ark.
  
  Verse 19
  
  כל החיה, as we explained on verse 17. הרמש וכל העוף, followed by כל הרומש על הארץ, including both the domesticated animals and the free-roaming beasts.
  למשפחותיהם, according to their species, every species separately.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  ויבן נח, at the very site where he had come out of the ark. It is possible that he left the ark on Mount Ararat, where the ark had been reported as coming to rest (7,2), or that the ark had moved away from there after having come to rest there temporarily. Or, Noach, after exiting from the ark walked a distance before he found a suitable site or cave to establish a temporary residence. As soon as he found a place to start farming, he built an altar to thank G’d for his and his family’s deliverance. According to Bereshit Rabbah 34,9 this was the great altar in Jerusalem where Adam had brought his offering, and this is what Psalms 69,32 refers to when David speaks of ותיטיב לה' משור פר מקרין מפריס, “which will please the Lord more than oxen, bulls with horns, and hooves.” 
  ויקח מכל הבהמה הטהורה, the free roaming beasts which chewed the cud and had split hooves were included in the expression מכל הבהמה הטהורה as an expression of gratitude for his survival. He did not take any of the ritually impure beasts as they were not fit for him to eat from except if there would not be any other meat available. (compare our comments on 7,2) If they were not fit for human consumption, how could one offer them for consumption by G’d on His altar?
  ויעל עולות במזבח, there is a disagreement among our sages if Noach only offered burnt-offerings or if he also offered peace-offerings, i.e. offerings part of which may be eaten by the owners. (Zevachim 116)
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  'וירח ה, the Torah uses a figure of speech to facilitate our understanding of G’d’s reaction, seeing that G’d has no nose and therefore cannot smell in the accepted sense of the word. When in Psalms 50,13 the psalmist speaks of G’d asking if He would “eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of he goats,” this is also a figure of speech, of course. David most certainly did not suggest that such a thing were possible in the literal meaning of the words. The meaning of such phrases is that the offerings were pleasing to G’d as if, if we had been speaking of human beings, they smelled good and tasted good. The proof that G’d had accepted the offering and was well disposed toward all His creatures was the fire which descended from heaven and consumed the offerings. This is what David referred to in Psalms 104,31 when he described G’d as ישמח ה' במעשיו, “that the Lord took pleasure in His creatures,” as opposed to Genesis 6,7 when we were told ויתעצב ה' אל לבו, “that the Lord was saddened in His heart.”
  את ריח הניחוח, a noun belonging to the same category  as ניצוץ in Isaiah 1,31 meaning that Noach had succeeded in calming down G’d’s anger at the world, (His creatures).
  ויאמר ה' אל לבו, He foresaw in His mind that He would not again have to wreak wholesale destruction on earth seeing that it would not happen again that the majority of the human species would be as depraved as those before the deluge. The report of what happened during the generation of the deluge was handed down from generation to generation and served as a warning against man again becoming as corrupt as at that time. G’d would not again punish the community at large on account of depraved individuals, but He would punish all the individuals who are wicked, as He demonstrated when He destroyed Sodom and its satellites.
  בעבור האדם, on account of the wicked people among mankind; rather those will be killed so that the earth will be at the disposal of the good people. If small parts of the earth would indeed be destroyed as happened in the case of Sodom and that part of the Jordan valley, this cannot be considered as a destruction of the earth. Such destructions will be understood as the destruction of that particular population including the earth they had dwelled on.
  כי יצר לב האדם רע מנעוריו, this urge is called יצר as it was formed at the same time as the fetus. The reason why the Torah writes מנעוריו, literally “from his youth,” is that the evil urge is with man from an earlier age than the יצר הטוב, the impulse to do good. The latter urge becomes active in man only with the advent of maturity, at age of 13, as we know from Job 11,12 ואיש נבוב ילבב ועיר פרא אדם יולד, “a hollow man will get understanding, when a wild ass is born a man.” The meaning of that line is that man is like wild ass from the time of birth, without restraining influences, following his instinct rather than being guided by his intelligence. As he grows older, becomes more mature, forces known as the יצר טוב begin to assert themselves Seeing that man had been formed without the benefit of the impulse to do what is good, useful, rather than what is designed to gratify his baser urges, as G’d decided in His wisdom to do, seeing that man was part of the overall scheme of nature, he will become guilty of sin again and again, with the exception of an infinitely small percentage of people. Therefore, G’d would not continue to punish mankind at large on account of most people acting out their natural inclinations. According to Sanhedrin 91 the Roman governor Antoninus asked Rabbi Yehudah hanassi, his frequent companion, at what point the “evil urge” entered the human being. He wanted to know if this occurred at the moment of birth or at the moment when the fetus assumed a certain shape, say 40 days after fertilisation of the ovum. Rabbi Yehudah answered that this occurred already at the earlier of these two points in time. Antoninus found it difficult to accept this, saying that if it were so the fetus would keep hitting out at his mother while in her womb, and as a result, she would give birth prematurely. Rabbi Yehudah quoted as his source Genesis 7,7 where G’d told Kayin that the evil urge was lying already at the entrance of the birth canal, מפתח חטאת רובץ. Antoninus countered that from our verse here it seems that the evil urge commences his activity only after the child can be called נער, a lad. Rabbi Yehudah drew Antoninus’ attention to the defective spelling in the word נעריו, which if Antoninus were correct, should have had the letter ו after the letter ע, i.e. making נעוריו, after he had attained the status of a human being. Seeing that this letter is missing, this is a clear hint that this רע within the human being predates his birth.  Rabbi Yudan, enlarging on this unusual spelling, plus the fact that the words לא אסיף are repeated twice in this verse, stated that such repetition, when reported in G’d’s name, is always an equivalent to an oath by G’d, i.e. something that He will not change for any reason This is why the prophet Isaiah correctly quoted G’d in Isaiah 54,9 as saying “I have sworn to Myself not to bring on another deluge of water such as in the days of Noach.”
  
  Verse 22
  
  עוד כל ימי הארץ, Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes that the formulation of כל ימי הארץ here is proof that the duration of this earth is finite, in fact that G’d had already set a time limit to its existence.
  זרע וקציר, the year is divided into basically 2 periods, the time to plant and the time to harvest. In the immediately following words the year is divided into 4 seasons. Still later the Torah speaks of the alternating periods of day and night. The meaning of all this is that during the four seasons the relative length of day and night constantly change, summer and winter being indicated by the relative longer periods of daylight and darkness, depending on the part of earth on which one lives, whereas even in higher latitudes when there is no true summer or in the equatorial zones when there is no true cold season, the relative length of days and nights are a guide to the season, i.e. whether it is time to sow, etc. Regardless of which season, the combined total of darkness and daylight always amounts to the same number of hours, minutes, etc, i.e. a day has 24 hours of 60 minutes each..
  לא ישבתו, the fact that G’d promises that such regularity will not cease in the future, is proof that during the deluge the pattern of day and night and seasonal change had not been as it is now. Noach may not even have been able to tell if it was day or night while he was in the ark, or at least while the rain was still descending during the first 40 days. According to Bereshit Rabbah 34,11 in the view of Rabbi Yochanan, none of the celestial bodies performed their normal functions during the entire year that Noach was in the ark. Rabbi Yonathan said to Rabbi Yochanan that the celestial bodies did perform their functions, but that Noach was unable to derive any advantage from this, as he could not be guided by what he could not see. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehushua, disagreed on another aspect of the meaning of our verse, Rabbi Eliezer claiming that the word לא ישבתו have to be understood as being in the past tense, i.e. the functions of the celestial bodies had not been suspended at all, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua understood the words לא ישבתו as referring only to the future. Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar, specifying further, claimed that the second half of the month of Tishrey, the whole month of Marcheshvan, and the first half of the month of Kislev are devoted to sowing and planting, whereas the second half of Kislev, the whole month of Tevet and half the month of Shevat are considered winter. The second half of the month of Shevat, the whole month of Adar, and the first half of Nissan are called “cold.” [i.e. what the Torah described as קר. Ed.] This is followed by two months of spring, by two months of summer, and two months of “heat.” referred to in our verse as חם.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויברך אלוקים, even though they had enjoyed G’d’s blessing already ever since the creation of mankind, the renewal of life on earth reassured them by their receiving a new blessing also. The blessing consisted primarily of the promise that they would once again be fruitful and multiply.
  ויאמר להם, to the sons of Noach, indirectly, who communicated the blessing to his sons. [seeing that Noach did not have any children after the deluge, the blessing had not included him. Ed.] Alternately, we must assume that Noach’s sons had prophetic status so that G’d communicated with them directly.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  ומוראכם, this formulation is parallel to the words וכבשוה, which also referred to dominance over other creatures on earth (Genesis 1,28).
  וחתכם, the root of this word is חתת, and it appears in this sense in Job 6,21 or 41,25. The grammatical construction is similar to פת-פתים-פתכם. 
  בכל אשר תרמוש האדמה, in the first half of the verse the Torah employed the preposition על, i.e. על כל חית הארץ, whereas now it uses the prefix ב as preposition. Both prepositions are perfectly normal in classical Hebrew. It is as if the Torah had written בכל חיה שתרמוש על האדמה.
  ובכל דגי הים, even though the fish do not share the same habitat as you, and are therefore presumed to have nothing to fear from you, G’d puts the fear of man in them also, regardless of their relative immunity from man. בידכם נתנו, the Torah adds these words to include reptiles, etc., be they large of small, whose movement on earth is very slow, seeing that they too move on the face of the globe. The reason why the Torah describes their movements as תרמוש in the feminine mode, is to remind us that each of these creatures possesses a נפש, a non-tangible life force, and this life-force called נפש is a feminine noun. The basic definition of “life” is the ability to move from one place to another. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  כל רמש אשר הוא חי, the word אשר which follows the word רמש lacks the connecting letter ו. This is not something unique, seeing we find it in Chabakuk 3,11 שמש ירח, “sun and moon,” instead of שמש וירח, or in Exodus 1,1 ראובן שמעון, instead of ראובן ושמעון, and many other such examples. אשר הוא חי, these words refer to the fish. It is also possible to understand these words as if the letter ו had not been omitted at all, so that the word רמש would be a collective term for all living creatures (as in Genesis 1,21) so that the additional words אשר הוא חי, would compare living creatures now to vegetation in Genesis 1,30 when G’d permitted only ירק עשב, the higher ranking plants as food for the human species. The fruit of the trees in the Garden of Eden were also included in the term ירק עשב, seeing that man had been permitted to eat any plant that grew out of the earth. I explained the meaning of those words on Genesis 1,11
  
  Verse 4
  
  אך בשר, even though I have permitted you all moving (living) creatures as food, you must not eat those animals while they are still alive, i.e. as long as the flesh and the blood are part of one whole you must not eat such tissue. First you have to slaughter the animal. It would be too cruel to simply cut living tissue from an animal and consume it while the animal it has been taken from is suffering pain. It appears reasonable to assume that Noach was permitted to use the animals as his food, seeing that but for his feeding these animals for a whole year in the ark they would have long since died, so that in effect they owed their lives to him. Basically, all the animals had been created to serve man’s needs, whether as beasts of burden, etc., or as food.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  אך את דמכם לנפשותיכם, even though I have permitted the blood of animals, i.e. you may kill animals, I have not permitted the animals to kill you, seeing that I have given them into your control, and not vice versa.
  לנפשותיכם, the meaning of this word is that if an animal kills a human being it becomes guilty of death itself, unless I use the animal to exact retribution form wicked people, as in the case of the bears who killed the youngsters who had mocked the prophet Elisha (Kings II 20,23, or Kings I 13, entire chapter). [the fact that the lion had not touched the corpse of the man he had killed, showed that the lion had acted as G’d’s messenger, had not acted from impulse in order to still its hunger. Ed] Also in the תוכחה in Leviticus 26,22 G’d specifically announces that He would use the free roaming beasts as His agents to wreak vengeance of the Jewish people who had sinned deliberately and for a long period of time. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 34,13) explain the words דמכם לנפשותיכם, as a warning not to commit suicide (especially to people who thereby expect to escape G’d’s retribution) The message is that the person who killed himself will be held accountable in the hereafter. They said further that the word אך at the beginning of the verse excludes such apparent suicides as Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah, being prepared to become martyrs to demonstrate their faith in the G’d in heaven 
  מיד כל חיה אדרשנו, the offending animal which killed a human being will itself be killed by another animal. Even though the principle of reward and punishment is not generally applicable to any species other than the human species, seeing that only man possesses intelligence so that he can be held responsible for his sins, when animals attack human beings G’d did restrict their instincts, and holds them responsible for not respecting the צלם אלוקים, the divine image in which man has been created. Chabakuk 2,17 phrases this principle as ושד בהמות יחיתן, “the destruction of beasts will overwhelm you.” Moreover, when speaking of retribution, we read in Kings I 13,28 ולא שבר את החמור, “nor had it mauled the ass.” [this proved that when the lion had killed the man of G’d, it had acted as an instrument of G’d’s justice. Ed]
  ומיד האדם, if man kills man, G’d reserves the right to exact retribution from him either in this life or in the hereafter.
  
  Verse 6
  
  שפך..באדם ישפך, G’d says: “I ,personally, will demand satisfaction on behalf of the slain person if there are no witnesses who can testify against the murderer, so that a human tribunal will execute the guilty person. This is the meaning of the extra word באדם; i.e. by means of the judges.
  כי בצלם אלוקים עשה את האדם, for he has been set apart from all other creatures in the universe, so much so that G’d personally made עשה, him in His image by endowing him with an intelligent brain. This is why humans are also held responsible for killing fellow humans, as they, no less than the animals, destroy a creature that had been made in G’d’s own image. If man had been forbidden to kill inferior creatures for food until given special permission to do so now after the deluge, how much more sacrosanct is the life of a human being who was created in G’d’s image. Remember that it required a special permission by G’d for man and beast to use even the plants as food for themselves, although the plants are inferior even to the animals. Keeping all this in mind, it is clear that in order for any creature being allowed to destroy a human being a special directive from G’d ordering this was required. This is why Moses in the chapters dealing with the retribution for the Jewish people, both in Bechukotai, and in Ki Tavo¸describes that G’d will issue such instructions to the beasts, just as He had done during the plagues (#4) in Egypt when the wild beasts invaded human habitations and wreaked havoc. When man, due to his own deeds, forfeits his claim to wearing the image of G’d on his face, the beasts no longer seeing such an image, feel free to attack such humans. An unborn fetus does not possess this divine image, i.e. it has no discernible intelligence. Intelligence is that which makes a slave obey his master, seeing that he would suffer if he did not; therefore when a human being disobeys his master (G’d), he displays lack of intelligence, i.e. can no longer demand to be treated like human being. [I have paraphrased the last few lines. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  ואתם פרו ורבו, why does the Torah repeat this, seeing we have been told this already in verse 1 of this chapter? Seeing the Torah had spoken of bloodshed, a sin resulting in depopulating the earth, it was important to emphasise that it is man’s task to populate the earth, not the reverse. In fact, this is now not only a blessing but a positive commandment. The expression שרצו means that mankind should strive to produce offspring in large numbers, something that happened with the Israelites after they came to Egypt. We have evidence of this in Exodus 1,7 where the proliferation of
  
  Verse 8
  
  ויאמר אל נח ואל בניו, either Noach’s sons were also prophets, or G’d spoke to Noach to tell his sons, as we had discussed already in connection with verse 1. The reason for the word אתו, with him, was to ensure that the sons would know that the blessing applied both to them and to their offspring.
  
  Verse 9
  
  ואני הנני מקים, the letter ו before the word אניintroduces an addition to the previous words ואתם פרו ורבו, meaning if you will do your part in trying to populate the earth, I for My part promise to keep My covenant with you, making sure that life on earth will not again be drastically disrupted. G’d can be relied upon to keep His promises and assurances, as distinct from man, as has been pointed out already by Bileam in Numbers 23, 19.
  
  Verse 10
  
  ואת כל הנפש אשר אתכם, the ones which had been in the ark with you; this is spelled out shortly by the words מכל יוצאי התבה, “I will make a covenant with all the species of creatures that came out of the ark. None of these species will again become subject to extinction.” G’d said further: לכל חית הארץ, in order to make the meaning of what had been written before perfectly clear. In Bereshit Rabbah it is pointed out that these words include all the subsequent generations of these animals, just as the subsequent generations of Noach’s sons and their wives were included in the blessing as we know from the words ואת זרעכם אחריכם, “and your offspring after you.”
  
  Verse 11
  
  והקימותי, earlier the formulation had been הנני מקים. At that time G’d had not mentioned the substance of the covenant. Now the Torah spells out what G’d had had in mind with the line (in verse 9) ואני הנני מקים את בריתי. The promise not to wipe out כל בשר is parallel to the promise not to flood the entire universe with water again. In both instances G’d reserves the right to flood part of the earth or to destroy part of mankind. The promise does include the assurance that rain of the dimensions and duration experienced during the deluge will not occur again, ever. The words לשחת את הארץ are an illustration of what would happen if G’d would bring on another deluge.
  
  Verse 12
  
  ויאמר אלוקים, to both Noach and his sons, that the visible sign that they need not worry about experiencing another deluge when He had occasion to make rain fall on earth, is the rainbow, which will serve as such a sign of the covenant for all future generations.
  
  Verse 13
  
  את קשתי נתתי בענן, the reason why G’d speaks of “My” rainbow, instead of “the rainbow,” is because He had now made it the visible reminder of the covenant between Himself and mankind, just as He had said ביני ובין הארץ, “between Me and the earth,” or as the prophet Ezekiel refers to this in Ezekiel 1,28 כמראה הקשת, “as the manifestation of the rainbow.” The prophet considered the vision he had seen in that chapter as comparable to the spectacle of the rainbow, i.e. something of which he stood in awe. Concerning this the question is raised in Bereshit Rabbah 35,3 that the word קשתי means מוקש לי, “an hidden obstacle for Me, a stumbling block for Me., [If I understand this correctly, the problem is if the rainbow as a reminder is supposed to frighten man into conducting himself properly so that no deluge will be necessary, or if he is to think only of the promise that there will not be another flood, just as now after the rain the sunlight appears in many different colours, something beautiful and certainly encouraging. Ed] Nowadays, the emphasis is only on the promise, as we have never experienced a deluge, unlike the sons of Noach for whom each time a rainbow appeared it reminded them of the horrible ordeal from which they had been saved.
  נתתי, is in the future mode, as for instance when Avraham speaks of money in payment for the cave of Machpelah in Genesis 23,13, when he says “נתתי כסף השדה, “I have given the money for the field,” when the deal had not even been completed yet, and certainly no payment had been made. It is best to explain the formulation here as did Rav Saadyah gaon, when he said that G’d, in speaking of what had thus far been exclusively “My” rainbow, He would from this time on share with mankind, also reinforcing the rays of the sun as a blessing for man and the crops in the field. Every time rain would cease, and the rainbow would appear in the sky or on the horizon, man would be reminded of G’d’s promise not to bring on another deluge. The word נתתי in a distant past mode, actually emphasises that the phenomenon of the rainbow had existed already since the six days of creation. During the days of the deluge the rainbow had not appeared, first because the rains had been incessant, and at any rate, there was no one to appreciate it. Now, G’d promises that there would be a regular appearance of the rainbow after every rainfall. In Pessachim 54 the rainbow is listed as one of the phenomena created at dusk immediately before the original Sabbath, seeing there has not been anything new created after the 6 days of creation. The references to the rainbow have been repeated only in order to impress upon people’s minds that it is a powerful sign of G’d’s covenant.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  והיה בענני ענן, I will place clouds for a variety of reasons.
  בענני, this word, though without the dagesh in the letter נ is in the conjugation kal. It is not at all unusual that it appears without the dagesh. The reason why G’d repeats the word ענןhaving already said that He speaks of having provided clouds, is to underline the importance of that activity, just as the line מרקר קיר, “tumult and din” in Isaiah 22,5 or ותשרש שרשיה in Psalms 80,10 “and uprooted its roots.”
  ונראתה, it will be seen by people.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  וזכרתי, the Torah again uses a formulation we as human are familiar with, although, as pointed out repeatedly, G’d does not need to remember, never having forgotten. The same formulation is found in Leviticus 26,42, and in numerous other verses throughout the Torah. They are inaccurate approximations, so that we can understand G’d’s reaction in terms familiar to us.
  ולא יהי עוד המים, the meaning is similar to the formulation in Leviticus 11,38 כי יותן מים על זרע, “when water falls on plants (seed), etc.”
   The meaning of the word למבול, is that there will not be so much rain that anyone will have reason  to fear another deluge. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  והיתה הקשת בענן, it will be there as a sign, וראיתיהו לזכור, a figure of speech, as already commented upon by us elsewhere. Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes that actually, the rainbow is not a passing phenomenon but is in the clouds or sky at all times but at times is visible only to G’d.
  בין אלוקים, as if the Torah had written this in the first person, i.e. ביני as earlier in verse 12. This formulation of G’d speaking of Himself in the third person is also found in Exodus 24,1 ואל משה אמר עלה אל ה', “and to Moses He had said: “ascend to G’d, etc.” The word אלוקים is used as G’d’s attribute when He wants to be perceived as judge and leader. It is usually found when the generation concerning whom this attribute is used was found wanting, was disobedient.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  ויאמר אלוקים, G’d repeated His blessings a third time in order to reassure him beyond doubt. According to Bereshit Rabbah 38 our paragraph contains 6 covenants which were meant to correspond to the six days of the creation. If you were to question that actually there are 7, the answer is that the first one was needed in its own right, and cannot be used to relate to other matters. [what are meant by “6 covenants,” are the 6 (respectively 7) separate utterances reported by G’d in this paragraph, utterances which could have been considerably condensed by the use of longer sentences and conjunctive letters. Ed.]
  
  Verse 18
  
  ויהיו בני נח, a reminder that when Noach’s sons came out of the ark they did not have any offspring as yet.  They begat offspring only afterwards, and from their children mankind as we know it is descended.
  וחם הוא אבי כנען, this is mentioned as background to the story of Noach and the, wine.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  שלשה...נפצה, the root of the word is נפץ, an intransitive verb appearing also in Samuel I 13,11 כי נפץ העם מעלי, “the people were leaving me.” The word is used in this sense also in respect of the people dispersing over the earth on the occasion of the tower of Babylon and its collapse.
  
  Verse 20
  
  ויחל נח איש האדמה, we had already pointed out in 5,29 that Noach was a farmer and excelled in this vocation. Now, after the deluge, he acquired additional expertise in combining different strains of grapes and making wine out of the grapes. Up until this time people had used grapes only as a fruit to eat, and had not learned how to make intoxicating wine. When the Torah writes ויחל ויטע, this means that he began by planting grapes and ended by making wine. The expression ויחל is usually associated with the first stage תחלה, in a process requiring several stages. Alternately, the word ויחל is used in the same sense as in Samuel I 14,35 החל לבנות מזבח, “it was the first altar which he (Saul) established” Or, the meaning of the word ויחל may be similar to Joshua 3,7 אחל גדלך, “I will establish your greatness.” and similar to Genesis 10,8 הוא החל להיות גבור, “he was the first to become a hero, a warrior.” Or, the word simply means “he began with this work of farming, as part of which he planted a vineyard.” The line may simply mean that Noach began to plant a vineyard, [in which case we gain the impression that this was his major concern at this time. Ed.] What leads to all these explanations is the repetition of two verbs in close succession ויחל ...ויטע, without the Torah telling us what Noach had done. We have such a construction in Genesis  28,10 ויצא יעקב מבאר שבע וילך חרנה, “Yaakov left Beer Shevah heading towards Charan,” where we are also forced to understand the second verb וילך as meaning ללכת, to go. This story has to be understood as portraying two separate subjects. First we have to remember that Canaan, Cham’s son and his offspring were a cursed tribe, cursed by Noach, that is. We observe throughout the Book of Genesis how careful our ancestors were not to intermarry with members of such a cursed part of mankind. Avraham not only went out of his way to forbid Eliezer to take a wife from such people for his son Yitzchok (Genesis 24,3) but Yitzchok and Rivkah both warned Yaakov against such liaisons (Genesis 28,1). The Torah introduces a story showing how Canaan was even worse than his father Cham, so that the Torah makes a point of calling Cham “the father of Canaan,” [although he was the youngest of his four sons. (10,6) G’d had foreseen already that the offspring of Canaan would be totally corrupt, depraved. This is why He had encouraged Noach to curse his own grandson. (compare our comment on verse 8 on the wording of G’d’s address to Noach) Seeing that Noach was a prophet, his curse came true. Another aspect of this story is to warn anyone drinking wine not to overindulge, as this will impair the functioning of his brain, that which separates him from the animals. Solomon in Proverbs 23,2 is extremely critical of people who drink to excess. Also the prophets, (Isaiah 5,22; 28,1, and Amos 6,6) are very outspoken about the detrimental effects of drinking too much intoxicating wine. If the first human being ever to drink wine, i.e. Noach, became so drunk that he was unaware that he had disrobed himself, this serves as a warning to all of his descendants to be very careful in the manner in which the treat such intoxicating drink.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  וישת מן היין וישכר, he drank without setting himself a limit until in the end he became drunk and disgraced himself.
  ויתגל, by himself, unaided.
  בתוך אהלו, the letter ה at the end of אהלה, where we would expect the letter ו for the masculine ending “his,” is interpreted (and quoted by Rashi) as an allusion to the ten tribes who have been referred to as אהלה in Amos 6,6, and whose exile has been attributed to their excessive drinking of strong wine both in Isaiah 28,1 and Amos 6,6). From a grammatical perspective, the construction here is not really so unusual
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  וירא, by feasting his eyes on his father’s nudity, Cham showed that he was the father of Canaan, i.e. that his son already had inherited a genetic flaw. The additional impropriety he committed was that he told his brothers about it, instead of first covering his father’s nudity.
  
  Verse 23
  
  ויקח שם ויפת, this formulation is similar to ויבא משה ואהרון in Exodus 6,10, where it describes the promptness and dedication of Moses and Aaron. Here two of the brothers not only covered their father’s private parts, but made sure that he was completely covered.
  
  Verse 24
  
  ויקץ נח, drunkenness makes a person as insensitive to what goes on around him as does sleep. Therefore, the Torah describes his becoming sober as “waking up.”
  ויקץ, the reason why this is spelled with a single letter  י so that the letter י which is part of the root is missing, is because this was not a true “awakening:” from sleep. [The fact is that in all the Torah scrolls nowadays the word is spelled with two letters י, so that there is no need to justify a “missing” letter, seeing it is not missing. Ed.]
  אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן, if we were to understand these words as referring to what Cham had done, we would have to understand the word הקטן as “the inferior one.” We have explained already on 5,32 as well as on 6,10 that Cham was not the youngest of Noach’s sons as he was never mentioned last in the list of Noach’s sons. If what he did was to only tell his brothers about his father’s nakedness instead of first covering up his private parts, why did Noach cause Canaan, Cham’s son, instead of Cham himself? He foresaw in prophetic vision that both Cham and his offspring would forever be evil people. Actually, he could not effectively curse Cham, as G’d had already blessed him. (compare verse 1 in our chapter) Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 36,7) therefore say that “Cham saw and Canaan was cursed,” the reason being that once G’d has blessed someone, man cannot annul G’d’s blessing. Other sages are of the opinion that Canaan castrated Noach, and that the words בנו הקטן refer to Canaan, seeing that he was the youngest of Cham’s sons. There is nothing unusual in a grandson being referred to as a “son.”
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  ויאמר ארור כנען, he cursed Canaan by invoking his prophetic vision, so that his curse would take lasting effect. All he patriarchs were extremely careful not to marry women descended from these cursed tribes. Avraham had already warned Eliezer his servant, against taking a wife from these tribes for Yitzchok, and so had Yitzchok as well as Rivkah expressed their opposition to such liaisons.
  עבד עבדים, even his brothers would be slaves too; but he, Canaan, would be a slave even to them.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  ויאמר ברוך ה' אלוקי שם, Noach said this as a prophecy. He used the most holy attribute of G’d in conjunction with the regularly mentioned attribute of G’d when blessing in His name. The reason he did this was that he foresaw in his vision that the descendants of Shem would serve G’d in His capacity as the “Lord, the Eternal,” i.e. as Hashem.  When we recite our major prayers we always combine mention of these two attributes of G’d; Noach foresaw this already. We encounter this combination in connection with the Jewish people, the descendants of Shem for the first time in Exodus 3,6. G’d has described Himself as being especially אלוקי ישראל, the G’d of Israel. (Exodus 5,1)
  ויהי כנען עבד למו, Canaan is to be a servant to the descendants of Shem.
  
  Verse 27
  
  יפת אלוקים, this expression is appropriately translated as “may He expand,” the root of the word יפת being פתח, an opening. It is in the transitive mode, as for instance Isaiah 41,2 ומלכים ירד, from the root רדה “to rule.” Noach prays that Yaphet’s share of the earth will be enlarged. Even though Noach promises quantity to Yaphet, he reserves quality for Shem, saying that G’d will make His home in the portion of the earth allocated to Shem’s descendants. (see Exodus 29,45) Moses also specifically prays for a renewal of this blessing after the sin of the golden calf in Exodus 33,16) when he pleads for the Jewish people to enjoy this distinction.
  ויהי כנען עבד למו, also to the descendants of Yaphet. 
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  ויחי נח, the principal reason why the Torah lists the ages of these antediluvian people is only to enable us to count back to when human history started with the creation of Adam. All such basic historical data are provided both in the Torah and in the Books of the prophets.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ואלה תולדת בני נח, who were Shem, Cham, and Yaphet. The ones named after this were their offspring, תולדותם.
  ויולדו להם, we have already seen when these sons of Noach had entered the ark that they had not yet had any children. Why then was it necessary to write the line “children were born to them?” The only reason the Torah wrote this line is to tell us that neither of Noach’s sons engaged in marital intercourse while in the ark so that no children were born in the ark. Even though we have already commented on this in connection with the report of Noach and his family leaving the ark, (8,19) and the manner in which their leaving the ark had been worded, one could err and conclude that the offspring mentioned here under the heading of ויולדו could apply to Noach’s own children, the Torah explains in greater detail that only Shem, Cham, and Yaphet are the sons of Noach, and only they and their wives entered the ark together with him and his wife; (7,13) and by writing that children were born to them after the deluge this makes this crystal clear.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  בני יפת גמר, according to Rabbeinu Saadyah gaon, he was the founder of the nation known as Altrach.
  משך, on the other hand, according to Josephus he was the founder of the nation known as Tushchana, a people professing the Christian faith nowadays, and leaders of that faith. Rome itself is within the boundaries of that nation.
  ותירס, according to our sages (Yuma 10) this is Persia.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  ובני גמר אשכנז, people say that this refers to the people living in Germany. 
  וריפה according to Rabbeinu Saadyah gaon these are the Gauls living in France; in Chronicles I 1,6 they are called דיפת.
  
  Verse 4
  
  ובני יון, the Torah mentioned only a few of the families descended from the sons of Yaphet; we do not know why not all of them have been listed.
  ודדנים, spelled with a double letter ד, whereas the same people are spelled as רודנים in Chronicles I 1,7. Seeing that the letters ד and ר look so similar to one another, it is quite possible that both spellings are used interchangeably. Someone may have mistaken the letter ד for the letter ר so that this error has been perpetuated. There can be no question that in a situation such as this, the spelling in the Torah must be considered authoritative, as Moses wrote at the dictation of G’d and with a high degree of prophetic insight. According to Josephus, the people concerned lived (in his time) along the river “Rodeno.”
  
  Verse 5
  
  מאלו נפרדו, after the debacle with the Tower, the descendants of Yaphet chose for themselves the various islands in the Aegean as their habitat, resulting in each tribe being separated from the other. 
  איש ללשונו, the people on each of those islands developed a different language or dialect. The word הגויים implies that although all these tribes were offspring of Yaphet, they were in fact as if separate nations. Seeing that the descendants of Noach listed comprise a total of 70, the concept of mankind comprising “seventy nations” not including the Jewish people, was born. [If, nowadays, in the United Nations, for instance, we have far more than 70 nations represented, this in no way contradicts the sages’ reference to “the 70 nations of the world.” Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  ובני חם, Cham is mentioned after Yaphet; if Yaphet was the junior of the three sons, he was mentioned ahead of Cham because of his superior character qualities. If he was older than Cham, he would qualify for earlier mention on that account alone. The Torah left the list of the descendants of Shem last, in order to preserve the continuity of the report which continues with the lives of the patriarchs who are all descendants of Shem.
  
  Verse 7
  
  ובני...ודדן, Rav Saadyah gaon has supplied us with a commentary on all these.
  
  Verse 8
  
  וכוש ילד את נמרד, he was accorded prominence, i.e. separate mention, seeing that Nimrod developed into such a historic personality. הוא החל להיות גבור בארץ, this does not mean that there had not been warriors, brave heroes, before his time. Clearly, amongst the antediluvian giants, נפילים, there had been such men. Besides, the expression החל is never used to describe that some phenomenon occurred for the fist time. The word החל describes an act that was performed for the first time, not the existence of something or someone for the first time. Nimrod displayed his power and bravery either vis a vis one nation, or even vis a vis numerous nations by conquering them and being appointed or appointing himself as their ruler, their king. Until the time of Nimrod no one had possessed the effrontery to lord it wholesale over his fellow man. Nimrod invented the concept of “dictator.” These developments were a by-product of mankind having dispersed over different areas of the globe after the collapse of their attempt to “conquer” heaven.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  'הוא היה גבור ציד לפני ה, the word ציד tells us that Nimrod was also a mighty hunter, i.e. that the beasts were in awe of him, too. He both shot and trapped them. People wondered how he managed this. His fame became proverbial. When one encountered an exceptionally powerful individual either then or in the future, one would compare him to Nimrod, saying that he was as great a hero as Nimrod. The meaning of the words לפני ה', is a figure of speech, i.e. if one uses this simile one pays the subject described as such a supreme compliment. Expressions such as עיר גדולה לאלוקים, (Jonah 3,3) or הררי א-ל (Psalms 36,7) and numerous other examples, all use the name of G’d to describe something as outstanding in its category, i.e. as almost divine in nature. Some scholars understand the words לפני ה'' as meaning that Nimrod offered some of the animals he had hunted to G’d as a sacrifice, acknowledging His help. Onkelos is closer to our interpretation when he writes גבר תקיף, an aggressive and powerful man. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  ותהי ראשית, first he conquered Babylon, and established himself as king there. Subsequently, he conquered ארך, אכד, and כלנה, all of which are part of the land known as the land of Shinor. After that he went on to conquer many more and more distant lands.
  
  Verse 11
  
  מן הארץ, from the land of Ashur he went forth in the direction of Assyria. The Torah fails to tell us if Ashur belonged to the descendants of Cham or of Shem. In verse 22 we are told that Eylam and Ashur were sons of Shem, so that it is unlikely that here we speak of a descendant of Shem, the subject matter being the descendants of Cham, i.e. Kush. However, seeing the Torah did not mention another Ashur, it is most probable that he was a descendant of Shem. Perhaps he had made his home for a while in the land of Shinor, i.e. regions populated by the descendants of Cham, so that the words מן הארץ ההיא יצא אשור gain added significance, seeing that this was the first example of someone migrating from one region to another. Perhaps Ashur had even overcome Nimrod or his successor in the land of Shinor and founded a rival kingdom in Nineveh. His kingdom, as distinct from its capital, may have been named after its founder, Ashur. We definitely have evidence that the King of Ashur ruled over Babylon and its surrounding region. The various descendants of Cham were expelled from that entire region, being supplanted by the Chaldeans, כשדים, in the time of Avraham. These people were descended from Shem, [else how could Avraham have been at home there? Ed.] This whole story is only meant to remind us that the entire universe belongs to G’d, no matter how great the conquerors on earth, (Psalms 24,1 and Samuel I 2,9) and if He decides to take away a country from its ruler and to substitute new inhabitants and rulers, He will do so at will. This is what the prophet Jeremiah 27,5 spoke about when he said ונתתיה לאשר ישר בעיני “I will give it (the land) to whoever is right in My eyes.” Ownership of a part of the earth is totally dependent on the deeds or misdeeds of the people living on that land. (Deuteronomy, 32,4). We are not sure if the word Ashur refers only to a city or to an entire kingdom. The verses (25,18 in Genesis, or Kings II 15,19), speaking of מלך אשור, or Kings II 19,11, speaking of מלכי אשור, do not give clear guidance on that point. According to Yuma 10, in the name of Rabbi Yossi, Ashur is equivalent to סלוק, (Silikia? in Iraq, on the banks of the Tigris)
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  ויבן את נינוה היא העיר הגדולה, most commentators believe that the words העיר הגדולה refer to the city Nineveh, seeing that this city has been described in similar terms in Jonah 3,3. I believe that actually, these words refer to רסן, seeing that our verse speaks about this city in the first place. The entire story, as we mentioned previously, has as its objective to demonstrate how ownership of even a sizable land or city is subject to rapid change. Even though Ashur established a great empire, this empire was crushed by the Babylonians who replaced them, and who, in turn were replaced in short order by the Persians and the Medes.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  ומצרים, we do not know why Cham called the name of his son מצרים with the letter י, and the letter ם at the end. We do not find a parallel to this except amongst the sons of יון in verse 4, who was a descendant of Yaphet, where we encounter כתים and דודנים. (plural mode) Perhaps, the spelling of the name מצרים is related to something that happened at the time he was born. Most names in those days were related to some incident of which the father had foreknowledge and wanted to be remembered. According to Bereshit Rabbah 37 all the offspring of מצרים listed are spelled with the ending ים. This ending, which also means yam, sea, is an allusion to the Egyptians being drowned in the sea.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  ואת...אשר יצאו משם פלשתים, it is not clear if the Philistines are the offspring of only the Kassluchim or from both the Patrussim and the Kassluchim who had intermarried among themselves so that the Philistines had genetic input from both these families. It is interesting that the expression שם or משם, i.e. expressions used to describe physical locations, origins, are also used elsewhere in a genetic sense such as in Genesis 49,24 משם רועה אבן ישראל, “from there he became the shepherd of Israel.”
  כפתרים, according to Rav Saadyah gaon, a tribe that used to live in the neighbourhood of Port Said in Eastern Egypt. The reason they are mentioned here separately is that although the Philistines, basically, are descended from the offspring of מצרים, the land of Egypt did not belong to them, so that the Israelites were entitled to take over the parts of the land of Canaan then inhabited by the Philistines.
  
  Verse 15
  
  וכנען ילד, I have found one commentator who writes that Canaan had 11 sons so that his nation, including the founding father Canaan, comprised 12 tribes This is supposedly what is meant in Deuteronomy 32,8 יצב גבולות עמים למספר בני ישראל, “He sets the borders of the people in a manner corresponding to the number (of tribes) of the Children of Israel.” וכנען, Put’s offspring is not mentioned as there is no need to report on this.
  את צדון בכורו, I have not been able to find a good reason for the Torah describing צדון as a firstborn, seeing that no other firstborn son of these people is described as such. Normally, the first named son is presumed to be the firstborn, so that there is no need for adding that attribute, unless we are to assume that the Torah, in naming someone as the first in a list of sons, does so because he possessed superior qualities to those of his brothers. One such example would be the mention of Shem ahead of his brothers, although he was not the oldest (5,32), according to those commentators who believe that Yaphet was Noach’s oldest son. It is possible that Tzidon did possess superior qualities when compared to his brothers, so that by describing him as the firstborn the Torah wanted to draw attention to both of these distinctions. We find something parallel in Genesis 25,13 where Nevayot is described as the firstborn son of Ishmael. We have reason to believe that he possessed outstanding qualities because his sister Machalat is not described only as the daughter of her father Ishmael, and her grandfather Avraham, but also as the sister of Nevayot, her brother. (Genesis 28,9) 
  
  Verse 16
  
  ואת היבוסי, all of these [after Tzidon and Chet, Ed.] have the letter י at the end, signifying who they belong to. The families emanating from them carried the name of their respective forbear. This is also why they have the letter ה at the beginning of their names, signifying that they were a known entity. i.e. the letter ה as definitive article. The הפריזי is not mentioned here seeing that the definitive article is not applied to an individual person. Perhaps he was one of the sons of Canaan about whom G’d had not spoken to Avraham, seeing He spoke to him only about ten of these sons (Genesis 15,19-21) Tzidon may be excluded here as not being included in the list of Canaanite tribes even though the territory of Tzidon was adjacent to the other Canaanite territories, just north of them. We have this on the authority of Yaakov who said (Genesis 49,13) that the territory of Zevulun would border on Tzidon. We also have the borders of the Canaanite tribes described as extending southwards from Tzidon in verse 19 of our chapter. The fact is that G’d gave to Avraham, i.e. his descendants, the land of the Canaanites i.e. all their territory, everything within its original borders. [Tzidon never became part of the land of Israel.] On different occasions in the Torah when the subject came up, only some of the names of the tribes are listed, sometimes 7, sometimes 6, and in chapter 15 ten such names are mentioned. It is possible that one or another of these sons of Canaan was known by more than one name. Still, they all had the family name “Canaanite” in common tracing themselves to their ancestor by that name.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  ואחר נפוצו, after the languages were confused.
  משפחות הכנעני, the ones who had been mentioned previously, i.e. the Canaanites, were scattered to a different region, to the land called afterwards ”the land of Canaan.”
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  ויהי, now the Torah mentions the territorial boundaries extending from Tzidon to Sodom, but fails to list all the boundaries, seeing that these will be mentioned independently on future occasions. The story here has as its function to inform us that it had been G’d’s will that the Canaanites settle permanently in one region until the time came for their destruction in the days of Moses and Joshua, seeing that G’d had chosen the Israelites to dwell in that land. In fact, settlement of the Canaanite tribes in the land later to become the land of Israel was for the sake of the Israelites. When the Israelites would take over that country which had been developed agriculturally, and in which their remained most of the infra structure of a wealthy nation, it saved them the trouble of developing virgin land, [as did the Europeans who settled in America. Ed.] The Torah points that out specifically in Deuteronomy 6,11 writing that G’d is bringing the Jewish people to a land with beautiful cities which they did not have to build, houses full of every good thing that the Jews did not have to accumulate, water cisterns full with supplies of drinking water, etc. It is clear from the verse in Deut. 32,8 to which we referred already, that the sections of territory occupied by the Canaanites had been designed from the outset as the territory that would, when the time was ripe, be allocated to the 12 tribes of the Jewish people. The Canaanites preceded the Israelites, seeing that they had been cursed to be slaves to the descendants of Shem, i.e. Israel. A slave prepares things so that his master can subsequently enjoy them.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   אלה, this has been explained already on 10,1.
  
  Verse 21
  
  ולשם, the reason that the descendants of Shem are listed last in this chapter is that the story will continue with the lives of the patriarchs, all of whom are descended from Shem. The Torah is trying to preserve continuity. As to the unusual phrase
  גם הוא, the Torah adds these words as if to say that we should not think that seeing that up to now we heard about Shem always first, that the fact that we had not heard about him in this chapter means that he had not been blessed with offspring. Not only did he have sons, but he became the founding father of all the tribes descended from עבר, who in turn became the ancestor of the patriarchs. In fact, his descendants were even more important than those of his older brother Yaphet, described as הגדול, the great one. The attribute הגדול, when used in conjunction with Yaphet may be understood as Shem sharing his brother Yaphet’s distinction of doing good deeds. The Torah invites you to note that Shem has not been compared to Cham, neither in seniority nor in quality of lifestyle. The word הגדול may equally well be understood as “the great one,” i.e. in deeds. 
  יולד, a somewhat strange word when we would have expected יולדו in the plural mode, seeing that a number of sons were born to him. The singular is used to cover the subject of progeny being born. It has been use in a similar manner in verse 25, when speaking of Ever’s progeny.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  ובני ארם, the detailed list begins with Aram, the youngest of Shem’s sons, seeing that the previous verse had concluded with the mention of Aram. Perhaps Terach had married one of the daughters or granddaughters of Aram. This may have been the reason why Nachor called his own firstborn Utz, as well as his grandson Aram, to perpetuate the names of his ancestry. 
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  ולעבר יולד שני בנים, here too the Torah wrote the singular mode yulad, was born, instead of “were born,” as it referred to the general subject of providing progeny, just as in verse 21. We find a parallel construction with Joseph, in Genesis 41,50 וליוסף יולד שני בנים. This does not mean that the people mentioned did not have more than the two sons mentioned, seeing that the Torah specifically mentions (11,15) ויולד בנים ובנות, “he fathered sons and daughters.” The names of the two sons whose births were mentioned here must be understood as being linked to some important experience in the life of their father, who commemorated the event by the way he named these sons.
  שם האחד פלג, the Torah immediately supplies the reason for this strange-sounding name, i.e. hardly a good omen, by writing that the split in the unity of mankind when the languages were confused occurred during his lifetime.
  ושם אחיו יקטן. In this instance the Torah does not reveal the reason why Ever called his second son Yokton. Our sages surmise that the reason may have been that starting with Yokton, the average lifespan of people became drastically reduced. (Torah Shleymah 59 on our verse) Whereas Ever himself still lived for 464 years, his son Peleg died at 239 years. Not only did he live only a little more than half the number of years his father had enjoyed on earth, but he died while his father was still alive.  The names of Ever’s sons are reminders therefore of both the splitting up of a unified mankind into different languages, followed by differing cultures, and into the shorter lifespan which became the order of the day. Apparently, Ever had been aware of this already at the time his sons were born. Clearly, Yokton, even as a baby had been so much smaller than babies had been before his time, that his father had had a premonition that he would not be able to live that long. We had mentioned earlier that the generations that had lived such long lives had also been blessed with much bigger bodies than was the case during subsequent generations. (compare 5,4 and 6,4) According to the view expressed in Seder Olam, and quoted by Rashi, Ever had been a great prophet, equipped with holy spirit, so that he must have predicted all this long before Yokton had been born, seeing that according to the sequence in which matters are reported in our chapter the Tower was built several generations after Yokton had been born already.
  
  Verse 26
  
  חצרמות, this is one word though it may sound as if it should be two words.
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  ויהי מושבם ממשא, after the dispersal of mankind, these sons of Yokton chose for themselves the land extending eastward from the valley of the Euphrates and Tigris. Rav Saadyah gaon understands the meaning of the word Mesha as what is known nowadays as Mecca, the city to which the Muslims make their pilgrimage.
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  אלה..אחר המבול, what does the deluge have to do with this, seeing the people were not dispersed until after they built the Tower [approximately 300 years later. Ed.]? The meaning of this verse is that all these families of Noach’s children were born after the deluge, only to be scattered all over the globe, something which occurred after the building of the Tower.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויהי כל הארץ, the Torah does not mean the earth, of course, but all the people on earth.
   שפה אחת, everyone was speaking the same language, i.e. Hebrew, as we pointed out already in connection with Genesis 5,4.
  ודברים אחדים, they were of one mind. The פה, “mouth,” i.e. the organ used to verbalise thoughts in one’s mind, is used also elsewhere to describe unanimity, such as in Joshua 9,2 להלחם עם יהושע ועם ישראל פה אחד, “to make war against Joshua and Israel, unanimously.” All these kings were united in making common cause against the invading Jewish armies. In our verse, the people all agreed that the time had come to move down from the mountainous regions around where the ark had run aground and to search for a valley with abundant water supply, good topsoil, etc, a region where they could all live near one another in comfort and safety. This occurred approximately 340 years after the deluge. It appears that Noach and his sons as well as Ever were not part of this consensus, as they were smart enough and righteous enough to understand what this might lead to. Noach still possessed books written prior to the deluge as well as books that had been written by people enjoying a long lifespan after the deluge. In these books the history of mankind had been recorded and the memory of G’d having communicated directly with man in the very early stages of human history had been preserved. Avraham was already 45 years of age during the generation of the Tower, the dispersal. According to some scholars (Bereshit Rabbah 30,8, he was either 45 or 48 years old when he became truly aware of G’d the Creator.) Other sages credit Avraham with having gained such knowledge already at the tender age of 3. At any rate, Noach and family were convinced that G’d had created the universe for no other purpose than to settle all or most of it. They came to this conclusion by simply noting their population increase and the inadequacy of the environment in which they lived at that time. They knew also that even the new plan to settle all of mankind in one single irrigated valley would not be a solution for the long term. Although they knew all this, they decided to go along with the majority opinion at that time and to preserve the positive values of unity and a common language among all men. According to Bereshit Rabbah 38,6 the plan to congregate and build the Tower was already idolatrous in its inception, their argument being that G’d cannot lay claim to the heaven to assign only earth as the domain of man. They wanted to assert their independence from G’d’s control of their fates. [The language used in the Midrash is obviously not to be taken literally, i.e. ”conquest of heaven and placing a sword in the hand of a statute placed there by man,” but is a figure of speech describing the people’s urge to assert their sovereignty on earth. Ed.]
  ומגדל וראשו בשמים, clearly this is a figure of speech, no one having been foolish enough to believe that it was possible to build such a structure. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  ויהי בנסעם מקדם, from the east, for this is where they had lived previously, and this was where G’d had created man before He placed him in Gan Eden. When Noach had come out of the ark he proceeded to the place where he had lived before the onset of the deluge. Also the mountain range of Arrarat is in an easterly direction (eastern Turkey and Georgia in southern Caucasus) Traveling eastward, the people had came to the valley of the Euphrates and Tigris which they found very much to their liking, a land which was called the land of Shinor. This land had already been mentioned in 10,10 as Nimrod’s first power base. We already explained that what is reported in that chapter actually referred to events after the Tower and the dispersal of mankind. Although the Torah did not elaborate on the meaning of the name Shinor, our sages in Shabbat 113 explain that the dead bodies (skeletons) of the people who had perished during the deluge had been swept down there by the rivers. It was the lowest place on earth far and wide.
  
  Verse 3
  
  ויאמרו..הבה, this word הבה, is customarily used in connection with a plan forming. It describes more a firm suggestion than a definite order, command. This is one of the reasons this word is always found in the feminine mode, and followed by a plural mode. 
  נלבנה לבנים, the word נלבנה is a form of elaborating on something which had been said before, similar to Samuel II 12,16 ויצם דוד צום, “David fasted a fast.” If he fasted, he obviously observed a fast; the author wanted to lend extra emphasis to his words. So here too, the words נלבנה לבנים, though an obvious part of building a city, were repeated merely for emphasis. The words נשרפה לשרפה, inform us that the valley lacked stones for building houses, but that there was clay which could be kiln burned and produce rain proof bricks, making it possible to build permanent homes.
  ותהי להם הלבנה לאבן, the zakef; tone sign has the vowel kametz underneath it instead of the vowel segol. We find a similar construction in Ruth 4,18 ואלה תולדות פרץ, where the letter פ (with the tone-sign zakef) has the vowel kametz, instead of the vowel segol. A third example with a similar construction occurs in Genesis 44,17 הוא יהיה לי עבד, where the kametz appears under the letter  ע which has the tone-sign zakef establishing that the tone-sign zakef is a strong dividing tone-sign.
  והחומר היה להם לחמר, the cheymor is the clay found in the earth of that region, and it was mixed into a dough with water. The product, after kiln drying the bricks formed by the dough, is called chomer. These bricks were used in lieu of stones that were not found in that valley.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  ויאמרו הבה נבנה לנו עיר, the purpose of the city was residential, the purpose of the Tower was to serve as an observation tower enabling the people in the city to keep track of where their flocks and herds were grazing. It would also serve as a beacon for shepherds who were far away to find their way home by focusing on the Tower.
  וראשו בשמים, an exaggeration describing that the Tower would be very tall. We find a similar exaggeration when Moses described the walls of Canaanite cities in Deuteronomy 1,28 as “reaching into heaven.”
  ונעשה לנו שם, they meant that as a result of having a permanent residence instead of being nomads, they would acquire a far greater reputation of being people to be reckoned with. If they were to travel, and when asked would refer to this city as their home town, this would impress people over the globe. Not only that, the fact that the traveler himself compared his home town with whatever other town or settlement he would encounter, would remind him of his home town comparing favourably with the place he had just visited, and he would be sure to return home. It would act as both a physical and psychological magnet to draw the traveler back home.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  'וירד ה, When G’d, from time to time, takes a closer look at what His creatures on earth are doing, such an activity is generally introduced by the expression וירד ה', “G’d descended.” Relative to G’d’s stature, His involving Himself with the problems of sinful men is below what His dignity could command. [a venerable Torah sage is exempt from involving himself with the taking home of lost property and looking for its owner. If this is so out of consideration for the scholar’s dignity, how much more could we expect that G’d does not bother with us? Ed. (compare Deut. 22,4)]
  לראות, we encounter the same term when G’d “descended to see” if the reports which had reached Him about the wickedness of the people of Sodom were as serious as He had heard. (Genesis 18,21) Onkelos distinguishes between the meaning of the words here and in Genesis 18, describing His action here as לאיתפרעא, “retribution,” and the action of G’d vis a vis the Sodomites as דין, “justice.”
  אשר בנו, which they had commenced building; [they never got to finish it. Ed.]
  בני האדם, they are appropriately referred to as בני האדם, “children of Adam,” having followed their own instincts and inclinations instead of heeding G’d’s instructions, just as their forefather Adam had done. G’d had wanted them to populate the earth, and they had chosen to concentrate in a miniscule  part of the earth. It is interesting that before G’d brought on the deluge, the Torah did not describe Him as “descending” as it did here or in connection with the Sodomites. Instead, the Torah there spoke about what G’d had seen, i.e. ראיה, instead of ירידה. (Genesis 6,5) The reason is that the deluge was something everybody knew about, seeing it was experienced by everybody. The whole point of G’d “descending,” is in order to examine a state of affairs which is not so widely known, so that it needs investigation. Something known to everybody does not require examination to determine if it is true. Concerning all these expressions, the bottom line is that the Torah uses a syntax familiar to people on earth, even if it does not accurately reflect G’d’s thoughts and feelings. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  'ויאמר ה, to the angels;
  הן עם אחד, they are all of one mind, as in Genesis 34,16 והיינו לעם “let us become a single nation.”
  ושפה אחת, they can maintain their unity by speaking the same language.
  ולא יבצר, shall it not be denied them?
  כל אשר יזמו לעשות, unless we frustrate their plan from being carried out. The verb יזם describes something one plans with one’s mind. The roots זמם and יזם mean the same, and can be used interchangeably.
  
  Verse 7
  
  הבה, we already explained this expression on verse 3. The entire verse is to be understood as a metaphor, seeing that the Creator does not mingle with the creature He has created. A similar expression in Isaiah 40,14 את מי נועץ ויבינהו, “who did He consult with, who made Him understand?” This is also to be understood metaphorically. G’d did not literally contemplate if there was someone He could consult with. Here too, when speaking to His angels who are His agents, He did not actually consult them.
  ונבלה, the letter נ at the beginning of this word may either represent a plural prefix or a sign that the word is in the passive mode.
  שפתם, in either event it refers to the word שפתם. According to either interpretation the verb remains in the conjugation kal, [not in a transitive conjugation hiphil or piel. Ed] which would require the letter ב to have a dagesh. The meaning of the word is basically the same as the root בלל, to mix, to stir. If the letter נ would refer to the people saying this, i.e. a first person plural mode, then it should have had the vowel cholem instead of kametz. If it had been a hiphil conjugation then the letter ב should have had the vowel tzeyreh.
  אשר לא ישמעו, that they will not understand. The root שמע is used here as “hearing” with one’s heart, as distinct from hearing with one’s ears. We encounter a parallel use of the root שמע in that sense in Deuteronomy 28,49 אשר לא תשמעו, “if you fail to heed, etc.” Words that come forth from the mouth are described as שפה or לשון, “language.”
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  'ויפץ ה, G’d did not scatter the people by physically depositing them in different parts of the earth. By mixing up their languages, the people themselves started moving away from one another, in accordance with their ability to understand one another, Seeing that they were unable to communicate with one another coherently, their building project had to be aborted at any rate. The dispersal process was gradual, as methods of transportation were severely limited. People moved predominantly north from Mesopotamia, rather than to the desert regions in the southern Arabian peninsula. 
  לבנות העיר, if they stopped building the city, they most certainly also stopped building the Tower. The city, of smaller dimensions than originally planned, remained, seeing that one group of people speaking the same language remained there.
  
  Verse 9
  
  They called the unfinished city בבל as a reminder of the fact that this was where G’d had mixed up their languages resulting in their dispersal.ומשם הפיצם, and from there G’d had set in motion their dispersal and the division into 70 languages. The people remaining in Babylon spoke one language. Seeing that the mixing up of the languages had commenced there, this is the city that was named to commemorate this event. The one giving this name spoke Hebrew, i.e. the original holy tongue. Both the words בבל and בלל are Hebrew words. Actually, we would have expected the Torah to write ballel, instead of ballal, however the word is a condensation of the two words בא בל. We have similar condensed words called קן, חן, מן, all of which are condensed forms of such words as קנן, or חנן.
  כל הארץ, a reference to the nations of the earth nowadays, i.e. the time when the Torah was being written.
  'הפיצם ה, as we explained on verse 8.
  
  Verse 10
  
  אלה תולדות שם  שנתים אחר המבול,  we already explained this in connection with Genesis 5,32. Even though the Torah, earlier, listed the descendants of Shem together with those of his brothers, the Torah repeated this now in order to demonstrate the direct linkage to Avraham our patriarch. This is why, on this occasion, only a single one of the sons of Shem, Arpachshad, is mentioned. Avraham is descended in a straight line from Arpachshad.  The reason why the Torah adds that Arpachshad was born two years after the deluge is that the information the Torah gave us in 10,21 did not tell us when Arpachshad, apparently the third son of Shem was born. (verse 22). We already mentioned that the reason why the Torah provides us with such data is only to enable us to count from the creation of Adam to the deluge, to the birth of Avraham, the year of the Exodus from Egypt, etc. If the Torah had not been interested in reminding us that the earth (universe) was an original product by G’d, all these numbers would have been relatively meaningless. [if they had related to a human history extending over millions of years as claimed by scientists nowadays. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  ואלה תולדות תרח, these were mentioned already in the previous verse, only Lot being added here. By adding the word תולדות, the Torah makes plain that grandsons, etc., are also called “offspring, תולדה of the older generation, not only  their immediate fathers and mothers. This was especially so, seeing Haran died while his father Terach was still alive.
  ויחי תרח..והרן הוליד את לוט. The offspring of Nachor is not mentioned, as Nachor did not beget any offspring until after the binding of Yitzchok on the altar in Genesis 22,20. Haran’s son Lot had to be mentioned as his son, seeing that Lot joined Avraham in his migration to the land of Canaan.
  
  Verse 28
  
  וימת הרן על פני תרח אביו, during his father’s lifetime. Something parallel occurred when the two sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu died during the lifetime of their father  (Numbers 3,4).
  בארץ מולדתו, the Torah mentions this seeing that Terach, Haran’s father did not die in the land where he had been born, but died in Charan after having emigrated there. This became the reason why Lot emigrated with his grandfather Terach from Ur Kasdim.
  באור כשדים, a place known nowadays as Ur Kasdim, It could not have had that name at the time Terach and Avraham lived, as כשד the son of Nachor had not been born until later (Genesis 22,22) The offspring of this Kessed became were known as the Kasdim.
  אור, the word means: “valley.” It occurs in this sense also in Isaiah 24,15 על כן באורים כבדו ה', “therefore honour the Lord in the valleys.” The view of our sages in the Midrash that the name is a reference to the place where Avraham was saved from the furnace of Nimrod is well known. (Bereshit Rabbah 38,13) They understand the word אור as meaning “fire.”
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  ויקח ארם ונחור, the singular mode here where we would have expected a plural mode, seeing that each of the brothers took himself a wife, is similar to the singular mode used by the Torah in Exodus 7,10 ויבא משה ואהרן, “Moses and Aaron came,” where we would have expected the plural mode, seeing that two people came. The Torah mentioned the names of the wives in honour of Avram. G’d changed Sarai’s name to Sarah. Seeing that Rivkah was the granddaughter of Milkah and became the wife of Yitzchok they were deserving of mention by name.
  בת הרן אבי מלכה ואבי יסכה. This is an unusual sequence the daughter being referred to before the father. Seeing that the Torah had written earlier that Haran had begotten Lot, (verse 26) I might have formed the impression that he had not fathered any other children. To make sure we do not make such a mistake, the Torah, after telling us the names of these girls, reminds us that Haran also fathered these two girls. Our sages in Megillah 14 state that Yiskah was identical with Sarai. This is very plausible, seeing that in 20,12 Avraham refers to her as “my sister the (grand)daughter of my father. From these words of Avraham it is clear that Sarai was Haran’s daughter. Still, it is surprising that the two daughters of Haran are not described as בנות הרן in the plural mode, but each one is referred to separately as בת הרן, a daughter of Haran (singular mode). Perhaps, Sarai was the daughter of a daughter of Terach, although the Torah had not mentioned specifically that Terach had fathered daughters.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  ותהי, the Torah makes clear that Sarai was barren, and that even if at a much later stage in her life she did give birth to a son, Yitzchok, this was not a natural development but was a miracle which could not be explained scientifically. This is the reason why the Torah did not simply content herself with the words ותהי שרי עקרה, “Sarai remained barren.” When Sarah did eventually bear a child, not only was the fact that she gave birth a miracle, but her age at the time, long after she had passed the child-bearing age, was an additional miracle. Although Sarai’s sister did not bear a child for many years, she is not reported as having been genetically barren. She apparently suffered some disease which was not connected to her basic ability of bearing children.
  אין לה ולד, as long as she lived in the land of Ur Casdim she had no child, but in the land of Israel, eventually she did give birth. This is part of the reason why G’d, when He told Avram to emigrate, said: לך לך, “go for your own sake.” G’d had added that once there He would make Avram develop into a great nation [although this was not a promise that his children would be born by Sarah. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  ויקח תרח, After G’d had told Avram to move to the land of Canaan (12,1) and Avram had told his father about this vision, Terach took him and set out on the journey towards the land of Canaan. Seeing that Terach was willing to accept these instructions Avram had received from G’d, he deserved that the initial stages of this trip be credited to him. After all, he was the father, and the sons were his offspring. Seeing that Lot’s father was no longer alive, and he had to depend on his family, Terach took his whole family with him.
  ויצא אתם, this is the first time that the departure from Ur Casdim is portrayed as having been initiated by Avram, his father appearing as traveling with his son. The reason is that the command to migrate was issued to Avram (and wife) and not to Terach. The latter joined Avram and he took his grandson and his livestock with him. This is why the Torah added the word אתם, “with them.”
  ללכת ארצה כנען, actually, G’d had not told Avram to go to the land of Canaan, as anyone reading 12,1 will have no difficulty in ascertaining. He had reserved for Himself the right to tell Avram a specific destination at a later stage. The fact was that the first country under a different rule they encountered would be the land of Canaan. Avraham was aware that once in the land of Canaan he could expect further directives from G’d so that it would become clear which country G’d wanted him to settle in.
  וישבו שם, they experienced a delay in Charan. Terach, after initially agreeing to move to the land of Canaan, had changed his mind in the interval since leaving Ur Casdim. He simply could not completely sever his links with his birthplace. He felt that by settling in Charan, which was on the border between Ur Casdim and the land of Canaan, he had complied with G’d’s command to Avraham to emigrate. By staying in Charan he felt he would not be too distant from Avraham, while not having severed his ties with his homeland completely. Avraham moved on. When the Torah described Avram’s wife Sarai as Terach’s daughter-in-law, something that appears to be self-evident, this is only meant to convey to us the readers, that Sarai was very willing to uproot herself and to move on with her husband. She was his wife in the first instance, and her relationship to Terach both as daughter-in-law and as granddaughter was of a secondary consideration. She had full faith in the Lord, the G’d of Avram, and was prepared to carry out His will.
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  ויהיו ימי תרח, Terach lived for 205 years. Seeing that the Torah had told us that he was 70 years old when Avram was born, Avram was 135 years old at the time his father died. According to the report in Seder Olam, Avram buried his father two years before the death of his wife Sarah, a statement that is absolutely correct. We know that Avraham was 137 years old when Sarah died, as he had previously been reported as being 10 years Sarah’s senior. This means that Terach must have died 2 years before his granddaughter Sarah.
  וימת תרח בחרן, this line tells us that Terach had not abandoned his idolatry and had moved to Charan only out of love for his son Avraham. Following Avraham who had obeyed instructions given to him in a vision, did not mean that Terach changed his philosophy or lifestyle. This is why he saw nothing wrong in remaining in Charan until the time of his death. [even though his son had attained great prominence in the land of Canaan during the intervening 62 years. Ed.] If he had really done teshuvah, and returned to the G’d of his forefathers, he surely would have followed in his sons footsteps and have moved to Canaan. Possibly, Terach did keep the other Noachide laws, except for his idolatry, seeing that Avraham his son had become his guide in matters of theology as far as it concerned the dealings with is fellow man. The conviction that natural forces represent independent powers, even though they in turn might have to obey a higher law, was something he could not rid himself of, as he, as well as his contemporaries, were too deeply steeped in such a world outlook. We know that Joshua testified concerning Terach  (Joshua 25,2) when he addressed the Israelites shortly before his death: ”your forefathers dwelled in the land beyond the river (Euprates), Terach the father of Avram and Nachor. They served alien deities , etc.” If Terach had indeed become a penitent and had returned to monotheism, it is inconceivable that Joshua would not have credited him with such a meritorious deed. The final letter ן in the word חרן is meluffaf, i.e. inverted, and our sages explained concerning this (Rashi and Torah Shleyma 115) that Terach died while being out of favour with his Creator, seeing that he had failed to repent his erstwhile idolatry. [Having had a son such as Avraham, his obstinacy was less forgivable than that of other idolaters. Ed.] There is, however, a different explanation offered by Bereshir Rabbah 38,12 based on G’d promising Avraham that he would die of a ripe old age before joining his fathers, etc (Genesis 15,15) This is understood as G’d telling Avraham that his father had indeed become a penitent before he died, how else could the prospect of joining his father after his death be a sort of comfort for Avraham?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויאמר ה' אל אברם לך לך מארצך וממולדתך ומבית אביך אל הארץ אשר אראך, in this instance the word ויאמר refers to something G’d had already said to Avram before he had even moved away from Ur Casdim, a move he made at the command of G’d. We know this from Genesis 15,7 where G’d reminds him that “I am the Lord Who has taken you out of Ur Casdim.” It is possible that G’d repeated this directive once more while Avram was in Charan. As to the meaning of the word lecha, i.e. “for your own good,” this does not have any special significance, being a commonly used figure of speech. One example would be Exodus 18,27 וילך לו where Yitro’s return to Midian is described in a similar way, and no one suggests that he did so “for his own good.” Another such example is found in Jeremiah 5,5 אלכה לי, “I am going,” where no one suggests that Jeremiah had ulterior motives in going to the wealthy people to speak to them in the belief that they knew the ways of the Lord. Still other examples of a similar construction are found in Numbers 22,34 אשובה לי or in Genesis 45,19 קחו לכם.
  מארצך, G’d had to add this as it is difficult for a person to leave a homeland in which he had dwelled for many years, all the more so if that land was at the same time the place where he had been born. This is why G’d added: וממולדתך, since it is doubly difficult to separate from one’s family also and to go to a country where one knows no one. This is the meaning of מבית אביך, “away from your father’s house.”
  אל הארץ אשר אראך, if G’d had told Avram that He would show him a land which was rich, fertile, good, etc., it would not have been as difficult to comply with such a directive. But the fact that G’d did not add these inducements made it more difficult for Avram to decide. The reason why G’d did not offer these inducements was to show us, the readers, how great was Avram’s love of G’d that he unquestioningly abided by what G’d had asked him to do. He was determined to carry out the wishes of his G’d. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  ואעשך לגוי גדול, even though your wife is barren, I will cure her and in this country she will bear a child.
  ואברך, I will give you additional goodness, such as material wealth, possessions and honour, as we read in 13,2 “Avram was very rich in cattle, silver, and gold.” 
  ואגדלה שמך, your name will be known throughout many nations due to how blessed you are, due to your good deeds, and the success of your undertakings. Examples were Avram’s defeat of the four most powerful kings on earth at that time, when he freed Lot and the King of Sodom. The Canaanites (בני חת) said to him when he wanted to buy a burial plot for Sarah “you are a prince in our midst” (Genesis 23,6). We find a similar statement which G’d made to David in Chronicles I 17,8 ועשיתי לך שם בשם הגדולים אשר בארץ, “I will  make you as renowned as the greatest men on earth.”  This is part of the good that G’d does for people.
  והיה ברכה, the construction והיה is similar to the future tense (not imperative) תהיה, i.e. “you will become.” [the author, presumably, finds it difficult for man to be commanded to be a source of blessing. How does one go about carrying out such a directive? Ed.] We encounter a similar construction as an imperative when G’d orders Moses to ascend the mountain and to die there on the mountain, עלה ומות בהר, seeing that “dying” is understood to be something passive, not active. Hence he would translate that verse also as “ascend the mountain where you will die.” (Deuteronomy, 32,48-50) Similar constructions which describe something impossible are found in Ovadiah 1,4 ואם בין כוכבים שים קנך, where one cannot order someone to make his nest among the stars. These formulations are substitutes for regular future tenses. G’d is telling Avram that his blessings and his fame will be so great that they will spill over to benefit those around him. This promise has become fulfilled to such an extent that when people bless their children they wish them: “may the Lord bless you with the blessing of Avraham” 
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  ואברכה מברכך, your allies and those who seek your welfare.” A reference to Oner, Eshkol, and Mamre, Avram’s allies, as well as others whom the Torah has not named. The blessing‘s effect is that people displaying sympathy and love for Jews will be recompensed by G’d. A prominent example of this is that the house of Potiphar was blessed as a result of Potiphar’s positive attitude to Joseph, his Hebrew slave. (Genesis 39,5) Even Yaakov’s arch enemy Lavan, admitted that his presence with him had resulted in G’d making him rich. (Genesis 30,27)
  ומקללך אאור, it is not customary to use the plural mode when speaking of curses. Seeing that there would be very few people, if any, who would curse Avram, this is hinted at in the use of the singular mode in the word ומקללך, “someone who curses you.”
  ונברכו בך כל משפחות, all the families of the earth within whose radius Avram would make his residence, such as the land of Canaan, Egypt, and the land of the Philistines, would experience a special blessing due to the proximity of Avram.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  וילך אברם, he came as far as Charan where he left his father behind, and proceeded to the land of Canaan.
  'כאשר דבר אליו ה, he did not ask G’d for further instructions thereby “testing” G’d, but continued on his journey because he believed that G’d would keep His promise as He had said.
  בצאתו מחרן, perhaps, prior to leaving his father behind, he had spent a few days trying to convince him to come along with him. At the time he left Charan he was 75 years old. [it is hard to see why he would have tried to persuade his father to come along, as he then would not have complied with the commandment to leave his father’s house. Ed.]
  
  Verse 5
  
  ויקח...ואת לוט בן אחיו, seeing that Lot was amenable to his uncle’s invitation, Lot left his grandfather behind, preferring the company of his uncle.
  אשר רכשו, the plural ending refers to both Avram’s and Lot’s possessions.
  ואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן, the male and female servants they had acquired in Charan. The word עשו must be understood as similar to Deuteronomy 8,17 עשה לי את כל החיל הזה, “has gotten me this wealth.” According to Onkelos, the word עשו refers to the people whom Avram and Lot had succeeded in bringing back to monotheism, i.e. the same religion as that professed by Avram. Lot too, professed the belief in the one and only invisible G’d, the Creator of the universe Lot did not merely join Avram because he was his uncle and much younger than his grandfather, but he shared his religious beliefs and was active as an evangelist for that faith himself. This is the reason why the Torah wrote the word עשו in the plural mode instead of the singular. According to our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 39,14) the plural mode of the word עשו is meant to prove that both Avram and Sarai, each were active in converting their respective friends to monotheism. The use of the root עשה to describe such “brainwashing,” is also found in Samuel I 12,6 אשר עשה משה את משה ואת אהרן, where it refers to G’d having been the mentor of both Moses and Aaron.
  ויצאו ללכת, they were all ready to go to the land of Canaan with Avram and they carried out their intention.
  
  Verse 6
  
  ויעבר אברם..עד מקום שכם, until the outskirts of Shechem. Perhaps the locations mentioned in the Torah are the ones that any traveler who came from Charan to the land of Canaan encounters in the order in which they appear in our paragraph. Avram may have briefly lived in these locations until G’d told him to move on and criss cross the land in 13,17. According to a Midrash quoted by Rashi, Avram saw a prophetic vision of the rape of Dinah in that town, and how the sons of Yaakov would avenge that deed. He therefore stopped there and offered a prayer on behalf of the family of Yaakov, asking G’d to save them from the pursuit and hatred of the Emorites who would try and avenge their compatriots. We know that this prayer was answered from Genesis 35,5 ויהי חתת אלוקים על הערים וגו', “the fear of G’d was on these cities, etc.” [according to Eliyahu Mizrachi, the words עד מקום שכם instead of עד שכם, are hard to justify otherwise. Ed.]
  עד אלון מורה, he foresaw that there the Jewish people (at Mount Gerizim and Mount Eyval) would confirm that the Torah was binding for them, [especially those commandments that are essentially observed in private, their observance by individuals being difficult to confirm. Ed.] The word אלון is an allusion to the oath the people would swear in that location not to violate those commandments. (compare Deuteronomy 11,30) Avram prayed here to G’d asking Him to make the hearts of the people amenable at that time to take upon themselves this oath.
  מורה, according to Onkelos this is the name of an individual, just as כנעני. אלון is the name of a plain, this plain bearing the name of a man known as מורה.
  והכנעני אז בארץ, all these places belonged to the Canaanite, one of the 7 tribes making up that nation. We encounter such a reference to the Canaanites as a generic term in Deuteronomy 11,30 בארץ הכנעני אשר יושב בערבה, “in the land of the Canaanite who dwells in the Aravah, wilderness.”
  אז בארץ, this is to teach us how G’d deals with those whom He loves. Avram was traveling through the land of the Canaanite with his herds and flocks. He was not challenged by anyone as being guilty of encroaching on their property, stealing their grazing land, etc. This was proof that G’d was with him. Avram was well aware that this was a demonstration of G’d’ keeping His promise to him that his very presence would be considered a blessing for the people surrounding him. There are commentators (Rashi) who say that the reference to the Canaanite occupying that land אז, at that time, means that until shortly before that time the whole land had belonged to Shem and his descendants, and that only at that time had the Canaanites begun to dispossess the Semites in that land. The proof quoted for this theory is 14,18 ומלכי צדק מלך שלם, that this king was Shem, the son of Noach who was still king in Jerusalem at that time. In other words, at the time Avram came to the land of Canaan, the Canaanites had not yet captured Jerusalem.
  
  Verse 7
  
  וירא ה' אל אברם, at Elon Moreh, He appeared to him, telling him that this is the land He promised to show him.
  ויאמר לזרעך אתן, G’d told him that although He had bidden him to leave his homeland and to come to this country  and to settle in it, He had not said that He would give this land to Avram forthwith by dispossessing the present inhabitants, as this was not practical, Avram being only a single individual. Possession of this land was possible only after his descendants had become sufficiently numerous. As of the time G’d was speaking to Avram, the land, instead of being an inheritance, would be like a gift to him, and he was expected to familiarise himself with his gift. He would encounter only sympathy and goodwill from the local inhabitants. When, in due course, his descendants, more than 600.000 strong, would come back here they would encounter hostility, and the conquest would take quite a while, the inhabitants being killed or driven out in stages, as was spelled out in greater detail in Exodus 23,30.
  ויבן שם מזבח, in response to this promise, Avram erected an altar there in honour of the G’d Who had appeared to him. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  ויעתק משם ההרה, he folded his tent to set out to go to the more mountainous regions east of Bet El, to examine that part of the land, and pitching his tent anew in the area between Bet El and Ai. When arriving there he again built an altar proclaiming the supremacy and uniqueness of the Lord G’d. The ending ה in the word אהלה means the same as the ending ו, i.e. as if the Torah had written אהלו. Avram in “proclaiming” the name of the Lord, issued invitations to the local population to visit this altar, pointing out that this altar was exclusively for serving the Lord and sacrificing to Him. Perhaps the repetition of the words בשם ה' indicates that the people whom Avram invited to his altar were already very close to becoming monotheists. According to Bereshit Rabbah 39,16, quoted by Rashi, he prophesied that at that site or near it, some of his descendants would fall in battle, due to the sin of Achan and members of his family. (Joshua 7,5).
  
  Verse 9
  
  And Avram journeyed - journeyed from here, and went.  Continually traveling - from place to place.
  הנגבה, until he came to the southern region of the land of Canaan. According to Bereshit Rabbah, all of Avram’s journeys were in a southerly direction, towards the region where the Kingdom of Yehudah would be centred.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  ויהי רעב בארץ, this was one of the ten trials Avram was subjected to by G’d. He successfully mastered all of them. He never second-guessed G’d, thinking that if G’d had done things differently it would have been better, especially, better for him. He could have said that G’d had said to him that all the nations of the earth would be blessed through his presence, and if so how did his presence help them if the now had to face a famine? He did not question 
  מצרימה, generally speaking, there was always plenty of food in Egypt even if famine was prevalent in neighbouring countries because Egypt did not depend on rain from above, but relied on the waters of the river Nile which were most dependable both in quality and in quantity. Even the Torah mentions this as an advantage of Egypt in Deut. 11,10 when comparing the land of Israel to that of Egypt. Avram could not cope with the famine in the land of Canaan, due to all his herds and flocks requiring water and grazing land. Besides, by then he had a household comprising many people for whose welfare he was responsible.
  לגור שם, he did not intend to settle in Egypt, only to wait out the famine there.
  
  Verse 11
  
  ויהי כאשר הקריב, not just he himself, but when he had brought his camp close to the Egyptian border. He was traveling slowly, in keeping with the pace of those animals that could not move quickly. Seeing that the word הקריב is in a transitive mode, the verse must refer to Avram’s entire entourage. We encounter the same construction when the Torah reports the pursuit of the Israelites by Pharaoh in Exodus 14,10, i.e. ויהי כאשר הקריב פרעה, when the reference is to Pharaoh and his army.
  הנה נא ידעתי, even though the word נא generally describes a knowledge which one has just acquired, Avram did not want Sarai to think that he had only now discovered her good looks. He therefore used a formulation which indicated that he had been aware of her beauty ever since he had first met her. Similar constructions without the addition of ידעתי in the past tense are found in 19,2 הנה נא אדני, “now my lords,” or in 19,19 הנה נא מצא עבדך , חן, “now that your servant has found favour.” The comparison with these examples shows that the addition of the word ידעתי in our example had as its purpose to reassure Sarai that he had not only suddenly discovered that she was physically attractive.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  והיה כי יראו אותך המצרים, the Egyptians themselves are physically not as attractive as the Canaanites, their relative ugliness being due to their living in a southerly extremely hot climate. Moreover, they are steeped in sexual licentiousness that makes them disregard moral mores and causes them to ignore obstacles to satisfying their lust. Avram therefore was concerned that when such ugly people see as beautiful a creature as Sarai, and they find out that she is married, they will simply dispose of the husband to remove him as an obstacle to satisfy their lust. Had Avram been aware of this situation, he would never have set out on his journey towards Egypt, but would have been content to endure the famine just as did most of the other inhabitants of the land of Canaan. He most certainly would not have put his wife at risk. Even now, Avram was not concerned that Sarai might be exposed to many rapes, something which would have been considered as ongoing violence and not have been tolerated even in Egypt. He was afraid that the Egyptians would commit only a single act of violence, namely to murder him, which would make Sarai a widow, and anyone sleeping with her would not violate the local laws of the sanctity of marriage. As to why he did not trust G’d, Who had promised to make him into a great nation, a promise that had not yet begun to be fulfilled, and preferred to resort to subterfuge, this is not surprising. We find that Yaakov also took extreme precautions in spite of having been given many assurances by G’d. The promises by G’d are based on man having taken every reasonable precaution not to require a miracle to save him from danger. When one is aware that one finds oneself in a situation where danger to one’s life is likely, one must first take every precaution at one’s disposal to counter such danger. Our sages (Pessachim 64) have told us that it is inadmissible to sit with one’s hands in one’s hands, waiting for G’d to perform a miracle to save one’s life. They base this advice on the verse in Deut. 6,16 לא תנסו את ה' אלוקיכם, “do not put the Lord your G’d in a position of having to perform a miracle for you.” When the prophet Samuel went to anoint a son of Yishai (David as it turned out) as replacement for King Sha-ul (Samuel I 16,2) he told G’d that he was afraid to do this as King Sha-ul would kill him if he heard about this, G’d did not criticise him for being afraid, but instructed him to use subterfuge so as to avoid suspicion of traitorous conduct. We learn from these examples how a righteous person must behave when he faces danger in carrying out what he knows to be G’d’s will. One must not leave matters to miracles.
  ואותך יחיו, they will only let you live in order to use you as a sex object for their gratification. We encounter a similar situation when certain girls who were saved in the punitive campaign by the Israelites against Midian, were permitted to remain alive (Numbers 31,15) [all of the girls who had been too young to lose their virginity. Ed.] (compare also what the angel said to Bileam in Numbers 22,33)
  
  Verse 13
  
  אמרי נא, tell those who ask you.
  למען ייטב לי, so that on account of your describing yourself as my sister they will treat me well. The “good treatment” Avram referred to was not financial reward but simply that they would let him live. It is quite inconceivable that Avram wanted to use his wife as a pimp uses a prostitute. Even though we read in verse 15 that Avram, in the event, experienced many financial favours as the man whose consent was sought to have his sister as someone’s wife, this is something he had not counted on at all. In fact, we know how unwilling Avram was to accept people’s favours when he turned down the spoils of war which were not a gift to him but his due as he had fought that war. (Genesis 14,23.) Had he not been in Pharaoh’s country and been afraid to reject these gifts, he would most certainly not have accepted them. Avram was not interested in acquiring more wealth than G’d had seen fit to grant him.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  ויראו...ותקח, our sages, in comparing the abduction of Esther, and that of Sarai, point out that whereas with Esther the word used is ותלקח, here the word used by the Torah is ותקח, a pual (strong passive) mode, as opposed to a nifal-passive mode. (compare Torah Shleymah item 157 on this) In Sarai’s case, the formulation reflects the fact that she was a married woman, so that her abduction was a violation of her and her husband’s rights, whereas in Esther’s case it was “merely” a violation of her rights. According to our author Esther had been agreeable to participating in the contest. [The passive form would only reflect that none of the girls were active, but were selected by the king’s servants who had to decide if they had a chance to appeal to the king. Ed.]
  
  Verse 16
  
  ולאברם היטיב בעבורה, as soon as the king had taken Sarai he showered Avram with favours, seeing that she had described him as her brother. The favours consisted of the king sending him livestock, as well as other gifts which he could enjoy personally, so that he would give his consent to the marriage. Afterwards, when he had been punished by G’d, he did not ask Avram for forgiveness but deported him, as opposed to Avimelech (Genesis 20,14) The meaning of the words 
  ויהי לו, is that these gifts which used to belong to Pharaoh remained in Avram’s possession.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  'וינגע ה, immediately, in the night following Sarai’s abduction. G’d’s objective was to prevent Pharaoh from defiling Sarai through sexual contact with her.
  ואת ביתו, the men of his household, the very men who had praised Sarai’s beauty to their king and had abducted her. Alternatively, the meaning of these words could be that all members of the palace household, whether male or female, were afflicted with this plague in order for them to recognise the finger of G’d’s retribution for violating Sarai’s rights as an individual.
  על דבר שרי, so that they could not claim that the plague was a coincidence, not related to Sarai’s abduction. An allegorical approach (related to a Midrash quoted by Rashi) the words על דבר שרי אשת אברם were spoken by the angel who inflicted this plague on Pharaoh and his household. The plain meaning is that after suffering this affliction, Pharaoh searched in his mind why this should have happened to him, and it eventually occurred to him that Sarai might have been a married woman. He then asked Sarai to tell her the truth. She replied that she was indeed Avram’s wife, and that seeing they had been afraid for Avram’s life, she had agreed to this semi-deception. As a result of this revelation, Pharaoh called Avram and confronted him personally.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  למה...לאשה, I did not take her merely to sleep with her but I took her to be my wife.
  הנה אשתך, here she is, as much your wife as before, since I did not touch her.
  קח ולך, go and leave immediately before any person in my kingdom tries to rape her. She is too beautiful for most of my subjects to resist the temptation she represents for them. The reason why Avram did not bother to answer Pharaoh as he did Avimelech later (20,11-13) was because Avimelech had not expelled him, so that he deserved an answer.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  ויצו עליו פרעה אנשים, to protect both him and his wife, so that the Egyptians would not molest them.
  וישלחו אותו, as far as the border of the country.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  ואברם כבד מאד, he was very wealthy both in herds and flocks, as well as in other possessions, all chattels. The attribute כבד for great wealth has been chosen since, seeing it consists of chattels, it is “weighty” in the truest sense of the words. Similar literary formulations are found in Isaiah 1,30 כאלה נובלת עליה, “as a terebinth wilted of its leaf,” the prophet uses the word עלה, leaf, as something descriptive of a small tree like the terebinth whose leaf patterns account for its character. Its leaves make it such an outstanding tree. Similarly, the expression קרועי בגדים. In Samuel II 13,31 “with their clothes rent,” or מגולחי זקן, “shorn of beard,” in Jeremiah 41,5. The adjectives used fit the noun they describe, so here too the adjective כבד “heavy,” fits such metals as silver and gold, so that wealth may be appropriately described in such terms. [The author explains why a simple term such as עשיר, “rich,” was not used instead of the adjective כבד, literally “heavy.” Ed.]
  
  Verse 3
  
  וילך למסעיו, one journey after another; he traveled small distances each time, due to the enormous possessions he had. He continued from a southerly location. The word מנגב means that having already arrived in the south, i.e. Egypt, he now had to travel in a northerly direction to reach the place in the land of Canaan from which he had traveled to Egypt. He now resumed what we had already become familiar with as “his journeys, i.e. in a southerly direction. He continued as far as a place called Beyt El. Eventually, he came to the site of his altar where he gave thanks to G’d for his deliverance from Egypt. He had retraced his steps all the way to Beyt El.
  
  Verse 4
  
  אל מקום המזבח, the Torah details further that Avram did not only return to the mountainous region of which we had been told in 12,8 but that he returned to exactly the place where he had prayed previously. We are to learn from this how important it is for a person to appoint a definitive spot from where to offer his prayers on a regular basis. It is easier to concentrate when one is in familiar surroundings. Now that he had returned to this altar, Avram preached a second time in the name of the Lord, [no doubt telling people of his miraculous escape from Egypt, laden with new riches. Ed.]
  
  Verse 5
  
  וגם ללוט, the word וגם is meant to add that even Lot, who had only been a member of Avram’s entourage, was showered with wealth while Avram stayed in Egypt. [clearly a very short time if G’d punished Pharaoh already on the same night that he had taken Sarai. Ed.]
  ההולך את אברם, his new found wealth was due only to the fact that he was an fellow traveler of Avram.
  ואהלים, an indication that he had so many chattels that it required many tents to accommodate them. The word אהלים is spelled with the vowel cholem on the letter aleph, as it is also in Samuel I 4,10 and in Deut. 33,18 ויששכר באהליך According to the regular rules of grammar, the letter א in אהל should have the vowel chataf kametz as is the case in Jeremiah 35,7 and in Judges 8,11. Perhaps when the letter א has the vowel cholem, this is an indication that the noun is in a different declination, a declination known as גוזל תולע. [I confess not to know what this is. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  ולא נשא אותם הארץ, in this instance the noun ארץ is treated as a masculine noun, as it is also in Isaiah 9,18 נעתם ארץ, “the earth was shaken.”
  לשבת יחדו, for there was not enough grazing land to support their herds as well as those of the other inhabitants of the land.
  כי היה, for the possessions of Avram and Lot together was too great. As a result, a quarrel broke out among the respective shepherds. Each group of shepherds wanted to use the same meadows on which to graze their flocks.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  ויהי ריב, we already explained the meaning of the words והכנעני אז בארץ on 12,6. In this verse the tribe פריזי has been mentioned which had not been featured previously. This tribe also resided in the region of Beyt El and Ai.
  
  Verse 8
  
  ויאמר...ביני ובינך, if our shepherds keep on quarrelling it will not be long before we start quarrelling ourselves.
  
  Verse 9
  
  הלא כל הארץ לפניך, you have the same options as I have, as no one will object to the area which we will choose to graze our herds on. G’d’s assistance will be at your side on my account, and on account of the fact that you had joined me on my search for the true Creator in order to come closer to Him.
  הפרד נאת, from me; seeing that you are in this country on my account and not vice versa, it is up to you to move away. It is not my duty to move away from you and abandon this land to you. Avram considered himself as the principal and his nephew as a mere follower, so that the choice of who would go where was his. He added, that seeing he was a generous person, all the more so when the other person involved was his brother, he therefore offered the choice to Lot.
  אם השמאל ואימינה ואם הימין ואשמאילה, what he meant was “if you will move north I will be south of you, whereas if you move south, I will be north of you, in the very location that I am now, which was in the south of the country as we know from 12,9 and 13,3.
  ואם הימין, if you prefer to remain here, i.e. in the south, I will be forced to move north from here.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  וישא לוט את עיניו, from the mountain where they were staying, as we know from 12,8. Seeing that this was a high point in the country, it afforded Lot an opportunity to survey much of the rest of the country all around him. As a result, he observed כי כלה משקה, that the Jordan valley was very well irrigated. When the Torah uses the word כלה after having already said כל when describing the valley, this is a way of emphasising the word כל still further. We find a similar construction in Isaiah 14,18 כל מלכי גוים כולם, “all the kings of the nations, all of them.”
  ככר, a valley; the word occurs in a similar sense in Kings I 7,46 בככר הירדן יצקם, “he had them cast in the valley of the Jordan.” This particular valley was very close to the city of Sodom and prior to that city’s destruction it was known as being “like a garden of G’d.” (19,25) The “garden” people used as the metaphor to describe is was the “garden of Eden.” We know that that garden had been irrigated by four rivers. Alternately, the comparison made here is to Egypt which is thoroughly irrigated by the river Nile. 
  באכה צוער, all the way to the town of Tzoar. The letter ה at the end of the word באכה, is used in the same way as the same letter in Samuel I 1,26 הנצבת עמכה, “who was standing next to you.” There are other examples of this type in the Holy Scriptures. The letter כ at the beginning of the word ככר is not something that has been added, as many commentators believe, but is similar to that same letter in Leviticus 27,2 בערכך, describing proximity to the priest in that instance, and proximity to the river in this instance. (compare Ibn Ezra on that verse) The Jordan valley was thoroughly irrigated all the way south to Tzoar.  
  
  Verse 11
  
  ויבחר לו לוט את כל ככר הירדן, the reference is to one area within the Jordan valley, the use of the word כל here meaning that all the areas within that region were equally good as grazing land for his flocks. 
  ויסע לוט מקדם, in an easterly direction from the location where he had been with Avram. The river Jordan is east of the land of Canaan, being its eastern boundary. We already explained the letter מ in the word מנגב in 13,3 as meaning “in a southerly direction,” here too the letter מ in the word מקדם means “in an easterly direction.” [the author does not want us to think that the letter מ in either word means “away from,” as if it did the verse would not make sense. Ed.]
  ויפרדו איש מעל אחיו, Lot’s traveling towards the Jordan valley resulted in these two brothers separating from one another. Seeing that it was Lot who severed the relationship, it seems strange that the Torah describes it as איש מעל אחיו, “one from another,” as if they were both separating from one another. The Torah describes not the parting, but the result of the parting; after Lot had moved they were in effect apart from one another. Now Avram was a resident of the land of Canaan, whereas Lot had become a resident of the cities in that valley, i.e. he no longer shared Avram’s destiny in the land of Canaan. Even though both were essentially nomads, moving with their herds and flocks, their home bases were different from one another. Lot, although aware of the evil reputation of the people in the cities of that valley, had decided to ignore this, preferring to concentrate on the advantages offered by the land itself.
  
  Verse 12
  
  ויאהל עד סדום, he moved his tent from place to place, almost as far as the city of Sodom.
  
  Verse 13
  
  ואנשי סדום רעים וחטאים, the inhabitants of Sodom were evil and wicked. The word רעים describes their attitude to G’d, whereas the word חטאים describes their attitude to fellow human beings (non-residents.) They ignored all the seven Noachide laws, including idolatry, the other 6 laws dealing with inter-personal relations. The Torah, underlining the severity of these people’s wickedness, adds: מאד, “very much so.” They did not bother to conceal their evil deeds but carried them out in the open, brazenly.
  
  Verse 14
  
  וה' אמר אל אברם, this occurred while Lot was still with him. [otherwise the Torah would have used the mode of the immediate past, i.e. ויאמר. Ed.] If not, you might have thought that Lot and his descendants could also have staked a claim to part of the land of Canaan, seeing he was a blood relative of Avram. Now G’d wanted to correct Avram who had said to Lot in verse 9 “the whole land is in front of you, i.e. at your disposal.” Now that Lot had separated from Avram, away from the land of Canaan, G’d wanted to make certain that His promise to Avraham of the land of Canaan applied exclusively to direct offspring of Avram, not to relatives who were descendants of his father Terach. G’d‘s. words contained an implied criticism of Avram having offered Lot a choice which would have made him owner of part of the land of Canaan, when he had said to him: “if to the left, I will go to the right, and if to the right, I will go to the left.” Both the left and the right, i.e. north and south from where he stood, will be his and his descendants. Also east and west would be his. The reason why G’d mentioned north and south first, was because those were the areas which Avram had spoken to Lot about. In Deuteronomy 20,19 Moses quotes the lands which will be the inheritance of Lot’s descendants.
  
  Verse 15
  
  כי את כל הארץ, even though Avram could not see the whole of the land of Canaan from where he stood, G’d told him to look in all the four directions of the globe to tell him that just as the land extended beyond his range of physical vision in every direction, so G’d would give to his descendants all of this as an inheritance, after at this time already having given it to Avram as a gift. The fact that at the moment this land was under the sovereignty of the Canaanites was legally irrelevant. He, Avram, would transfer title to his descendants as his heirs. [an inheritance cannot be revoked, whereas a gift can be revoked by the donor. Ed.]
  עד עולם, they would expel the nations living here from this land. Even though, eventually, the Israelites themselves would be exiled from their land, in the end they would return there on a permanent enduring basis.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  ושמתי את זרעך כעפר הארץ, a figure of speech, poetic license, exaggeration. We find more such metaphors, such as in Genesis 22,17 ככוכבי השמים, “as numerous as the stars in heaven.” According to the Midrash Aggadah, Vayetze 25,13 the reason why on occasion the Jewish people and their numbers are compared to dust and on other occasions to the stars, is that when they deserve it they are comparable to the stars in heaven, whereas at times when they do not deserve it, they are compared to the dust of the earth which everyone steps on.
  גם זרעך ימנה, if one part of the metaphor comes true so does the other. Just as it is inconceivable to have a world without stars or dust, so it is inconceivable to have a world without Jews. (compare Jeremiah 13,23)
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  לארכה, according to its length, from east to west; ולרחבה, and to its width from north to south.
  
  Verse 18
  
  ויאהל אברם, he moved his tent from there and pitched it from one place to another until he arrived at Eloney Mamre. This is not the same אלון מורה mentioned in 12,6. The previous place was located in the plain, and the owner of that site was called Moreh. Here we speak of at least two plains belonging to a person called Mamre, the brother of Eshkol and the brother of Aner.
  אשר בחברון, within the general area of Chevron.
  ויבן שם מזבח, in order to call people to worship the Lord G’d at the altar he had built there. Wherever Avram made a permanent halt, stayed for a period, he used to build an altar and preach in the name of the Lord.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויהי בימי אמרפל, these wars took place during the reigns of the kings described in these verse; details of them will follow. We find a similar construction in Esther 1,1,ויהי בימי אחשורש, where the words ויהי בימי also serve as an introduction to what is to follow. The main reason why the Torah gives us details of these wars, something that does not appear to be too relevant to our times, is to demonstrate the righteousness, courage, and sense of responsibility even for a nephew who had suffered a setback, as well as captivity due to his greed in settling near the Sodomites. When Avram knew that what he was about to do was something that morality demanded, i.e. not to allow a next of kin even one such as Lot to remain in captivity, he mobilised the few men he had, and tackled the greatest contemporary war machine to liberate his nephew, being sure that G’d would assist him in such an endeavour. The word כדרלעומר is one word. The words מלך גוים mean “king of a people known as גוים. The reason may well be that in that land members of different nations had decided to live together under a single king.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  עשו מלחמה, now the Torah tells of the battle between them in the valley of Sidim. The fact that there had been previous wars resulting in the five kings becoming subservient to the four kings is mentioned only as a backdrop to this war that prompted Avram’s involvement.
  
  Verse 3
  
  כל אלה, the four against the five.
  אל עמק, this means the same as בעמק, “in the valley of.” We have a similar construction where the word אל substitutes for the prefix ב in Exodus 25,22 ואל הארון תתן את העדות, “and in the ark you are to place the testimony (Tablets).”
  השדים, as translated by Onkelos, an area comprising many fields. The dagesh in the letters ש and ד saves writing both letters twice, as the word is a composite of two roots, שדה, field, as well as שדד, ploughed. The word is also found in Hoseah 10,11 ישדד לו יעקב, “Yaakov will do the final ploughing.”
  השדים, הוא ים המלח, the valley in question is close to the Dead Sea. Alternatively, the Torah tells us the region which nowadays is the Dead Sea, used to be that fertile valley before those cities were overturned by G’d. At any rate, that region is part of the eastern boundary of the land of Israel as mentioned in Numbers 34, 3, and 12.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  שתים עשרה שנה עבדו, they were enslaved to Amrafel, paying annual taxes to him.
  ושלש עשרה שנה, these words mean the same as if they had been written in the ordinal form, i.e. “during the thirteenth year.”
  מרדו, their rebellion consisted of their not paying the annual taxes. Contrary to the impression created that Amrafel was the leader seeing he was named first, the leading king in that group of three was Kedorleomer.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  ובארבעה עשר .. את רפאים בעשתרות קרנים, they defeated the giants who lived at that place. The place עשתרות קרנים was so named seeing it was situated between two mountains, so that the word קרנים, “horns,” describes the way in which these mountains protruded from the earth’s surface. Our sages in Sukkah 2 already mentioned that all the places mentioned in these verses are not far from Sodom and Gomorrah. Perhaps the inhabitants had supported the insubordination of Sodom and satellites and that is why they were attacked.
  
  Verse 6
  
  ואת החרי בהררם שעיר, they also defeated the Chori on the mountain on which these people lived. We know that the area was mountainous from Genesis 36,20. בהררם, the name of the place without the pronoun-suffix is הרר, with a vowel pattern similar to ארץ and גפן. If the word הררם were a derivative from a root in the piel mode, itself a noun in its own right, as some commentators claim, (including Ibn Ezra), the letter ה would have had to have the vowel kametz and not patach, as it does. Onkelos, in rendering it as דבטוריא דשעיר “in the mountains of Se-ir” also understands it as did Ibn Ezra. איל פארן means, as the Targum renders it, “the plain of Paran.” The words על המדבר mean the same as if the Torah had written סמוך למדבר, adjoining the desert. A similar construction is found in Numbers 2,20 ועליו מטה מנשה, “next to him the tribe of Menashe.” 
  
  Verse 7
  
  וישבו ויבאו, after they had first spread out as far as the edge of the desert, they changed direction and marched towards Sodom encountering in their path a place called עין משפט. They were familiar with the history of these places and knew why they bore such names. All of these place-names referred to events that had occurred there at one time or another. There is a Midrash quoted by Rashi in which these names are understood as allusions to events in the future, such as the time when Moses and Aaron would be judged there for hitting the rock instead of speaking to it. At that time the place was called מי מריבה, “waters of the strife.”
  שדה העמלקי, [this name supports Rashi’s opinion that the names referred to events in the future, seeing that Amalek, a grandson of Esau, had not been born yet for at least another hundred years. Ed.] When a plain is large enough so that cities can be built in it, it is called שדה. One such example is שדה אדום in Genesis 32,3; another is found in Ruth 1,6 שדה מואב.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  ויצא מלך סדום...ויערכו אתם מלחמה. The five kings that went out from their cities and prepared plans for a battle were confident that they would win, and they may have thought that others might join them. Their rebellion had been inspired by the hope that other kingdoms that were similarly subservient to Kedorleomer would make common cause with them. They believed that they would enjoy a numerical advantage, seeing the opposing kings were only four in number. If the four kings proved victorious over greater numbers than themselves, this was due to G’d wanting that Avram acquire the reputation of being a mighty warrior, if need be. This is part of the way in which G’d fulfilled His promise to Avram “I will make your name great.” (12,2) It was also designed to demonstrate to the people at large Avram’s righteousness and his abiding trust in the Lord, without whose help such a victory by 318 men over the mightiest armies of that period had been inconceivable. Concerning Avram and men of his ilk, Solomon wrote in Proverbs 29,25: “ובוטח בה' ישגב, he who trusts in the Lord will be safeguarded.” In order to underscore the point still further, the Torah describes the victory of Kedorleomer as the “victory of four kings versus five.”
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  ועמק השדים בארות בארות חמר, the vowel pattern of the construct mode of the word בארות in our verse is different from the ordinary plural mode of the same word in Genesis 26,18 where it also appears in the construct mode, i.e. בארות המים, “the wells of water.”
  The word חמר is equivalent to what we know as טיט, (11,3) where it means mortar. It is unbaked clay, binding bricks together, loam.
  וינסו מלך סדום ועמורה, the other kings fled toward the mountains, as we are told והנשארים הרה נסו. “those remaining fled towards the mountain.” The letter ה at the end of the word הרה is equivalent to the prefix ל.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  ויקחו את כל רכוש סדום ועמורה, the עמק השדים was within the boundaries of those 2 kingdoms, whereas the satellite towns Admah and Tzoyim and Bela were not situated in that part of the terrain. The word רכוש includes both chattels which are inert and animals which can walk on their own.
  ואת כל אכלם, and all the food they had stored up at home as well as all the inhabitants.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  ויקחו ..והוא יושב בסדום. The Torah had already told us in 13,12 where Lot had settled. This was only meant to tell us that he had not moved from these since he took up residence there in the first place. Or, whereas at the beginning he had actually not resided within the city, by now he had moved into Sodom proper.
  
  Verse 13
  
  ויבא הפליט, after that individual had escaped from captivity he came and told Avram that his nephew had been taken captive, also.
  העברי, a member of the tribe of Ever, he and all his descendants proudly regarded Ever as their ancestor. They were the only people who still spoke Hebrew, the original language of man. Subsequent descendants, other than the line which ran through Avraham and the Israelites, changed their language to Aramaic, and were called Aramim, i.e. members of the people of Aram, in recognition of their specific language. Even Lavan, a third or fourth generation descendant of Ever, was already known as לבן הארמי, Lavan who spoke Aramaic. The tribe called עברים was Yaakov and his offspring.
  והא שוכן באלוני ממרא, this escaped captive lived with the brothers who were allies of Avram and had helped him. He lived on the lands of one of the brothers i.e. that of Mamre.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  וישמע...אחיו, the word אחיו here is used in the sense of “his relative.” Nephews are often considered as like “brothers.” Avram himself had used this term when he spoke to his nephew in 13,8 and said כי אנשים אחים אנחנו, “we are men who are brothers.”
  וירק, he issued weapons to them, the verb is in the transitive mode. We encounter it in a similar meaning in Psalms 35,3 והרק חנית, “make ready the spear.”
  חניכיו, an adjective, similar to שרידיו and פליטיו, his trainees, people whom he had instructed in true monotheism. The word occurs in this sense in Proverbs 22,6 חנוך לנער על פי דרכו, train the lad in an appropriate manner, in accordance with his natural talents.”
  ילידי ביתו, people born in his household, to parents who had come with him already from Charan as well as those later in the land of Canaan. They totaled שמונה עשר ושלש מאות, 318. According to a Midrash quoted by Rashi, he took only Eliezer with him, the numerical value of the letters in his name amounting to a total of 318. If so, why did the Torah have to tell us that he took with him people born in his household? The Torah must have meant that he took an undisclosed number of people of his household with him, plus Eliezer, who was equivalent to 318 trained men.
  וירדף עד דן, the place was not called  Dan until much later, when the tribe of Dan expanded its territory under Joshua in the north of the country. At that time the Danites named the place after their tribe’s founding father. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  ויחלק עליהם לילה, “when it was midnight, they attacked them. The word עליהם refers to the armies of the four kings, not as if it was midnight only for Avram and his men. As to the unusual expression עליהם, instead of the normative expression ויהי בחצי הלילה, “it was at midnight,” this tells us that until midnight on that night the four kings had felt absolutely safe and secure. Starting at that moment, they began to flee for their lives as soon as they found themselves under surprise attack by Avram and his men. He smote them as soon as he caught up with them, and those whom he did not catch continued fleeing all the way to Chovah, close to Damascus. The defeat was especially great, seeing that the fleeing armies left behind all their belongings, aiming only to save their lives. After having chased them such a great distance, Avram turned back and restored all the loot these kings had captured to their rightful owners.
  
  Verse 16
  
  וישב...וגם את לוט...וגם את הנשים ואת העם , they first of all restored all the captives to show that they had not killed any of them.
  
  Verse 17
  
  ויצא...אל עמק שוה, this was a spot reserved for horse racing as it was a flat piece of land without hills or depressions. The reason it was also called עמק המלך, valley of the king, was that the king and his riders used it as a training ground for their race horses. Onkelos translates it as למישר מפונא, meaning that this plain was free from obstacles such as stones, tree stumps, etc. He translates the words עמק המלך as בית ריסא דמלכא, describing the size of the 180 cubits, the distances over which horses raced.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  ומלכי צדק מלך שלם, the word שלם is another word for ירושלים, and we find it referred to as such in Psalms 76,3 ויהי בשלם סכו, “Salem became His abode.” It was customary to give the title Malki Tzedek or Adoni Tzedek, to kings of Jerusalem in those days, just as the kings of Egypt were called Pharaoh. Compare Joshua 10,1 where we find אדני צדק מלך ירושלים. Jerusalem traditionally represented the center of righteousness and peace. It is a place in which iniquity is less tolerated than anywhere else. This is why the Torah warned in Leviticus 18,28 that the Israelites should take care that the land not spew them out just as it had spewed out previous inhabitants because they had defiled it. The reason the Torah in Deuteronomy 31,16 uses the somewhat enigmatic expression אלוהי נכר הארץ, is that the kind of conduct by the people in that city that were spewed out, was a conduct that was irreconcilable (alien) with the very nature, spiritual climate, prevailing in, and being part of that holy city. The sons of Korach already recognised and extolled this spiritual climate of the very city when they said in Psalms 48,3 יפה נוף משוש כל הארץ הר ציון ירכתי צפון קרית מלך רב, “fair-crested, joy of all the earth, Mount Zion, summit of Tzafon, city of the great King.” In the Midrash quoted by Rashi, Malki Tzedek is identified as Shem, the son of Noach.
  הוציא לחם ויין, seeing that these people came back from battle tired, he brought them bread and wine to strengthen and refresh them.
  והוא כהן לאל עליון, he did not worship the stars or other celestial phenomena but only the supreme and invisible G’d. In this respect he was like Avram and those who had joined him.
  
  Verse 19
  
  ויברכהו...קונה שמים וארץ, the word קונה here must not be understood in the customary sense of acquiring something from a third party. Malki Tzedek most certainly did not think that “the G’d of heaven and earth” had “bought” his position from some other force. The word is used in the sense of “having created, or having invented.” It was used in this sense by Chavah when she gave birth to Kayin and said  קניתי איש את ה', “I have produced, brought forth a man, with G’d,” when she meant that she was now a partner to G’d.” Genesis 4,1)
  
  Verse 20
  
  וברוך אל עליון, he described G’d in terms of a different attribute, i.e. “the supreme G’d.” In due course, Avraham also used this attribute to describe G’d in order to make plain to any listener that any other so-called deities are all subservient to this G’d, so that they are totally unfree and cannot be considered deities.
  מגן צריך, “He delivered them into your hands.” We find this verb used in a similar sense in Hoseah 11,8 אמגנך ישראל, “How can I surrender you, Israel? The choice of the word צריך”your oppressors,” is strange, seeing that no one had mistreated Avram or oppressed him. Since the 4 kings had singled out one of Avram’s relatives their action was interpreted as a potential attack on Avram, to lure him to come to the defense of his nephew.
  ויתן לו מעשר מכל, according to most commentators, Avram was the subject in this verse and Malki Tzedek was the recipient. Avraham supposedly gave Malki Tzedek 10% of the cattle captured, in his capacity of being a priest of G’d. My late revered father, Rabbi Joseph Kimchi, explained that actually Malki Tzedek “gave” Avram the tithe as a legal claim. He pronounced it as Avram’s by right, seeing that the King of Sodom had had the effrontery to claim that which Avram had captured as his. In the conversation between Avram and the King, Avram had insisted that he would not accept anything for himself from the King of Sodom, not even a shoelace. What he meant was that the King was in no position to even make an offer of something that was not his. (verse 21) At that point, Malki Tzedek intervened, telling Avram (and the King) that at least 10% of the loot was Avram’s by right, as it is the right of anyone who frees property stolen or forcefully taken from its rightful owner to retain this as a kind of fee for services rendered. This interpretation is correct; if we accept the interpretation of the commentators, by what legal right Avram could give away to Malki Tzedek property that legally belonged to the King of Sodom an d had been illegally taken from him? If he did not think it was right for him to accept same, why would it be in order to give it instead to Malki Tzedek?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  אחר הדברים האלה....במחזה, the expression במחזה “in a vision,” is one that had not been mentioned previously when the Torah reported G’d as communicating with Avram. The reason is that in this communication Avram did not only “hear something,” i.e. words spoken by G’d, but he saw something with his eyes [whether mental or physical does not matter, the point being that visual images are considered as stronger than aural perceptions. Ed.] Both the look at the stars, and the viewing of the pieces of the sacrifice he had slaughtered were more “real” than merely “hearing” something in a dream.
  אל תירא, do not fear that kings whom you vanquished will stage a return engagement against you after they have regrouped.
  אנכי מגן לך, as a reward for your having displayed such trust and faith in Me, I will be your shield not only against these kings in the future, but also against any other adversaries that may attempt to harm you.
  שכרך הרבה מאד, the combination of הרבה and מאד, means that Avram’s reward would be both in this life and in the hereafter.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  ויאמר אברם א-רני ה' מה תתן לי, the first attribute for G’d is spelled with the letter א-ד, an attribute, adjective, whereas the second name of G’d is the name used to describe the Essence of G’d, what we call Hashem for short. The adjective precedes the noun it describes in order to make clear that the adjective (G’d’s attribute) is in a construct mode of the noun (Essence) and not vice versa. It is not possible to convert the name of G’d the Essence into an adjective mode. If, nonetheless, we encounter such formulations on occasions, when it appears as if G’d’s name (the Essence) has been used as if it were an adjective, this merely reflects the way in which human beings use such terms, i.e. the fault is man’s not the Torah’s.
  ?מה תתן לי, Avram’s question did not relate to what G’d would give him as a reward in the hereafter, rather he wondered what meaningful reward there could be for him on earth seeing he had no children. Any reward in this life in the absence of children to leave it to, he considered meaningless. His reward would only be consumed by others, not related to him.
  ערירי,  “childless,” as rendered by Onkelos. If a member of my household will inherit me, even if it is my servant who is faithful to me, and a willing disciple, You have said to me “to you and to your descendants I will give it.”
  ובן משק ביתי, he will become my heir, if I will not have a biological heir. He is, after all, completely at home in my house.
  משק, the root of the word is שקק, is grammatically parallel to such words as מכס, whose root is כסס, the meaning of the word is מן השוק, i.e. someone who comes and goes, not someone whose roots are in my house. The root occurs in that sense in Proverbs 28,15 דוב שוקק, “a prowling bear.” Both the roots כסס and שקק describe similar activities.
  דמשק אליעזר. It is possible that the letter י at the end of the word דמשק, i.e. דמשקי is missing here. If so, the meaning is  “Eliezer, the man from Damascus, etc.” It would be similar to שבט המנשה being described in Deut 29,7 as שבט המנשי. We also have variations such as משפחת הימנה whereas in the same verse we have משפחת הישוי, with the letter י at the end instead of the letter ה. (compare Numbers 26,44) Onkelos also translates it in this sense when writing דמשקאה “from Damascus.” It is also possible that the servant’s name was Damessek  when he came to Avram, and that his master changed his name to Eliezer, seeing that this is a Hebrew name. He was referred to by either name on different occasions. In that event, Avram was saying that if my heir were to be at least somebody belonging to my family it would not be so bad, but I will not even have an heir from my family, but a stranger from Damascus. Seeing that Avram felt that badly about such a prospect, he repeated, i.e. he continued harping on this subject still further in verse 3 saying:
  
  Verse 3
  
  הן לי לא נתת זרע, although You have said to me “I will make you into a great nation and I will make your descendants as numerous as the dust of the earth” (12,2) When Avram said all this to G’d, it did not cross his mind that G’d might have deceived him, lied to him, and that this was why the promise had not come true. He may have thought of one of two reasons being the cause why the promise had not been fulfilled. 1) that he had committed some sin after G’d had made the promise, so that the premise upon which the promise had been based was no longer valid. 2) or, he thought that the seed G’d had spoken of was a reference to some other family member, people carrying many of the same genes. The word זרע does appear in such a sense in Esther 10,3 where Mordechai is described as דובר שלום לכל זרעו, “interceding on behalf of all his seed.” If Mordechai had interceded only on behalf of personal children and grandchildren, this would hardly have been worth mentioning, certainly not worth praising him for. Basically, Avram wanted G’d to know that if G’d had meant that the definition of the word זרעך as mentioned in 12,2 was only in the most general sense, such as in Esther 10,3, then he, Avram, would not consider this reward as something special seeing G’d had not seen fit to make his wife conceive offspring from his seed.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  'והנה דבר ה, now G’d’s word in response to his concern about who would inherit him, saying: לא יירשך זה, this loyal servant of yours will not inherit you, כי אם אשר יצא ממעיך, do not err in your understanding of the meaning of the words לך ולזרעך, “to you and to your descendants,” I only referred to your biological; offspring. The word מעיים refers to all the organs within the body, in this instance referring to the reproductive organ. The word is used in a similar sense in Isaiah 48,19 וצאצאי מעיך, “your offspring.”
  
  Verse 5
  
  ויוצא אותו החוצה, he had received the prophetic vision and words of G’d while in the tent. As part of this prophetic insight, Avram felt that G’d took him outside the tent, showing him the stars. This was the מחזה, “the vision.” We have a parallel situation in Ezekiel 8,3 ותבא אתי ירושלמה במראות אלוקים, “He brought me to Jerusalem in visions of G’d;” [the prophet never set foot in Jerusalem, but lived in Babylonia all his life. Ed.] The new element now was that whereas previously G’d had compared Avram’s offspring as being “like the dust of the earth,” now it is described as “as numerous as the stars in heaven.” Both statements, of course, have to be understood as exaggerations, as we pointed out already on 13,16. We also mentioned the allegorical explanations offered on that verse. It is possible, that in messianic times the Jewish people will be comparable to the stars in that just as no one is able to impose his will on the stars in heaven, so no one will be able to impose his will on the Jewish people. They will shine on earth without interruption just as the stars shine in the sky without dimming. In Bereshit Rabbah 44,10 the words ויוצא אותו are understood as G’d telling Avram to free himself from his astrological speculations according to which he was not able to beget children. Once his name would be changed to Avraham, there would be no reason why a person by that name could not beget children. As soon as G’d would change his name he would be able to sire children, something that proved correct.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  'והאמין בה, he had already believed in G’d at the start of this prophecy, his doubts having concerned only the interpretation of the word זרעך as we have explained on verse 3. Now that G’d had added that the זרעך He had been speaking about meant biological offspring, i.e. ממעיך, and He had shown him the parable with his own eyes by showing him the stars in a prophetic vision, Avram believed in the original promise with even greater certainty, not entertaining any doubt whatsoever.
  ויחשבה לו צדקה, G’d credited Avram with having performed an act of righteousness by believing so unquestioningly in His promise that he personally would become a father. In view of the fact that both he and his wife were in the process of aging, such faith was even more remarkable.
  
  Verse 7
  
  ויאמר אליו, G’d continued speaking to him, in order to reinforce his faith that the promises would be fulfilled.
  'אני ה, He had not previously mentioned His name Hashem, the Essence, to Avram. When G’d mentioned this name of His now, it was not to inform Avram that this was His true name, His Essence. Avram had been familiar with that name from the time he had first gotten to know G’d. He only mentioned it now to tell Avram that He would keep His promise in His capacity of Hashem. It is as if G’d had said: “I swear by My name Hashem.”
  אשר הוצאתיך מאור כשדים, it was not for nothing that I have taken you out of that environment, but in order to give you this land to inherit it. G’d meant that Avram’s descendants would inherit the land of Canaan. The relationship between this land and Avram would become comparable to the inheritance a father leaves to his sons.
  
  Verse 8
  
  ?ויאמר.. במה אדע כי אירשנה, he meant: “how do I know that my son will inherit it?” We have a similar construction in Genesis 48,22 אשר לקחתי מיד האמורי, where Yaakov also does not mean that he, personally, had battled the Emorite, but that his sons had done so successfully. The meaning of the words במה אדע cannot be that the same man who had just been given credit for his utter faith in G’d now has developed doubts, nothing having occurred to cause such doubts. He wanted to know how he could be certain that when his sons, i.e. offspring, would inherit the land that it would remain theirs forever. Perhaps, due to some sin, future generations might forfeit their claim to the land of Canaan, just as the present occupants had forfeited their claim through their sins. Unless they had, why would G’d want to dispossess them? He hoped that just as G’d had shown him the stars as an illustration that his offspring would be people of great substance, so G’d would show him a further illustration of a means by which his offspring would reinforce their title to that land once they had settled in it.
  
  Verse 9
  
  'ויאמר אליו קחה לי וגו, the purpose of Avram taking these animals was to offer them to Gd as a sacrifice. G’d would use this sacrifice to illustrate to Avram the future of his descendants, their settlement in the land of Canaan, as well as their exile from that land. By means of these animal sacrifices G’d would conclude a covenant with Avram that was not subject to permanent dissolution, ever. Concluding a covenant is a procedure such as follows in the next verses. In Jeremiah 34,18 the prophet spells this out more clearly, עגלה אשר כרתו לשנים ויעבר בין בתריו, “(like) the calf which they cut in two so as to pass between the halves.”
  ויבתר אותם בתוך, the Torah mentions three species of animals (mammals) which are basically fit to be offered as sacrificial animals, hinting thereby that as long as these kinds of animals would be offered on the altar to G’d in the prescribed manner, the Jewish people, Avram’s descendants, would not be exiled from their land. The reason why 3 of each species were to be offered by Avram at this time was to apprise him of the fact there would indeed occur three exiles when his descendants would be forcefully uprooted from their land. Their first such exile would be to the land of Egypt, also known as עגלה, calf (Jeremiah 46,20) עגלה יפה פיה מצרים, “Egypt is a handsome heifer.” In Psalms 80,6 the psalmist writes: ותשקמו בדמעות שליש, “You have fed them tears three times,” a prophetic prediction by the author that the exile of the Jewish people in Egypt would not be their only one, but that two more were to follow.
  עגלה, this word was an allusion to the first exile of the Israelites. Seeing that Yaakov’s sons had already occupied prominent positions in the land of Canaan, the land could have been described as theirs, if not as their inheritance, as G’d said in Genesis 15,16 “for the measure of the Emorites’ sin will not be full until 4 generations from now.” G’d would not have a legal justification for expelling them from their land until after that period of time. [Most Midrashim understand עגלה as a reference to the Babylonian exile, compare Torah Shleymah on our verse. Ed.]
  ועז ואיל, and a she-goat and a ram; these two species are symbolic of the exile to Babylonia and the exile initiated by the Romans. Even though the Jewish people were badly suppressed by the Greeks, this happened while they were and remained on their own land. They are, however included in the parable shown by G’d to Avram. In Daniel’s dream  (Daniel 8,8) the Greeks are referred to as a she-goat. Seeing that they were the first oppressors of the Jews during the period of the second Temple, the parable alluded to them in second place. The Romans completed what the Greeks had started and exiled the Jewish people from their homeland. The איל, ram, is an allusion to the Persian-Medes exile Seeing that their dominion was based on Babylon, they are referred to in the parable as the איל, the ram, even though eventually they allowed the exiles to return to their land. Several kings of the Persian-Medes empire had prolonged the Jews’ stay in captivity before allowing them to return home, so that they were also guilty of “exiling” them in the interval. The allusion to the second exile, that in Babylonia is called in the feminine mode i.e. עז, instead of שעיר, to indicate that the Babylonians never allowed the Jews to return, whereas the third exile is represented by the species איל in the masculine mode, the Persians-Medes being the only ones allowing the exiles to return to their homeland. The Persians-Medes possessed the merit of believing in the existence of the Jewish G’d, Cyrus having had a dream as a result of which he allowed the Jews to return to their homeland and build a new Temple. (Chronicles II 36,23) Among other merits he attributed his glory to the G’d in heaven Who had made him such a mighty ruler This compares favourably with the king of Ashur who had attributed his success to his own efforts (Isaiah 10,13) Similarly, Titus, conqueror of Jerusalem in Roman times, blasphemed against the G’d of the Jews. The Persians and Medes therefore are represented by a female animal in the parable G’d shows Avram here, as opposed to the arrogant kings who are represented by the male specimens of their species.
  משלשת, three of each, as per Onkelos. Alternately, the meaning could be that these animals were to be three years old (Ibn Ezra)
  ותר וגוזל, we are not certain what species of bird is called גוזל by the Torah. Basically, all small birds are known by the collective name of גוזל, as for instances in Deuteronomy 32,11 where the Torah describes the eagle, נשר, as carrying its young on its wings, with the words על גוזליו ירחף. Onkelos explains that what is meant here are young turtle doves. This is one of the few birds that are ritually admissible as sacrifices in Jewish law. It is the kind of bird that, while subject to other predators, does not itself make its livelihood by preying on either birds or beasts. The pigeon, תור, is very similar to it, and both species share the distinction of not mating with another male bird after its first sexual partner has died. The Jewish people, while in exile also considers itself as widowed, separated from its husband, although He is alive and well. It refused to serve other deities (alternate husbands) even though the exile has lasted this long and no immediate redemption is in sight. The female pigeons have this loyalty in common with the Jewish people, not giving up hope that their husbands will return to them. The Jewish people are non-aggressive, though downtrodden by the nations while they are in exile; they have not given up hope that in the fullness of time the messiah, and with him the redemption and return to our own land will finally be realised. (Such fond hopes are expressed by Solomon in his Song of Songs, both in 1,15 and 2,14 in poetical terms. The Jewish people are also compared to the תור in Psalms 74,19 אל תתן לחיות נפש תורך, “do not deliver Your dove to the wild beast.”
  
  Verse 10
  
  ויבתר אותם בתוך, both what he cut in half and what he did not cut was at the command of G’d, even though the Torah did not mention this specifically, The reason for cutting something in half was to show that G’d was making a covenant with Avram, as we already explained on verse 9. G’d hinted to Avram, by means of these carcasses being cut in half, that all the nations exiling the Jewish people, would suffer a fate as that suffered by these sacrificial animals. They would successively fight wars, the younger one against the older one, one wiping out the other eventually. All those nations represented different cultures, both in their secular outlook as well as in their religious orientation. All of this would be caused due their competitive spirit, each nation trying to achieve dominance over the others. Such behaviour is not typical of the Jewish people, although, for a brief period in our history, the tribe of Ephrayim competed violently with the tribe of Yehudah for pre-eminence among the 12 tribes of the Jewish people. Even during such periods, these tribes would not remain divided culturally or religiously. (compare Isaiah 11,13) אפרים לא יקנא את יהודה ויהודה לא יצר את אפרים, “Ephrayim will not be jealous of Yehudah, nor will Yehudah oppress Ephrayim.” To signify this difference between competition among the gentile nations, and tribal warfare in Israel, G’d told Avram not to cut the bird in half, seeing that it represented the nation that would emerge with Avram as their founding father. Therefore, the Torah reported ואת הצפור לא בתר, that Avram did not cut the bird in half. The word הצפור includes both the pigeon and the turtle dove, תור וגוזל, seeing that the Jewish people are scattered in the four directions of the globe and have yet remained a single people, clinging to their Torah and their faith in spite of being scattered all over the world. The people of Israel did not trade their religion for another in spite of the heavy burden involved in enduring exile.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  וירד העיט, the word עיט is description of predatory birds generally.
  על הפגרים, the carcasses which are whole. This term is not applied to the animals which had been cut in half as part of the sacrificial procedures, [presumably, the author does not feel comfortable in the Torah describing sacrifices which had been accepted by G’d winding up as the food for vultures. Ed.] The author quotes a number of examples where the word פגר occurs in the Bible, in all of which the reference is to a whole carcass, not to a section of it. (compare Isaiah 14,19; Chronicles I 10,12; Samuel I 31,12) The symbolism in all this is that there would hardly be a generation in which the gentile nations would not attempt to devour the Jewish people, and to annihilate them utterly. Nonetheless, in the final analysis, G’d has always saved us from becoming total victims. This confirms the prediction in Leviticus 26,44 that even during our darkest days when we are being punished collectively for our sins and the sins of our fathers, “I will not despise you and allow you to be wiped out completely.” In the verse following the one we just quoted, the Torah adds verbatim: וזכרתי להם ברית ראשונים, at such a time “I will remember for them the covenant I concluded with the forefathers.”
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  ויהי השמש לבא, this verse proves that this whole paragraph describes a prophetic vision, that the entire sequence is a continuous vision, uninterrupted. Both the story about G’d taking Avraham out of his tent to gaze at the stars (did not have to have occurred at night) and the time frame mentioned here, i.e. the sun setting, did not have to refer to 12 hours having elapsed since the earlier reported part of this vision. The Torah reports matters in the sequence in which they appeared to Avram in the vision. The reason why “evening” “night” and, by implication, the preceding “daylight” is mentioned, is because they symbolise periods in Jewish history. Daylight symbolises when the fortune smiled on the Jewish people, whereas “sunset” symbolises the decline of the fortunes of the Jewish people, and “night, darkness” symbolises the periods during which the Jewish people are in exile. The approaching evening mentioned in our verse refers to the first Jewish exile in Egypt.
  ותרדמה נפלה על אברם, this exhaustion was due to the marshalling of all of Avram’s spiritual resources to receive these prophetic visions. We have evidence of these reactions in Daniel 8,18 who describes these physically debilitating reactions when he involuntarily went to sleep on the very ground on which he had been standing. (he did not have time to lie down on a bed) He had to be revived by the angel. He referred to such weakness also in verse 17 of that same chapter. Avram, at least at the beginning of his prophetic vision, did not experience such a weakness. The reason was that at the beginning of the visions G’d showed him there were only positive developments. Now when G’d showed him the downside, he was overcome with the impact of what G’d showed him. 
  אימה חשכה, as if the Torah had written אימה וחשכה, fear and darkness. We have similar constructions where the conjunctive letter ו is simply omitted in Chabakuk 3,11 שמש ירח, and in Exodus 1,2 ראובן שמעון, and many others like it.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  ויאמר...בארץ לא להם, which will never be theirs. G’d describes the lands in which the Israelites will be exiled as countries which were not included among those of which G’d had said that Avram’s descendants would inherit them. They would remain strangers in a country or countries not theirs until the conclusion of the period of 400 years of which G’d speaks here. G’d speaks of 400 years and an additional 30 years commencing now that G’d revealed this to him. [his descendants could not begin to be exiles until Yitzchok was born, 30 years after the date of this vision. Ed.] This prophecy was fulfilled, the Jewish people leaving Egypt at the conclusion of 400 years after the birth of Yitzchok, or 430 years from the date of these revelations. On the face of it, in light of Avram having been 75 years old when he migrated from Charan, we can only account for 425 years from that time until the redemption of the Israelites from Egypt. We need to assume therefore that the vision involving the 400 years was experienced by Avram while in Charan, five years before he moved to Canaan. At any rate, G’d did not elaborate how many of these 400 years would be spent in Egypt, or even if any would be spent in Egypt. Our sages however, (Seder Olam chapter 3) have said that 210 years of the 400 are accounted for by the stay in Egypt, basing themselves on an allusion contained in the numerical value of the word רדו being 210. (compare Genesis 42,2 רדו שמה). The details of the 400 years are as follows: we start with Yizchok’s birth. He was 60 years at the time Yaakov was born, and Yaakov, by his own account was 130 years old when he answered Pharaoh’s question as to his age. We therefore have the first 190 years accounted for as predating the descent of the family to Egypt. It is totally impossible to believe that the 400 years referred to by G’d’s announcement to Avram were all spent in Egypt, seeing that Kehot, a grandson of Yaakov was among those who moved to Egypt with his family, and his age at death is given by the Torah as 133 years. We know that Moses was 80 years at the time when he made his first appearance before Pharaoh, about a year before the Exodus. If the Israelites had stayed in Egypt for 400 years, then Amram, Moses‘ father, even if he had been born during the last year of the life of Kehat would have lived for 187 years assuming that Moses was born during the last year of Amram’s life. Both of these assumptions are highly unlikely, as is the likelihood of Amram living more that 187 years without the Torah mentioning any of this. In fact, the Torah specifically states that Amram lived to the age of 137 (Exodus 6,20) It is most likely therefore, that the count of 400 years does indeed begin with the birth of Yitzchok. As long as Avram’s descendants were so few in number, they most certainly deserved to be described as “strangers” even in the land of Canaan, seeing they did not own even a small part of it. If you add the fact that Yitzchok spent many years in the land of the Philistines, and Yaakov spent 20 years with Lavan in Aram, a land which would never be part of Eretz Yisrael, neither of them could truly be perceived as a resident of the land of Canaan.
  ועבדום, the Egyptians will enslave them, and will oppress them. It is not unusual to apply the prefix ב to people who have been enslaved, as we find a similar construction in Leviticus 25,39 לא תעבוד בו עבודת עבד, “do not make him perform the menial duties performed by a slave.” Or Jeremiah 34,10, לבלתי עבד בם, “not to keep them enslaved.” The word עבדם i.e. עבודה is used to describe the status of the person described, whereas the word וענו refers to the manner in which such slaves would be treated.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  וגם את הגוי אשר יעבדו דן אנכי, I will judge the Egyptians even though it was I Who decreed that the Israelites would be enslaved by them. The reason why I will judge them is that they acted with great cruelty toward the Israelites, something which I had not decreed. The prophet Zacharyah 1,15 spelled out this concept in connection with the punishment G’d visited on the Babylonians, who, though entitled to destroy the Temple in Jerusalem, had never been entitled to go about it with such a vengeance. Similar verses justifying G’d punishing those who had carried out part of His plan against the Jewish people, but with needless harshness, are also found in Isaiah 47,6. The harshness of the slavery in Egypt was a punishment for the Israelites having abandoned the traditions of their fathers, having reverted to idolatry, having violated the covenant between G’d and Avraham, and not even having circumcised their male children. According to Ezekiel 20,7-8 and 9, the Israelites in Egypt had actually been guilty of utter annihilation for forsaking this covenant, and if G’d nonetheless redeemed them, this was for the sake of His name, not because they had deserved it. Having sworn to Avraham that He would redeem his offspring from the country in which they would be enslaved, we must view the Exodus as primarily an exercise of preserving G’d’s image. G’d had told Moses already in Exodus 6,8 that He had sworn an oath to Avraham, etc. Such statements are meant to demonstrate that the Israelites while in Egypt had not been forsaken by G’d, that He had not overlooked what was happening to them, but that they had been the architects of their own misfortune, and that if it had not been for G’d’s oath to the patriarchs, they would have perished there. Apparently, G’d had sent prophets to them prior to Moses, warning them of what might happen, but they had turned a deaf ear to such warnings. This is why Moses, aware of this, said to G’d that He should send another prophet, as He had been in the habit of doing, שלח נא ביד תשלח (Exodus 4,13). This is also what the prophet Ezekiel had in mind in the paragraph that we have referred to earlier. All of this demonstrates that when Avram asked in verse 8 of this chapter במה אדע כי אירשנה, which we explained as his concern that G’d’s promise might not become actual due to some sin of his offspring, he was quite justified in worrying about such a scenario. It also explains still better G’d’s answer and His statement that He gave Avram a lot of credit for believing G’d’s assurance that in spite of his fears the promise would be carried out in due course. G’d’s answer to Avram contained an acknowledgement that He was aware that the Israelites would indeed sin in Egypt, but also the fact that He would punish them there but not annihilate them, so that eventually they would leave from there with great riches. The redemption would occur after their punishment had run its course. [Perhaps, in support of our author’s theory, we might add that the word וגם, “and also,” in our verse, which appears strange since we had not been told who else had been judged and punished, refers to the Jewish people, who by that time had received their punishment in full, so that the remnant, the 20% of whom Rashi speaks on Exodus 13,18   (וחמושים) were entitled to redemption after risking their lives by slaughtering the lamb and circumcising themselves. Ed.]
  
  Verse 15
  
  ואתה תבא אל אבותיך בשלום, you will die in peace, i.e. you will not witness in your lifetime any of the upsetting developments of which I have spoken to you. As far as the word אבותיך is concerned, this is a common expression used by most people as a metaphor making death sound less negative. Expressions such as ויאסף אל עמיו, "he was gathered in to his people" in Genesis 49,33, or והאסף אל עמיך, "be gathered in to your people" in Deuteronomy 32,50 all express similar sentiments. Some commentators (quoted by Rashi) claim that the wording proves that Terach, Avraham's father had discarded idolatry and accepted monotheism prior to his own death. This is problematic, seeing that we find in Chronicles II 34,28 that kind Yoshiyahu is told by G'd הנני אוסיפך אל אבותיך, and we know that his father Amon died as an unrepentant sinner. תקבר בשיבה טובה, you will see sons and grandsons before you die.
  
  Verse 16
  
  ודור רביעי ישובו הנה, the fourth generation, starting with those who descended to Egypt, which was the place of their exile, will return to this their land that they migrated from. This prediction was fulfilled, seeing that Kehat who was one of Yaakov's grandsons went down to Egypt, and the children of Moses and Aaron who were the fourth generation were among those who entered the land of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua.
  כי לא שלם עון האמורי עד הנה, the time when the Emorite is due for punishment will not be until then. G'd is very patient with sinners, giving them a great deal of time to mend their ways. The punishment for sin is called עון, as we know already from Kayin (Genesis 4,13) who said of the punishment for his having murdered Hevel, his brother, גדול עוני מנשוא, "my punishment is too great for me to endure." We also find that the word חטאת is used both as sin and as atonement for sin, just as the word עון sometimes means "sin," and sometimes "punishment." Compare Zecharyah 14,19 זאת תהיה חטאת מצרים. The reason the Torah singled out the tribe of the Emorite among all the Canaanite tribes is because it was the strongest of those seven tribes. The prophet Amos 2,9 also quotes G'd of having destroyed the Emorite on account of the Jewish people, although the same fate overtook the other Canaanite tribes also.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  ויהי השמש באה, the word באה is accented on the first syllable, seeing that here it is a verb in the past tense.
  ועלטה, a form of intense darkness. G'd hinted by the use of this intense darkness that there would be other exiles, and that the redemption from the exile in Egypt would not be the final redemption of the Jewish people.  The description of the sun having set followed by עלטה, implies that there would be no light at all, no moon and no stars would be visible in the sky.
  והנה תנור עשן ולפיד אשת, the word עשן is an adjective used in  the same kind of meter as חכם סכל, which means חכם וסכל, "a wise man who acts foolishly." We would translate it here as "a smoking furnace." The point is that within the overall vision, Avram saw another furnace belching smoke, within the general atmosphere of intense darkness. This latter picture was an allusion to G'd's anger which coats Israel with its some during the long years of exile, the final exile which is the worst of them all. This is also what David had to say concerning this long and most difficult exile, when he exclaimed in Psalms 80,5 עד מתי עשנת בתפלת עמך, "for how long will You remain smoking angrily at the prayers of Your people?"
  ולפיד אש, a reference to the flame of fire traversing between the cut up carcasses of the sacrificial animals. This vision contained two separate allusions. First and foremost it  part in concluding this covenant with Avram, a symbol of two humans walking between two parts of something which represents each party's portion of the covenant, treaty, pact. [the mutuality of a covenant could be demonstrated by each party to it keeping as a memento one half of a hundred dollar bil cut in half, ownership of which proves that one is a party to the treaty. Ed.] We find another example of this kind of confir4ming a pact, a covenant in Jeremiah 34,18 העגל רשר כרתו לשנים ויעברו בין בתריו, "the calf which the cut in two so as to pass between the halves." [the occasion was the solemn promise not to enslave again the Jewish slaves whom their owners had agreed to release in response to the prophet's (G'd's) demand with Nevuchadnezzar already at the gates of Jerusalem. Ed.] Following up on this symbolic phenomenon, we read here in verse 18 "on that day G'd had concluded a covenant with Avram, etc." In that verse we have the word לאמור, which introduces a second aspect of this covenant, i.e. that during all the many years that the exiles will last, G'd on His part will remember this covenant with the Jewish people, the descendants of Avram, and not totally abandon them. This same flame of fire which originally signified the concluding of the covenant will eventually consume those who defied the bond between Israel and G'd by cruelly suppressing them and trying to wean them away from their G'd. This will occur during the wars of Gog and Magog (Ezekiel 38,22) etc.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  ביום ההוא כרת ה' את אברם בריתת, on the occasion of that vision G'd concluded a covenant with Avram to give the entire land of Canaan to his descendants. He hinted to him by means of this vision that they would inherit all of it at the conclusion of the final exile. We know this because now G'd named 10 tribes as being the ones whose lands would all become part of the territory of the Jewish people.
  	נתתי, a reference to what G'd had already given to Avram. When G'd makes a promise, it is as if He had already fulfilled it, as He does not renege. Hence the past tense, נתתי. The boundaries of these tribes at that time extended as far as the river Euphrates.
  	עד הנהר הגדול נהר פרת, our sages (quoted by Rashi in commenting on the word הגדול, "the great one," being applied to the river Euphrates), say that even though among the four rivers listed as emanating from Gan Eden there was a bigger river than Euphrates, this one is called "the great one," as it traverses some parts of the land of Israel (in the future).
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  את הקיני, this tribe gets its name from the city in which its members dwelled originally. The name of the city was קין, and the people known as חבר הקיני were descended from Kayin, as per Judges 4,11. Perhaps Kayin himself had built that city. We are told something to that effect in Genesis 4,17. [it is difficult to accept that this city survived the deluge, as it is difficult to accept that identifiable descendants of Kayin survived the deluge. Ed.] It is a fact that such cities as Gilead, or Chavot Yair, and Dan, received their names from their founders, naming them after themselves. (compare Joshua 19,46; Kings I 16,24; Chronicles I 2,55). According to Onkelos, it is clear that he did not accept this meaning of the name קיני, as in Numbers 24,21 he renders the Numbers 24,21 where Bileam prophesied about the Keyni's future as if it were one of the Canaanite tribes.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  ואת החתי, the omission of the חוי may mean that that tribe was identical with the רפאים.
  
  Verse 21
  
  ואת האמרי ואת הכנעני, the land of the Philistines is included under the heading of "the Canaanite," as we know from Joshua 13,3 לכנעני תחשב וגו'.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ושרי אשת אברם לא ילדה לו, as mentioned already in Genesis 11,30 ותהי שרי עקרה , "Sarai was barren." Now when Sarai realized that her husband was already 85 years old, and she still had not been able to bear a child for him, while she herself had already reached the age of 75, she thought that she had no longer any hope of conceiving herself. She therefore reasoned to herself, that seeing G'd had promised Avram that he would have children of his own who would inherit the land of Canaan, G'd must have referred to his siring children from another woman. She reasoned further that it would be in her own best interest that any children born to her husband should be born by a woman under her control so that she would experience the joy of motherhood at least vicariously.
  	ולה שפחה מצרית, had Hagar been of Canaanite origin, Avram would not have agreed to sleep with her. Her name is mentioned out of respect for Avram, [whose sleeping with an anonymous woman would have place him in a bad light. Ed.]
  
  Verse 2
  
  ותאמר ... עצרני ה' מלדת, she meant that seeing that G'd had prevented her from giving birth during all these years, she had now abandoned hope of ever bearing a child as she had aged in the interval.
  	אבנה, the son from this union would be called אבנה, "I shall be built up." All children are a building consisting of genetic input by father and mother. Sarai said that any son from this union with her husband would be accepted by her as if he were part of her biological family. She would treat him as her own son.
  	וישמע אברם, he agreed with Sarai's plan, preferring not to wait any longer for G'd to fulfill His promise in giving him children from Sarai as he had understood this promise up until now. He decided that since Sarai had stopped menstruating she would not be able to become pregnant.  As a result, he reasoned that G'd's promise to him was to be fulfilled via Hagar who would become the mother of any children of his. Seeing that even Sarai had arrived as such an interpretation of G'd's promise, he had no reason to disagree with her. This is why Avram did not pray to G'd asking Him to make Sarai bear him a son, as opposed to his son Yitzchok later on who did pray to G'd for Rivkah to bear him a son. It is also possible that Avram did pray concerning this matter, but that he had concluded that G'd had seen fit to deny his request. In that event, we must understand G'd's delay in answering Avram's prayer as being designed to show that He could make even a ninety year old barren woman become pregnant and give birth to a healthy child.
  
  Verse 3
  
  ותקח ... מקץ עשר שנים, ten years had elapsed since Avram and Sarai had moved to the land of Canaan. She had waited all these years thinking that G'd would give Avram a son from her in that land. After all, the instruction to Avram to go forth from his birthplace, etc. had been followed by the promise that there G'd would make him into a great nation. (Genesis 12,2). Our sages in Yevamot 64 state that if someone was married to a woman for 10 years during which she was unable to bear a child for him he is not allowed to simply forego the chance of having children, but should pay her out her marriage settlement (Ketuvah) and divorce her as it is possible that G'd only decreed that he should not have children from that particular woman. The Talmud, while admitting that there is no proof for the above, claims that Avram's example can serve as a guide for such conduct, seeing that he waited ten years after settling in the land of Israel, having discounted the earlier years during which Sarai had not conceived.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  ויבא ... ותקל גבירתה, she thought that now that it was clear that Avram's seed would be from her she would become the top ranking wife of Avram. As a result, she refused to carry out instructions given to her by Sarai.
  
  Verse 5
  
  ותאמר חמסי עליך, Sarai referred to the insolent behavior she was being subjected to by Hagar as being due to her having had Avram's interest at heart instead of her own. She accused her husband of not disciplining Hagar for her insolent behavior toward her. She herself had been unwilling to treat Hagar harshly out of respect for Avram's dignity.
  	'ישפוט ה, our sages in Rosh Hashanah 16 say that if someone invokes Divine judgment on a fellow Jew, he or she will become subject to such judgment first. They derive this from Genesis 23,2 where Avraham mourned Sarah's death, i.e. she who was 10 years junior to him died first. The Talmud assumes that this rule applies in examples such as ours, when Sarai had no evidence that Avram had been aware of Hagar's insolence toward her. Had he become aware of this firsthand, there is no question that he would not have tolerated such behavior from Hagar against her. It is quite inconceivable that Avram should have remained silent when his wife was being insulted. This was so in spite of the fact that Hagar had been raised in status to be his wife instead of being merely Sarai's slave.
  	וביניך, the word is written plene, i.e. with the letter י between the נ and the ך, something that occurs almost only here in connection with the word בין. For instance, we have such spellings of the word בינכם וביניו, in Joshua 3,4 where in the very same verse it occurs both spelled defectively בינכם and plene וביניו, "between you (pl) and between him." There is an allegorical explanation quoted by Rashi for the spelling which suggests that in her jealousy Sarai looked at Hagar's swollen belly with the evil eye, something which would have resulted in Hagar losing her fetus. This is why the angel told her that she was pregnant, a fact that Hagar had been well aware of; however the idea was that Hagar would give birth to a son, etc., i.e. that she need not fear to abort her fetus on account of Sarai having given her the "evil eye."
  
  Verse 6
  
  ויאמר ... שפחתך בידך, Avram meant that in spite of Hagar sleeping with him, i.e. being accorded wifely privileges from his side, she remained Sarai's slave and as such Sarai could determine how to treat her. He made it clear that his own dignity was not to be a consideration in Sarai's treatment of Hagar.
  	ותענה שרי, Sarai overburdened her with work, and made her perform the work in an intolerably harsh manner.  It is even possible that the word ותענה includes physical as well as verbal abuse of Hagar by Sarai. The Torah testifies that Sarai did not act piously toward her, Although Avram had given her a free hand when he said "do to her as appears fit in your eyes," from a moral point of view she should have treated Hagar in a manner befitting her status as a wife or legal companion of Avram. From the point of view of practicing human kindness, Although Avram had given her a free hand when he said "do to her as appears fit in your eyes," from a moral point of view she should have treated Hagar in a manner befitting her status as a wife or legal companion of Avram. From the point of view of practicing human kindness, חסידות, she should have treated a subordinate with all possible consideration. The scholar Ibn Gabirol said "how beautiful is the attribute of practicing forgiveness in circumstances when this is possible!" Sarai's actions as reported were not pleasing in the eyes of the Lord. This is reflected in the words of the angel to Hagar (verse 11) כי שמע ה' אל עניך, "for the Lord has listened to the oppression you have endured." This is why the angel gave her a blessing as compensation for the harsh treatment she had suffered. Avram did not prevent Sarai from acting as she did, even though it was displeasing in his eyes, because he was concerned primarily with eyes, because he was concerned primarily with preserving his relations with Sarai. The reason why this whole story is preserved for all future generations in our chapter is to teach moral-ethical lessons, and to warn us not to indulge in injustice.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  וימצאה על עין המים, after the Torah wrote the words על עין המים, it goes on to explain this term, i.e. על העין, "next to the fountain she had discovered."
  	על העין, the definite article ה means that this well on the route to Shur was known. She was therefore on the way back to Egypt, the land from which she had originated.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  ויאמר, the vowel patach (instead of segol) under the letter מ is used as if there were a colon after the word. This is not unusual, seeing that words with the tone-sign revia occasionally signal that the word is meant to end with a colon or similar, meant to be followed by an explanation. Seeing that here the subject matter itself introduces an interruption, seeing that what follows is not connected to the word ויאמר, we need to understand the word as referring to what preceded it. This is so whenever the word ויאמר appears with the vowel patach.
  	הגר, the angel called her both by her name and by her station in life, i.e. the slave of Sarai. Seeing that she was supposed to be attending to Sarai's needs, he wanted to know what she was doing in this location. He continued with "where do you come from and where do you think you are headed?"
  	בורחת, Hagar confirmed that she had no idea, seeing that she was merely fleeing in order to escape the torment Sarai had subjected her to. The vowel patach in the word בורחת, at the end of a verse is most unusual. [the vowel kametz would have been expected. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  ויאמר, the word ויאמר occurs here no fewer than three times. When we encounter such a phenomenon it is usually meant to underscore what will be the subject of the message about to be delivered. [the author refers to remarks he made on this subject in his book שער דקדוק הפועלים. Ed.] It is also possible to explain the threefold use of the word ויאמר as being justified because of the three messages the angel delivered to Hagar. There are other commentators who explain this phenomenon of three the word ויאמר in this short sequence as proof that Hagar was visited by three different angels, each with a single message. (Bereshit Rabbah 45,7) The author of that Midrash uses this incident to bemoan the fact that whereas the servant maid of the matriarch rated three messages by three angels, we the matriarch's descendants, do not even rate a single message from an angel.
  	והתעני, and subject yourself to harsh treatment seeing that ultimately it will be for your benefit. It is better for you to remain within the proximity of a man such as Avram, seeing that due to his many merits, your offspring will multiply greatly.	
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  הרבה ארבה, the angel being G'd's messenger, may speak in the first person as if he were to do what he says, seeing that he delivers G'd's message. It is as if G'd Himself had spoken.
  	ולא יספר מרב, the words: "and it will not be capable of being counted due to its large number," are to be understood as an exaggeration, poetical license.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  ויאמר ... הנך הרה, the angel used these words as an introduction, seeing he was well aware that Hagar knew that she was pregnant as the Torah had reported in verse 4, as well as Hagar's reaction. The message that angel had come to deliver was וילדת בן, "you will give birth to a son." The word יולדת is a composite composed from the word וילדת, which is a verb in the past tense converted into the future tense by the letter ו at the front, the other component being the word ויולדת, the same root as a present participle. The meaning of the combined composite is that seeing that the birth was something that had not yet occurred, the verb must contain an allusion to the future, whereas seeing that Hagar knew that she was pregnant, i.e. that the process which would result in a birth had already begun, the formulation of the verb had to reflect this fact also. The angel's message was: "just as you are aware that you are pregnant you should be equally aware that you will bear a son as a result of this pregnancy." There are some grammarians who believe that the root of the word here is similar to a four-lettered verb.
  	וקראת שמו, the letter ת at the end is a feminine ending future tense, i.e. "you will call." On the other hand, in Deut. 31,29 the same word וקראת אתכם refers to a third person feminine construction where the letter ת substitutes for the letter ה, the expression meaning: "it will befall you." The reference is to the רעה, evil, a noun that is feminine which follows immediately after the word אתכם.
  	אל עניך, "to your outcry [complaint instead of prayer, Ed.] concerning your plight." We are forced to explain the angel's words in this fashion, seeing he spoke of G'd having "heard," שמע, instead of ראה, "G'd has seen." It is also possible to explain the angel's words as does Onkelos, i.e. as צלותיך, "your prayer." There are precedents for the word ענה meaning a response to something, to wit Job 3,2 and Isaiah 13,22 as well as Deuteronomy 26,5 וענית ואמרת, and similar examples.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  והוא יהיה; the letter ה at the beginning of the word והוא means that the angel's prophecy referred not only to Yishmael, but to his offspring as well. He foretold the characteristics of the Ishmaelites based on their founder's genes.
  	פרא אדם, a desert Bedouin, known as such because most Bedouins live in tents instead of in permanent dwellings. Compare Jeremiah 3,2 כערבי במדבר, "as an Arab, at home in the desert." [the word describes people who do not impose the restrictions upon themselves that civilized people accept in the interest of forming communities. Ed.] The Arabs are the people descended from the Ishmaelites.
  	ידו בכל, seeing that he will dwell in the desert, [a region in which there are no laws governing private property, Ed.] he will violate people's rights, and they in turn will outlaw him, putting a price on his head. In spite of living in constant friction with his neighbours he will not flee but will continue to dwell in their presence. When the angel concludes with the statement that he will ultimately die in the presence of כל אחיו, the word אחיו is used as a simile for the word שכניו, "his neighbours."
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  ותקרא, the reason why Hagar called G'd א-ל ראי, was that she oly realized in retrospect that she had been addressed by an angel, i.e. by an angel who brought her G'd's message. She had not previously believed that a human being could behold an angel with her physical eyes, a lesson also learned by Manoach in Judges 13,22. As soon as she notice how this messenger who had appeared to her in human garb disappeared in less time than it takes to blink an eye, she knew that that being had been an angel and she called out "you are the angel who manifests G'd's presence." She meant that she had seen a Divine being that is capable of being perceived as such by man. The construction "ro-i" is similar to the construction "o-ni" in Lamentation 3.1 or in "do-mi" in Psalms 83,2, or in Genesis 43,11, "tzo-ri."
  	כי אמרה, she had said in her heart "I recognize that he is an angel, for when a human being departs from the presence of another human being the one remaining behind can continue to see the one departing for a considerable time until he recedes into the distance. I, however, have been unable to see a trace of this being even הלום, when he was still close to me, ראי, had seen me, i.e. the being who had revealed himself to me. It is clear to me therefore, that this must have been an angel, i.e. a disembodied creature."
  	The word ראי means "the one who sees me."
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  על כן קרא לבאר, this is why anyone who encounters the well where the angel had appeared to Hagar at the time the "באר לחי רואי" . Seeing that an angel lives eternally, the word לחי "to the living one," is an apt description for such a creature. The fountain mentioned in this verse is the same as the one that had been described previously in verse 7.
  	הנה בין קדש ובין ברד, The Torah gives an indication of where this fountain can be seen, so that when a person encounters it he will acknowledge G'd's greatness in revealing Himself by dispatching an angel even to the errant maid-servant of Sarai. The matter is all the more remarkable seeing that Hagar was not in the act of performing a mission on G'd's behalf at the time. Bared is the same as the previously mentioned Shur. The location had been known by two names. This is why the Torah mentioned both of these names. Ths is also why Onkelos translates both Shur and Bared as חגרא.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  ויקרא אברם, even though the angel had instructed Hagar what name to give to the son she would bear, she conveyed this message to Avram, so that both she and Avram called her son Ishmael, in accordance with the angel's instructions. We find a similar situation in Genesis 4,25 and (Genesis 5,3) when Adam's third son was born, where the Torah tells us that both Chavah and Adam called him Sheth. On other occasions we find that father and mother named the same child differently, such as Rachel calling her youngest son בן אוני, whereas Yaakov call him .בנימין (Genesis 35,18)
  
  Verse 16
  
  ואברם בן שמנים שנה ושש שנים, the reason why the Torah tells us Avram's age at the time Ishmael was born is to inform us that he was born in the same year Sarai had given Hagar to Avram in order to provide him with offspring. Avram was to rejoice over the prompt success of the arrangement. We know that Avram was 75 years old when he moved to the land of Canaan so that he must have been 85 years old at the end of the 10 years mentioned previously. (16,3). The word מקץ in that verse refers to the end of a period, i.e. the end of 10 years residence in the land of Canaan. We encounter the word מקץ as also meaning "at the end of" in Deut. 15,1 מקץ שבע שנים תעשה שמטה, "at the end of seven years (a cycle) you are to make a release," (forgive past due loans.)
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויהי אברם בן תשעים ותשע שנים, after 13 years had passed since Ishmael was born G'd commanded Avram about the circumcision. G'd had waited with this command until Avram would be close to 100 years old in order to make the miracle of a 100 year old man and a ninety year old woman having a child all the greater. Also, Avram, subjecting himself to the operation involved in circumcising himself would acquire an even greater merit if he did so at such an age when his physical virility had already declined. G'd issued the command before Yitzchok would be born in order that Yitzchok would be the product of a union with a Jewish father, i.e. a father who had been circumcised at the time when he impregnated his wife with his sperm. Seeing that the circumcision weakens the reproductive organ of the person undergoing it, especially at such an age. Avram's producing a son after that experience was therefore all the more remarkable.
  	אני א-ל שדי, the word שדי means "strong, victorious." (root שדד) We find the term appearing in that sense in Ezekiel 1,24, כקול מים רבים כקול שדי, "like the sound of mighty waters, like the sound of Shaddai." Also in Ezekiel 10,5 כקול א-ל שדי it appears in the same sense. G-d meant to tell him that although you are physically weak and Sarai is barren, I, G'd will overcome all these impediments and the laws of nature are subject to My control, so that I can change them whenever it suits me. G'd referred to this power again in Exodus 6,3 when Moses had despaired of hismission. He told them that he had already demonstrated ths power when He made the three matriarchs, all of whom had been biologically barren, overcome such a handicap so that each bore a child or children. G'd had responded to the prayers of these people or their husbands and altered the laws of nature in order to fulfill their requests. When the word שדי is meant to be an attribute, it should be spelled שדדי, shaddeday." It would then mean something akin to Proverbs 28,23 מוכיח אדם אחרי חן ימצא, i.e. that as a result of being rebuked, the subject of the rebuke will eventually find favour (in the eyes of the rebuker).
  	התהלך לפני, as rendered by Onkelos, "serve Me" by carrying out what I command you ( in order to become perfect). This is also that meaning of the word התהלך in Genesis 24,40 as well as in Genesis 48,15. It is a reference to serving the lord in thought and deed. All service of the Lord is rooted in man's heart. This is why King Chiskiyah in Kings II 20,3 in his prayer says: אני ה' דבר נא את אשר התהלכתי לפניך באמת ובלבב שלם, "please o Lord remember how I have served you in truth and with a pure heart, etc." Chiskiyah first refers to his serving G'd with his heart, before mentioning that he had performed deeds which constituted service of the Lord also, when he said והטוב בעיניך עשיתי, "and I have done what is pleasing in Your eyes." At this juncture G'd commands Avram that He will require additional service from him, service to be performed on his own body. He had already proven that his heart was pure. He had also already perfected his personality traits to the extent that his mind and intelligence had suggested such improvements. This form of service to be performed on his body was something that his mind and reason would reject as illogical. G'd demanded this only in order for the people whom Avraham would produce would be recognizable by the circumcision of their body as unique, as wearing the mark of G'd. Even though many of the gentiles do circumcise themselves also, they do not do so in response to a command by G'd. Only the special seed of Avram, i.e. Yitzchok was included in this command. Also Yitzchok's special seed was included in that command, [i.e. according to our author Ishmael's children and Esau's children as well as the sons Avraham had by Keturah would not have been included in this commandment. Because of these considerations G'd commanded the circumcision before Yitzchok would be born or even conceived. Any convert, not alive at that time but joining the Jewish people and its faith are therefore described as being בני אברהם "descendants, sons of Avraham," [This is an additional meaning of the name change from Avram to Avraham, foretelling him that he would become the spiritual father of all future converts. Ed.]
  	והיה תמים, meaning that by fulfillment of this commandment Avram would then be considered as "perfect. Once there would be a visible sign of Avram's faith and loyalty to His Creator on his body this would act at the same time as the symbol of the covenant between G'd and him (and the Jewish people). Every covenant requires to be confirmed by blood, [this being the "essence" of the party with whom G'd concluded a covenant. Ed.] At this point G'd spoke to Avram in general terms not spelling out the nature of the covenant until verse 10. After having heard all of what G'd said to him, Avram now understood the meaning of the word תמים on two levels. 1) The meaning we have already explained about service of G'd consisting both of intangible parts of man such as his heart and his mind, as well as his body. 2) G'd taught him that although, at first glance, the loss of a foreskin and the loss of blood might make him conclude that instead of becoming more perfect he had now become less perfect than he had been previously, this was not so. G'd explained that the circumcision did not mean the loss of an organ but only the removal of some excess flesh from that organ, and that the very removal of that excess would result in his becoming תמים, perfect. The absence of this excess would be the symbol of the covenant between him and G'd. If he had already been born with that piece of flesh missing, the fact that it was missing could not have served as the symbol of the covenant. Additionally, there would be a need to lose a few drops of blood as the symbol of that covenant, as explained in Shabbat 135.
  
  Verse 2
  
  ואתנה ... וארבה אותך, you should not think that on account of the circumcision your future descendants will be fewer because your reproductive organ has become weakened by the removal of the foreskin. On the contrary, I will multiply your seed. במאד מאד, an expression designed to express the unusual extent of what is about to happen. The word מאד always refers to some form of multiplicity.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  ויפול אברם על פניו, he prostrated himself and thanked the Lord Who had told him that He would make this covenant with him, something he interpreted as a sign of G'd's love for him.
  	וידבר אתו אלוהים לאמור, He said the following word to him לאמור, in order for Avraham in turn to communicate them to the members of this household when he would meet them.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  אני הנה בריתי אתך, just as you have ben certain that when I said to you that I am א-ל שדי that I have the power to change the laws of nature, I am telling you additionally, that you will not only be the founder of one nation, but that you will became the founder of numerous nations. Both Yitzchok, Ishmael, and the sons of Keturah will al become important nations.
  	The expression המון means "a multiplicity." In order that this will be remembered for all future times, I change your name by the addition of the letter ה, which by being joined to the letter מsymbolizes the word המון.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  ולא יקרא עוד את שמך, the word את after the verb in the passive conjugation "yikarey" is used to make something more clear. (the author dealt with this principle in his introduction to  דקדוק המלים) Other examples of such a construction are found in Numbers 26,55  וכן יחלק את הארץ, as well as in Deuteronomy 20,8 ולא ימס את אחיו. Our sages say that when a person's name is changed this results in the cancellation of evil decrees that had been issued against such a person. (Rosh Hashanah 16) They point to Avraham and Sarah as proof. Both Avraham and Sarah after having had their names changes had become able to jointly produce Yitzchok.
  	ולא יקרא, people of subsequent generations will never refer to the original names of Avram and Sarai when referring to them, but will refer to them only as Sarah and Avraham. You are to tell all the people you meet that G'd has changed both your names, so that these people will tell others and soon everyone will know about this. As a result, the miracle that I have worked with you both will become public knowledge when you and Sarah will have a baby-son.
  
  Verse 6
  
  והפרתי אותך במאד מאד ונתתיך לגוים, as we already explained, this refers to Yitzchok, Ishmael and the sons of Keturah. Alternatively, it refers only to Yitzchok's offspring Yaakov, and his offspring alone. The meaning of the word גוים then would be "tribes" as suggested by Onkelos. [in a different manuscript from that copied in our Chumashim. Ed.]
  	ומלכים ממך יצאו, this too means the same as Onkelos said, that some of your descendants will become kings over nations.
  
  Verse 7
  
  והקימותי את בריתי ... ובין זרעך אחריך, G'd refers to promised made both to Yaakov and to his descendants as spelled out in Leviticus 26,12. The reciprocal relationship between the Jewish people and G'd is spelled out there clearly.
  
  Verse 8
  
  ונתתי ... את ארץ מגורך, a reference to the locations in which Avraham had dwelled, not only these but the whole of the land of Canaan.
  	לאחוזת עולם, even though the Jewish people would be exiled from that country for a period of time, it would remain their eternal heritage. They would return to that land and G'd would be their G'd.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  ויאמר אלוקים אל אברהם, once G'd had changed Avram's name Moses never again spelled in the former way. Our sages have gone so far as to describe anyone referring to Avraham as Avram as having violated a positive as well as a negative commandment. (Bereshit Rabbah 46,8) They base this on the wording "your name shall not be called Avram, but your name shall be Avraham." (verse 5) Many people question this, pointing out that in Nechemya 9,7 we read אתה הוא ה' האלוקים אשר בחרת באברם , "you are the Lord G'd Who has chosen Avram." The answer is that perhaps what Nechemya meant was that G'd had chosen Avraham to be Avraham at a time when he was still known as Avram. According to the plain meaning of the text, the wording of the Torah is only a warning not to call Avraham by this former name, it is not part of the 613 commandments
  ואתה את בריתי תשמר, G'd makes plain that the overriding condition upon which this covenant is based is the meticulous observance by Avraham and his descendants of the terms of this covenant. Avraham is to pass on this condition to his offspring as well as to his household.
  
  Verse 10
  
  זאת בריתי, just as I keep and observe my end as spelled out in verse 7, so you must keep and observe it. The Torah employs the plural mode when speaking of Avraham and his descendants, i.e. תשמרו, as it had done in verse 9 when spelling the word אחריך, "after you,: with the letter י indicating such a plural. This covenant was to be between G'd (sing.) and the Jewish people (ph.)
  	ביני וביניכם, a reference to Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov, seeing that Avraham was still alive for 15 years of Yaakov's life.
  	ובין זרעך אחריך, a reference to Yaakov's descendants.
  	המול לכם כל זכר, every male of you shall be circumcised. By saying לכם, he included that both he and his descendants were meant. After Avraham had heard the words כל זכר, he understood that this circumcision was to be performed on the male member, the reproductive organ. It was to be the area of the body where the difference between the sexes was most notable.	Our sages in Kidushin 29 say that the word לכם, meant that if a baby had no father, the commandment to have the circumcision performed devolves on the court in the respective city in which the child lives.
  	המול, an infinitive in the passive conjugation נפעל, meaning that the subject about whom the Torah speaks, the Jewish nation, is "to have each male circumcised." The root of the verb is נמל, it is parallel to such roots as שקל, הנדף, עשן,  (compare Psalms 68,3). According to my opinion the word הנדף in that erse is a noun, as I have explained in my book  שער הדקדוק. In accordance with that theory the word המול is also a noun with an additional letter ה, such as we find it when fully spelled out as הנמול, "the circumcised one," parallel to הנדף, "the dispersed one." Alternatively, the root of the verb is מול as in Amos 4,12 הכון, from the root כון.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  ונמלתם, this is the positive commandment to the father to circumcise his male child, or to the son to perform circumcision on himself when he reaches the age of manhood if it has not been performed on him before then by the court.
  	לאות ברית, as a mark of the covenant; although there are other symbolic acts which are signs of the covenant and the obligation to keep the laws of the Torah, such as the phylacteries, the fringes, the Sabbath, etc., this symbol is by far the most potent one, the only one to be performed on one's body. The other "signs" are only a reminder. This is the only such "sign" to be performed on one's body. Seeing that this is so, The Torah chose to select the reproductive organ of the male, seeing that most of the sins one commits are somehow related to this organ and involve misuse of that organ. It is the organ, which, unless handled with care, is apt to allow the bestial party of the human being to come to the surface, thereby weakening the aspect of our nature which wishes to cling to godliness. When looking at that part of one's body one reminds oneself automatically that G'd has forbidden Jews to engage in recreational sexual activities, in mating with partners which the Torah has forbidden in the interest of purity, etc. Sexual emissions are to be used only for the purpose of impregnating one's wife or when prescribed for medical reason by a physician.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  ובן שמונת ימים ימול, he is to be circumcised when 8 days old; a passive mode of the root מול. Accordingly, we must understand that the primary duty of performing the circumcision is that of the baby's father.
  	כל זכר לדורותיכם, this refers to the Israelites.
  	יליד בית, any member of the family born in the house.
  	ומקנת כסף אשר לא מזרעך הוא, or a slave purchased by money who is not of your seed. Both those who were born to other slaves owned by you, or even slaves purchased from the outside before eight days old must be circumcised when they reach that age. If such a slave was purchased by a Jew after he was already more than eight days old, you do not wait with performing this commandment. This is also why all of the male members of Avraham's household were circumcised by him at the same time he performed the operation on himself. He did not have any male members of his household who were less than 8 days old. This, at any rate, is the plain meaning of our text. Our sages, (Shabbat 135) reacting to the repetition of the words המול ימול, use this to reason that the Torah spoke of two different dates as being appropriate for the circumcision of gentile slaves. 1) There are some who have to be circumcised immediately; 2) there are others who must be circumcised on the eighth day. If one had purchased a female slave who was pregnant, he son when born must be circumcised forthwith. If the female slave had undergone ritual immersion prior to giving birth to her son he will be circumcised when eight days old like any other Jewish ale baby. If one had purchased a gentile slave (female) who had become pregnant while in the household of her Jewish master, the baby will be circumcised on the eighth day. If one had purchased a female slave with a view of keeping only her baby when born, i.e. not needing to convert his mother, or one had purchased the mother with the express proviso not to convert her by subjecting her to a ritual immersion, the baby born by her is also one that needs immediate circumcision, seeing it is not a Jewish baby as yet.
  
  Verse 13
  
  המול ימול, this refers to Avraham ensuring that all the male members of his household be circumcised now with him. The Torah had already issued instructions in the previous verse that Avraham's male descendants were to be circumcised, as well as any gentile bodily owned members of their households. Just as they were to study G'd's laws, i.e. "His ways," they would have to carry out this commandment as it is inconceivable for more than one religion to be observed within the same household. Neither were there to be members of two different nations within the same household, one of whom circumcised and the other uncircumcised.
  	בבשרכם, seeing that slaves are owned bodily by their Jewish master, it is quite in order to describe their flesh as בשרכם, "your flesh."
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  וערל זכר, and an uncircumcised male' the verse speaks of a Jew. The commandment as well as the penalty for non-observance applies only to Jews. The members of Avraham's household whom G'd had commanded Avraham to circumcise, do not in turn have to circumcise their own children - even if they obtained their freedom and were no longer member of his household. The only reason a Jewish household must consist of males who have been circumcised is to preserve the uniform nature of such a household. In the event such a slave in a Jewish household does not want to submit to circumcision, his Jewish master must sell him. The owner is given 12 months to persuade such a slave to undergo circumcision. (Yevamot 48)
  	שלא ימול את בשר ערלתו ונכרתה הנפש ההיא, the penalty for non-performance of this commandment becomes applicable only once the male in question has reached the age of performing mitzvot, i.e. is over the age of 13. His father - usually the one who has been responsible for such neglect - is not subject to the penalty of karet, but is treated as having neglected to perform an ordinary positive commandment.
  	ימול; the root is נמל, conjugation kal, as in ונמלתם. The penalty is premature death of the guilty party. 
  	הפר; My covenant which I established with Avraham. This covenant applied also to the person who failed to observe this commandment even if he lived a thousand years after Avraham.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  ויאמר ... לא תקרא, a man calls his wife by her name, not vice versa. She addresses him deferentially as her superior. It is not good manners to address someone of a higher station in life as if he were one's equal. This is also why it is forbidden to address one's father by his name but he must be addressed in a fashion which reflects his superior stats vis-à-vis his son. One may preface speaking to one's father by saying first: "my father," "my master," "my teacher," etc.  Jerobam was accused of re belling against King Solomon because he spoke of him by name instead of first mentioning his title. (Kings I 11,27) [The author quotes from his own commentary on the Book of Kings. The words שלמה בנה את המלוא are understood as a quotation of something Jerobam said, when he should have said "King Solomon built, etc." Ed.] In the same vein our sages (Sanhedrin 100) have said that if someone were to address or refer to his father by his name, he would cause the Divine presence to depart from the Jewish people.  When Sarah spoke to the angel about her husband, (Genesis 18,12) she referred to him as ואדוני זקן, "my master is old." Also in Genesis 3,15 G'd had already made this point to Chavah, saying that her husband Adam would have authority over her. In Judges 19,16 the text in merely telling us a story, the parties involved in which had long been dead when the book was written, refers to פתח בית האיש אשר אדוניה שם, "at the entrance of the house in which her master was at the time,: instead of writing "at the entrance of the house of her husband." The prophet writing the book was careful to accord to people the title or stature that they possessed when alive. This is therefore the reason why on the one hand G'd told Avraham not to call his wife Sarai but Sarah, whereas there is no parallel line for Sarah not to call Avraham Avram, seeing she had never been allowed to call him merely "Avram." When speaking about Avram's name change G'd speaks only about how other people are going to refer to him or not refer to him, saying ולא יקרא "it will not be called," as He spoke about Avraham's equals referring to him by name instead of by some title. Only Avraham needed to be warned not to call Sarai by her former name, seeing that no one else had ever been permitted to address her in such familiar terms. If someone were to call Sarah Sarai, he would not be violating a negative commandment and a positive commandment (Berachot 13) seeing G'd had only commanded Avraham not to call her Sarai anymore.
  	כי שרה שמה, her name will henceforth be Sarah, just as in the parallel verse G'd had said to Avraham "your name will be Avraham. Once you will be heard calling her "Sarah," others overhearing you will follow suit. The significance of the name change from Sarai to Sarah had the same connotation as that of Avram being changed to Avraham. Our sages phrase this as "originally she was a princess only for her own people, now she was a princess for all nations." (Berachot 13).
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  וברכתי, I will restore her youthfulness so that she will begin having her periods again. Another, even greater miracle, will be the fact that she will give birth. This is meant by the additional words וגם נתתי ממנה לך בן, "and I will also give you a son from her." The word נתתי is similarly used in Genesis 23,13 נתתי כסף השדה "I have given the money for the field," where also the transaction had not taken place yet, but Avraham made plain that he had already made all the arrangement s from his side. When G'd promised it is as if it had happened already.
  	וברכתיה, with numerous seed which will emerge from her son. This is the meaning of the words והיתה לגוים, "she will develop into nations." The reference is to her grandchildren Esau and Yaakov, each of whom became founding fathers of large nations. Possible, G'd referred only to the descendants of Yaakov as per Onkelos. This too is meant by the words מלכי עמים, "kings of nations." Compare verse 6 above.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  ויפל, as we explained already on verse 3. This was his way of gratefully acknowledging what G'd had told him concerning Sarah.
  	ויצחק, he rejoiced in his heart, as per Onkelos. This was not a laughter which was derisive.
  	?הלבן מאה שנה יולד Avraham spoke of being 100 years old, seeing that by the time his son would be born he would be 100 years old. This would be so even if his wife were to conceive immediately. He had been 99 years old and Sarah had been 89 years old for some time. The amazement Avraham expressed was not due to his lack of belief, seeing that the Torah had already told us in chapter 15,6 that Avraham did believe in G'd's promise and was even credited with a merit on account of his belief in this astounding prophecy. Avraham simply voiced his amazement of the fact that G'd would go to such lengths to change natural law. He added words about Sarah, seeing that when she would give birth this would be an even greater miracle, seeing that Sarah - as opposed to her husband - had not given birth at all, whereas Avraham had sired Ishmael. Her basic barrenness had been proven beyond doubt.
  
  Verse 18
  
  ויאמר ... לו ישמעאל, he meant to say that he would be content if Ishmael whom G'd had granted him, a gift he considered an extremem act of loving kindness on the part of g'd, would live a meritorious life, abiding by G'd's wishes. יחיה, a life in the full sense of word, that he would have children, would multiply and generally be an asset and a credit to his father. If Ishmael were to develop in this manner, G'd could keep his promise to Avraham to give the land of Canaan to his descendants. (compare 12,7) That prophecy would then be fulfilled by means of Ishmael. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  ויאמר ... אבל שרה אשתך, Ishmael will not remain your only son, but also Sarah will bear a son for you and you are to call his name Yitzchok, as a reminder that you laughed happily when you heard Me inform you of this.
  	לברית עולם לזרעו אחריו, the covenant I made with you will be perpetuated through Yitzchok's seed.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  ולישמעאל שמעתיך, to bless him, to make him fruitful so that he will multiply and to grant him international prominence. שנים עשר נשיאים, "will be descended from Ishmael, just as from Yitzchok. In fact I have already ברכתי אותו, blessed him by means of the angel who appeared to Hagar, and I took personally, will bless Ishmael. But this covenant which I have entered into with you I will maintain with Yitzchok. 
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  למועד הזה "at this time." (anniversary). We do not know precisely on what date G'd had granted Avraham this prophetic vision.
  	בשנה האחרת. G'd informs Avraham that a year will elapse between the time he received this message and its realization. It is as if the Torah had written that Sarah would give birth at this time in the following year. He did not tell him when she would become pregnant, nor the length of time of her pregnancy. Our sages in Rosh Hashanah 10 assume that the birth occurred on Passover (the date on which Passover would occur in the future) seeing that Sarah became pregnant on Rosh Hashanah. 
  
  Verse 22
  
  ויכל לדבר אתו, Up until now G'd had always finished His conversation with Avraham on the same day. The conclusion of this vision is mentioned specifically as it was unusually long.
  	ויעל אלוקים מעל אברהם, a euphemism for the disappearance of G'd's presence. This teaches that G'd had appeared and had now withdrawn wrapped in a cloud. Our sages, as quoted by Rashi, conclude from here that the patriarchs acted as the merkavah for G'd's glory, i.e. as carriers of His chariot. This is a beautiful explanation for all those who understand it. [clearly, the key to this is the word מעל instead of simply מאברהם. The word מעל, "from above," conjures up in our mind a physical contact which preceded this separation. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  ויקח, as soon as G'd had withdrawn Avraham proceeded to make all the preparations necessary to perform the circumcision on all the members of his household who qualified for this, followed by his circumcising himself. He waited with circumcising himself, realizing that if he would circumcise himself first, he would be too weak to perform this operation on all the male member of his household immediately afterwards.
  	כל זכר באנשי בית אברהם, both adults and minors.
  	וימול בשר ערלתם, both the removal of the foreskin and the removal of the membrane underneath it. (פריעה). Some of our sages (Yevamot 71) claim that Avraham had not been commanded to perform פריעה also. The majority opinion is that he had been commanded concerning both these stages of circumcision. This is also the opinion expressed in Bereshit Rabbah (compare Torah Shleymah 157)
  	בעצם היום הזה, on the very day G'd had issued these instructions.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  ואברהם בן תשעים ותשע שנה, when he received the most recent prophetic vision he was 99 years old as already mentioned in verse 1. This had been at the end of 99 years after his birth, so that when he was circumcised he was still 99 years of age, and had not entered the 100th years. The Torah writes this in order to reinforce the report that he carried out the circumcision with dispatch, and did not wait until he had turned 100 years old.
  	בהמלו בשר ערלתו, if we were to say that the word בהמלו is in a passive mode. We would have to ask how it could conclude with the pronoun ו which introduces an action by him on the flesh of his foreskin. We never find that a passive mode is followed immediately by an active mode. If, on the other hand, we are to understand the word בהמלו as standing on its own, without direct relationship to the words בשר ערלתו, or if the Torah had written בהמול בשר ערלתו without the pronoun ו, we would not have a problem with the text as it is before us. One could perhaps resolve the problem of the text that we have by saying that the expression בהמלו describes a condition Avraham experienced as a result of his foreskin having been circumcised. We encounter a similar construction in Isaiah 1,30 where the word נובלת describes the condition of leaves of the tree described, i.e. they are shriveled or have wilted. The word is an intransitive verb, and the terebinth referred to as the trunk to which these leaves belonged is certainly not subject to wilting or shriveling. One could argue similarly, that Avraham was now considered נמול, (verse 26) circumcised, seeing that the flesh of his foreskin had been removed. In a similar manner we can also understand the words קרועי בגדים in Samuel II 13,31. The clothes of the men (David's servants) were torn, not the men themselves. The same is true of Samuel II 15,32 where the word קרוע does not refer to Chushai but to his tunic which was torn. Jeremiah 41,5 has a similar construction, מגולחי describes the condition of these men after their beards had been shaved off.
  
  Verse 25
  
  וישמעאל בנו בן שלש עשרה שנה, seeing the Torah had mentioned Avraham's age at the time of his circumcision, Ishmael's age was also mentioned as a mark of honour for him. After all, we know how old Ishmael was at the time, the Torah having told us that Avraham his father was 86 years old when he was born (Genesis 15,16). Perhaps the Torah underlines the fact that Avraham circumcised his son Ishmael, as if he had not been circumcised by that age, he himself is obligated to either circumcise himself or to arrange for him circumcision. Ishmael was just young enough for this obligation still to be that of this father.
  	בהמלו את בשר ערלתו, seeing that the Torah added the word את here, a word which had not appeared when Avraham's circumcision is reported, the meaning of this verse is clearer than the previous verse. The word את, here, means the same as if the Torah had written מן, "from," i.e. "when his foreskin was removed from his male member." The word את is used as meaning "from" also in Genesis 44,4 הם יצאו את העיר, "when they had left the city, etc." Also in Kings I 15,23 the word את means "from," I.e. that the line חלה את רגליו, means that Asa's "ailment started from his feet." There is an allegorical explanation for our verse, mentioned by Rashi, according to which Avraham, whose flesh had become elastic, soft, due to his having engaged in sexual intercourse during many years of his life, did not need to have the membrane we referred to as פריעה removed, whereas his son who had not yet experienced the use of his male organ in a sexual function did need this membrane to be removed. According to this distinction, the word את in our verse would refer to something additional, as is customary with the word את. In this case the additional element was the removal of Ishmael's פריעה at the same time as the removal of his foreskin. The author of this explanation disagrees with the previously mentioned view of the sages who believe that at that time the command to perform פריעה had not been issued at all. I believe it is far more likely that the instruction to perform פריעה was given to Avraham at this time. Seeing that our sages state that anyone who has performed circumcision but has omitted to perform פריעה is viewed as if he had not performed any part of the commandment, (Shabbat 137) it is hard to accept that the first person performing this commandment should not have performed it in all its details, i.e. perfectly.
  
  Verse 26
  
  בעצם היום הזה; we (the Torah) have already stated that Avraham circumcised all the members of his household on the very day G'd issued the command to him (verse 23). The Torah had not mentioned that he also circumcised himself and his son on that day. This is why this is added here, to tell us that he brooked no delay in performing the commandment both on his son and on himself. The meaning of the word נימול is that he performed the operation on himself and did not delegate anyone to do it as his agent. The use of a passive mode to describe that someone did something himself is not unique. We find it also in Samuel II 20,10 וכן עמשא לא נשמר, "and so Amassa did not protect himself."
  
  Verse 27
  
  נמולו אתו, by Avraham. The root of both נמול and נמולו is the verb נמל.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  וירא ה' אליו באלוני ממרא, in the location where Avraham dwelled, as we know from Genesis 14,13 והוא שוכן באלוני ממרא האמורי, “he dwelled by the groves of Mamre the Emorite. The reason why Avraham had not moved away from there was that his allies also lived in that proximity. Solomon advised already in Proverbs 27,10:טוב שכן קרוב מאח רחוק, “better a good neighbour who lives close by than a brother who lives far away.” G’d appeared to him there after he kept the commandment to circumcise himself, in order to apprise him of what he had in store for Sodom, a city in which his nephew had made his home. Avraham was the outstanding human being in that generation. Seeing that G’d was bent to exact partial retribution for the worst outrages committed by mankind at that time, He did not want to do so before informing Avraham of His intention. It was G’d’s intention to demonstrate that He does keep track of what individuals in the “lower” part of His universe are up to, and that He even will not exact collective punishment unless He can demonstrate that the parties affected are all guilty. There was no need for G’d to “descend” to investigate what He already knew, but the Torah describes this in terms that we can understand. He wanted to enable Avraham when the latter would instruct and teach his descendants to walk in the ways of G’d, to show that His ways were truly not only just but that He made allowances for human weaknesses. It is possible, -if this was indeed G’d’s purpose- to explain the entire paragraph as a prophetic vision up until verse 23 where the Torah writes that Avraham returned to his station, i.e. that this line terminated the prophetic vision יושב פתח האהל, as explained immediately following, 
  seeing that it was כחם היום, the hottest part of the day. Possibly, due to the heat of the sun Avraham had fallen asleep, a fact which facilitated his receiving this vision. Before G’d started speaking to him about what He intended to do to Sodom, He showed him three angels, the biggest one of whom told him the news about Sarah‘s going to give birth to a son in the following year, confirming what G’d had told him when He commanded him to circumcise himself, etc. When Avraham would hear this by a special messenger from G’d, his faith in the realisation of this promise would be further reinforced. Perhaps, more to the point, G’d wanted Sarah to overhear what the angel told Avraham, as apparently, Avraham had not told her of the previous promise, nor of his praying on behalf of Ishmael. [I do not understand how Sarah could hear what Avraham only saw in dream. Perhaps we must assume that the author continues with the original approach of all of what is written in this chapter having occurred while Avraham was fully awake. Ed.] Even (assuming) that this whole paragraph describes a vision, sometimes people close to the recipient of such a vision would hear a voice, a sound, as we have been told by Daniel who wrote: “the men with me did not see this great spectacle, but they were gripped by a great tremor so that they fell on their faces and took refuge in places to hide.” (Daniel 10,7) It seems clear from that verse that these men heard the content of the vision Daniel experienced without seeing any of it. The vision the Torah speaks about here occurred at the entrance of Avraham’s tent, so that Sarah could hear what transpired. Our sages’ comment that Avraham sat in front of his tent recuperating from the wounds inflicted by his circumcision is familiar to all of us, as is the surmise that he applied bandages to his wound (Baba Metzia 86). They add that the words וירא allude to G’d Himself visiting Avraham as one visits the sick.
  
  Verse 2
  
  וישא את עיניו, the first thing Avraham saw after he had gone to sleep were three men standing next to him, נצבים עליו, apparently ready to be of service to him. The meaning of the expression נצבים עליו is similar to Samuel I 22,7 ויאמר שאול לעבדיו הנצבים עליו, “Saul said to the people standing next to him (in attendance) etc.” The same expression is also used in this context in Ruth 2,6 הנצב על הקוצרים, “who was standing next to the reapers;” we also find this expression in Kings I 5,30 "משרי הנצבים, and in numerous other places in Scripture. These three men beheld by Avraham were standing at his disposal. They did not move, but indicated that they were expecting instructions from him. When he realised this he ran toward them. This explains why the word וירא, “he saw” appears twice in this verse in close succession.
  מפתח האהל, where he had been sitting. He saw himself running towards these men in his vision.
  וישתחו ארצה, they appeared to him to be men of great stature. He then addressed them with the words reported in the Torah. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 50,2) say that Avraham was so familiar with the sight of angels that their sudden appearance did not cause him to become disoriented, frightened and he perceived them essentially as אנשים, men. On the other hand, Lot, whose spiritual powers were quite minor, perceived the men as being angels, מלאכים,  seeing that he had had little experience with such phenomena. (compare 19,1) Manoach’s wife had already told her husband that the face of the man who had told her that she would have a son was like that of an angel of G’d. (Judges 13,6)
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  ויאמר אדוני, our sages (Shevuot 35) are of two minds as to the meaning of the word A-donay in this verse. Some say it is sacred, an attribute of G’d; others hold that it is profane. If it is the latter, Avraham would have addressed the biggest one of these men. He would have used his own intelligence in making this choice. According to Rashi in the Talmud quoted, Avraham chose the middle angel, (man) as the one whom he addressed as their leader. We know that the angels are not all on the same level. We also know from the descriptions in the Book of Daniel that the senior angels may give instructions to their junior companions. (Daniel 8,16) Even though these men had come to him in the guise of men, human beings, seeing that Avraham had prepared water for them to wash their feet, he addressed the leader in the plural mode, -with the vowel kametz instead of in the singular mode with the vowel chirik as an expression of special honour. We find something parallel in Judges 6,15 when Gideon asked the (lone) angel ”my lord(s), (adonay) how can I help the people of Israel?” He had not been aware at that time that he was addressing an angel. The sages who hold that the word a-donay here is sacred, explain that Avraham used the plural mode because he was addressing G’d Who had visited him, asking Him to wait until he had been able to perform the duty of being a good host to these travelers who had suddenly appeared at the entrance of his tent. The lesson to be derived from this is that the merit of welcoming guests and making them feel at home is even greater than the merit of welcoming G’d into one’s house.
  אל נא תעבר מעל עבדך, the word נא is a kind of plea, Avraham begging these strangers not to pass him by without stopping to take some refreshment. The reason why this whole incident has been recorded in the Torah is to teach people how to relate to fellow human beings with charity and love. It is an act of loving kindness to welcome guests into one’s home in order to honour them and to look after their personal requirements, such as letting them wash up and stay overnight.
  
  Verse 4
  
  יקח נא מעט מים, the reason why he mentioned “a little,” is in order to understate his generosity, something that is expected of any person who claims to possess a certain minimum of good character traits. When referring to the water,” Avraham used the passive form of yukach, meaning the water would be supplied by someone other than himself, whereas when he spoke about the bread he would supply, he said: “I will take a piece of bread, etc.”
  ורחצו, an imperative, seeing that the letter ר has the vowel patach. If this had been a form of the future constructed with the introductory letter ו, the letter ר should have the vowel kametz under it. Examples are: Exodus 40,31 ורחצו ממנו.  Avraham meant to tell his guests to allow themselves to have their feet washed by one of his servants.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  ואקחה פת לחם; from this we learn that the righteous say little but do a lot. (Baba Metzia 87) This is the appropriate manner of conducting oneself. The Torah wrote these details in order to teach us that this is part of good manners, דרך ארץ. Avraham spoke about a piece of bread, whereas in fact he served a sumptuous meal.  He had even understated the amount of bread he would serve by not saying ואקח לחם, but ואקחה פת לחם, a reference to less than a whole loaf.
  וסעדו לבחם, an imperative mode of a transitive verb, i.e. “refresh your hearts with a little bread.” We know that eating bread is a form of refreshment from Psalms 104,15 ולחם לבב אנוש יסעד, “but bread sustains man’s life.” 
  כי על כן עברתם, seeing that you have already happened to pass my house, it is not possible that you should not at least accept some refreshment. The formulation על כן is found again when Lot justifies his hosting the angels when the Sodomites remonstrate with him. (Genesis 19,8) We also find this formulation על כן when Yehudah acknowledges  his embarrassment with Tamar as a punishment for not giving his third son to Tamar for her to become his wife. (Genesis 38,26)
  כאשר דברת, only a piece of bread, do not exert yourself beyond this.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  ויאמר...שלש סאים, in order to make a challah, loaf, of bread comprising one sa-ah (measure) of flour for each of his guests.
  קמח סולת, flour, suitable to make into cake. Cake is made of flour which can be baked more quickly than ordinary bread.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  ואל הבקר רץ אברהם, the term רץ is a variant of the term וימהר, he hastened. The Torah wished to give us an impression of the speed with which a man of 99 years old performed the task of entertaining unexpected guests, preparing a virtual feast for them.
  בן בקר, male and young, so that it would be both tender and tasty. The word טוב refers to it being juicy, fat; we find this expression used in that sense also in Jeremiah 44,17 ונשבע לחם ונהיה טובים, “we had plenty of bread and were fat.”
  אל הנער; to the servant. According to an allegorical interpretation [based on the definitive article ה seeing that Avraham had many servants, Ed.] this is a reference to Ishmael.
  לעשות אותו, to prepare it and to cook it.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  ויקח, he, personally.
  ויתן, he placed before them butter and milk as well as the young calf. He offered them the choice to eat either dairy or meaty. There was no need to mention the bread as it is understood that he first brought them the bread. After all, the very minimum one can serve guests is bread. When one entertains guests who appear to be distinguished people one most certainly does not fail to offer them bread first. Besides, the Torah had already mentioned that he prepared the bread in the guise of uggot, cakes. There was also no need to mention that he served them wine, another, staple at all meals.
  אשר עשה, by means of his servant.
  והוא עומד, as explained by Onkelos, i.e. he served them in the capacity of waiter.
  עליהם, the word is used in the same sense already in verse 2
  ויאכלו, this is how it appeared to him. All this was part of his prophetic vision.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  ויאמרו אליו, there are dots on the letters יו. Such dots can only be explained by our resorting to allegorical interpretations. For instance, our sages quote Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar as saying that whenever the dot appears to include someone or something not mentioned in the text as written, we pay heed primarily to these dots. When the dots seem to exclude part of the text as written, we stick to the text in our interpretation of the verse. In our case, the dots mean that the angels also enquired from Sarah where to find Avraham. This teaches that a guest is to enquire from the host about the hostess and from the hostess about the host. The sages say further that the angels knew very well where Sarah was at that time, but the question is reported only to draw attention to the modesty of Sarah who was not in evidence, did not allow her curiosity about the nature of the guests to cause her to peek out of her tent. Knowing that she was so modest would endear her even further to her husband. Rabbi Yossi bar Chaninah says that the purpose of the enquiry was to be able to hand her a cup of blessing. [not literally, but a reference to the good news they brought. Ed.] 
  איה שרה אשתך, they asked about her, seeing she was not present when they were being served the meal out of a sense of modesty. We learn from this that it is immodest for women to appear in front of male guests. Seeing that in this instance the angels had a message for her, they had to ask after her whereabouts.
  הנה באהל, she is in the tent as befits a modest woman. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  ויאמר, the senior angel, the one whom Avraham had addressed in verse 3 with the words אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך. שוב אשוב אליך, this was the one whose task it was to tell Sarah that she would bear a son. He spoke of his return visit a year from the present time. The other two were to destroy Sodom and to rescue Lot respectively. Three angels were required as no angel is charged with more than one mission at a time. (Bereshit Rabbah 50,2)
  כעת חיה, at about this time of year next year Sarah will be giving birth. We find the term חיה used to describe giving birth in Yuma 73. On the other hand, the word may also refer to a time frame, i.e. at this time next year, seeing that you will both be alive, Sarah will bear a son. G’d had spoken of למועד הזה בשנה האחרת (compare Genesis 17,21) whereas the angel expressed the same thought in the words כעת חיה. The angel did not spell out to Avraham precisely when this birth would take place, as had G’d in the previous chapter.
  ושרה שומעת פתח האהל, she had been inside her tent; when she heard the voices of the angel and Avraham. She went to the entrance of her tent to overhear what was being said. Neither the angel nor Avraham saw her at the time. seeing both their backs were turned towards the entrance. This is the meaning of the words והוא אחריו, i.e. Sarah’s tent was behind the angel who was doing the talking.
  
  Verse 11
  
  ואברהם, this line has been written only in order to account for the reason of Sarah’s laughter.
  באים בימים, this is the standard mode in which the Torah describes people who feel that aging has affected their general physique and imposed limitations on them. What the Torah means is that both Avraham and Sarah had reached the years when other people are subject to the limitations of old age. These are the years when the soul begins to separate from the body.
  אורח כנשים, the signal of old age for women, i.e. cessation of their menstrual cycle. The Torah uses a euphemism to describe that phenomenon. Rachel used the same euphemism when she explained to her father Lavan why she could not let him search her camel (Genesis 31,35). During old age, due to the body drying out, the flow of blood stops, i.e. a woman no longer ovulates. Our sages in Ketuvot 10 relate that the volume of such a flow of blood is in direct relation to the number of children a woman is likely to bear. There was a well known family by the name of Dorkaty in those days, whose female members never experienced either menstrual blood, nor the blood associated with the puncturing of the hymen. This is why the family was named Dorkaty, meaning that something was radically wrong. None of the females in that family ever had children, the reason being attributed to this abnormal condition of their not menstruating.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  ותצחק שרה בקרבה, Sarah laughed derisively internally, not audibly; she did not believe that the man who had made the prediction was an angel, though she assumed that he was a prophet.
  לאמור, she contemplated saying out loud what she had only been thinking so far. Even though, she did not laugh in the angel’s face, but contained herself due to her good manners, asking instead in wonderment:
  אחרי בלותי היתה לי עדנה, how is it possible that I, who have stopped ovulating should become sufficiently rejuvenated? The word עדנה refers to youthful flesh and skin. It describes a certain elasticity of the skin. The angel was fully aware that she had laughed; this is why he said to Avraham: why did Sarah laugh?
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  'ויאמר ה, the angel is accorded the name of his Master, something that we find also in connection with Gideon in Judges 6,16.
  ?האף אמנם אלד, will such a miracle indeed occur on my behalf even though I am that old? Even though the angel did not answer her point by point, he did answer her with an overall statement that there simply is nothing which is beyond G’d’s power to accomplish if he so desires. Our author uses a similar approach when examining the words Eliezer used in explaining his mission in Genesis 24,39. There too, the fact that he conveyed the content of what he had asked Avraham before undertaking his mission was important, the exact wording was not the issue. The angel did not even bother to reply to Sarah’s statement that her husband too was too old to impregnate her with semen. The reason he did not do so was that Sarah having had her menopause was the far greater natural impediment to her becoming pregnant. It is not altogether unknown for old men to father children even in their advanced old age.
  
  Verse 14
  
  ?היפלא, these matters appear miraculous in the eyes of human beings, and they cannot fathom how such things can be. However, in light of G’d’s omnipotence, nothing is impossible for Him to accomplish. He who created the universe, has no problem making changes in His universe.
  
  Verse 15
  
  ותכחש...כי יראה, seeing that she was afraid she denied having laughed;
  !ויאמר לא, not as you say, for you truly did laugh.
  
  Verse 16
  
  ויקומו משם, from the house of Avraham.
  וישקיפו, the direction in which they faced was Sodom. The expression השקפה occurs both in a benevolent sense and in a malevolent sense, depending on the context. The expression also appears sometimes in the passive mode and other times in the causative, transitive mode, hiphil. The reason for the latter mode is that when one looks at someone or something, one is, normally, at the same time visible to the ones one looks at. Hence the passive mode is justified also. When the viewer remains invisible to the one at whom he looks, such as G’d or angels, there is no call for the passive mode, hence we have the causative mode here, seeing that the people of Sodom could not see the angels. 
  ואברהם הולך עמהם לשלחם, to keep them company for a while, to accompany them. [not to make sure they departed. Ed.] The Torah teaches good manners, i.e. that one does not dismiss a guest abruptly, but by walking with him indicates that one regrets the time had come to part from one another. Our sages in Sotah 46 suggest that the distance one should accompany a guest from one’s house is approximately 1,2 kilometers.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  וה' אמר, the Lord, Who had appeared to Him initially to inform him of the sins of the Sodomites (13,13) informed Avraham now, after the departure of the angels, about His plans in detail. The Torah adds, in its narrative, what had prompted G’d to take this unusual step of informing Avraham of His plans, seeing that his own safety was not involved. G’d felt duty-bound to apprise Avraham of His intentions.
  
  Verse 18
  
  ואברהם, seeing that he will become the founding father of most of mankind, how can I conceal from him My plans? Most of the nations of the earth will receive their blessings due to Avraham’s merits. How could I not share such information with him? כי ידעתיו, that he is in awe of Me and loves Me. I intend for his children to develop in the same way. This is why I will inform him “ למען אשר יצוה את בניו שישמרו דרך ה' לעשות צדקה ומשפט, so that Avraham will say to his children that if they practice and emulate G’d’s ways of performing charitable deeds and at the same time endeavour for justice to prevail, their lives will be successful seeing G’d will help them. They will then experience the fulfillment of all the promises (conditional) which I, G’d, have made to him concerning his offspring. If they fail to emulate that lifestyle these promises are liable not to be fulfilled.” If there are among his children some who argue that G’d does not concern Himself with the deeds of individuals, as opposed to the conduct of nations, remind them of what happened to the Sodomites so that they realise that G’d does indeed watch closely over the actions of even small communities. In the event such non-believers would argue that what happened to the Sodomites was an accident of nature, an earthquake, such as we all experience in different parts of the earth, Avraham could reply that G’d had advised him of that event in advance so that it could not be explained away as a natural event. G’d added;
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  את ביתו ואת בניו, both the members of his household who were not biologically related to his as well as his family, in order to teach us that a man is obligated to monitor the conduct of all members of his household and is responsible for their misconduct if he did not use his authority to put a stop to it. David spells out this responsibility of the head of the household in Psalms 101,6-7 when he said: עיני בנאמני ארץ לשבת עמדי הולך בדרך תמים הוא ישרתני. לא ישב בקרב ביתי עושה רמיה, “my eyes are on the trusty men of the land, to have them at my side. He who follows the way of the blameless shall be in my service.” He who deals deceitfully shall not live in my house;” Concerning the wicked Solomon says in Proverbs 29,12: “a ruler who listens to lies, all his servants become wicked.”
  על אברהם, meaning on his descendants after him.
  
  Verse 20
  
  'ויאמר ה' זעקת סדם ועמורה וגו, G’d means to say that the reason he now appeared to Avraham was to inform him that He had heard the outcry concerning Sodom, etc. The same applied to the five kings who were involved in the war with Kedorleomer in chapter 14 were all killed together with their population when Sodom was overturned. They were what the Torah referred to in 19,28 as the ארץ הככר. Moses also referred to this overturning of Sodom and Amora in Deut. 29,22 mentioning 4 towns, seeing that Tzoar was saved at the request of Lot. Also in Hoseah 11,8 the cities of Adma and Tzvoyim are singled out by the prophet, although the largest of the cities were Sodom and Amora. Sodom was the principal city, and the perversions committed in all of these cities were presumably dreamt up by the citizens of Sodom. The prophet Ezekiel 16,53 specifically refers to the other cities of that valley as Sodom’s satellites.
  זעקת, the souls of the people who had been tortured by the inhabitants of these cities reached the heavenly court. The primary complaint was violence committed against these people. There were other, lesser crimes committed by these people also. However, the decision to destroy these cities was sealed on account of the violence perpetrated, just as the deluge was brought about by that crime. This was essentially a repeat of what happened on a global scale at the time of the deluge.
  וחטאתם, this refers to the sin of violence, taking the law into one’s own hands. The outcry that had reached the heavenly spheres was extremely severe. As the prophet Ezekiel said: “they did not support the poor and the weak.” The poor cry out to heaven on account of their hunger, and they do not have any one who stretches out their hand to support them.
  
  Verse 21
  
  ארדה נא ואראה, we explained the meaning of G’d’s “descending” already on 11,5. This time the text says ואראה, “I shall see,” instead of לראות, “to see.” The Torah writes in this vein although we know that G’d is perfectly aware of all that goes on here on earth. The reason why the Torah describes G’d’s activity in this manner is only to remind people on earth that He is not in a hurry to mete out retribution, but is patient, and even when His patience is exhausted, He does not act impetuously, but is always in complete control. He examines if there is any way in which delaying retribution can be justified. It was this very phrase which provided Avraham with an opening to engage G’d in a dialogue concerning His Justice and man’s perception of Divine justice. He did this not because he doubted G’d’s justice, but in order to be able to teach man something about how G’d’s justice works.
  הכצעקתה, if in accordance with the outcry that has come to My attention, they have indeed done, כלה, they deserve to die, but if not, אדעה, I will know about it, and I will welcome the fact that Avraham appreciates this and will ask Me about how I administer justice. The mappik heh is a hint that Sodom was the city which determined the fate of the others. Its satellites patterned their lifestyles on that of the city of Sodom. A comment in the Midrash (quoted by Rashi) suggests that the mappik heh underscores a specific incident in which a young girl who had a soft heart and gave bread to a stranger was found out and punished most cruelly, being smeared with honey and suspended between two trees, so that the bees killed her in the process of licking the honey off her body. 
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  ויפנו משם, this is how it appeared to Avraham in his prophetic vision, i.e. that he had accompanied the angels some distance and after the appropriate distance, the angels turned in a different direction and went away. The angel who had brought the message to Sarah disappeared, whereas the other two proceeded in the direction of Sodom.
  ואברהם עודנו עומד, he felt that the vision he had been experiencing had not yet come to a conclusion.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  ויגש, the term גישה, ויגש, when used with a place, מקום, invariably refers to the subject משפט, judgment.  Avraham enquired how it was possible that the entire population of a city should deserve extinction. Surely, there had to be some righteous people, and why would they have to share the fate of the wicked? Onkelos understands the word האף as a reference to G’d’s anger, wrath, as if Avraham asked if because G’d was angry the innocent would suffer the fallout of that anger and be punished for the sins of the wicked.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  ?אולי יש חמשים צדיקים בתוך העיר, the words בתוך העיר must be understood as referring exclusively to the city of Sodom, not including its satellites. We know this from G’d’s reply in which He spelled out: in verse 24  “if I find in Sodom 50 righteous men inside the city, etc.” Avraham’s argument could have been that if there would be 50 righteous men in the city of Sodom, it was most likely that also the satellite towns would harbour among their populations some righteous people. Alternately, Avraham may have asked that if there would be a total of 50 good men scattered in the various towns, this should be enough to allow all the cities to escape destruction at this time. G’d might then have mentioned Sodom as an example of all of the cities in the valley, saying that 50 people would suffice for G’d’s forgiveness at this time. He singled out Sodom because Lot, Avraham’s kin, lived in that particular city. Avraham tested the number of righteous men that would be the rock bottom minimum for G’d to suspend all or part of the destruction He had planned.
  האף תספה ולא תשא למקום, he did not mention the people in the place but referred to the place itself. Avraham could not reasonably expect G’d to forgive the sinners, but he felt that the place could be saved. If the guilty would be wiped out the righteous would at least be able to continue living in that town, and would not have to migrate to a new location. Avraham concentrated on the word כלה, “total destruction,” of which G’d had spoken. The prophet Ezekiel in Ezekiel 22,30 and already in chapter 21, elaborates further on how the impending destruction which overtook Jerusalem in his time could have been stopped. Not only would there have to have been interlocutors such as Avraham, but the sins of the city would have had to be in the main minor sins, i.e. not violence, the sin which provokes G’d’s wrath the most, as we know from the generation of the deluge already. Not only that, but in order for the righteous to be able to save their townsfolk from disaster they must be absolutely righteous, not only barely have more merits than debits in G’d’s ledger of their conduct. In Jeremiah’s time there were righteous people. These were withdrawn, did not mix with the wicked, and did not dare go out into the streets to admonish their countrymen, as they were afraid for their own lives and were not prepared to risk their lives in order to urge their fellow Jews to do penitence. Our author quotes Jeremiah 5,1, Psalms 94,15, 69,12, as well as Ezekiel 14,14 and 14,16 to support his case.
  
  Verse 25
  
  חלילה לך, such a procedure must not occur as it would hurt Your image among mankind if You would be perceived as killing both the wicked and the righteous.
  כצדיק כרשע, using two letters כ in succession to describe a comparison. It is as if the Torah had written: “this is like this and this is also like this.” The syntax is intended to abbreviate the sentence. You find similar examples in Genesis 44,18 and in Isaiah 24,2.
  השופט כל הארץ, if You will subject the entire earth to judgment, You cannot very well single out only this location for Your judgment; if however, You will wipe out the righteous together with the wicked  this would not be justice. Therefore, please let me know why You plan to destroy just this region totally?
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  ויאמר ה' ...לכל המקום, the city and her satellites, and I will not destroy them.
  
  Verse 27
  
  ויען..הואלתי, “I wanted to speak some more to G’d, אנכי עפר ואפר, even though compared to You I am only dust and ashes. I did not mean to protest Your justice, but I merely wish to understand it.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  אולי יחסרון, if there are 5 righteous people missing from the 50 righteous people of whom I said that their presence should serve to save the city at this time, are You going to going to destroy the earth (surrounding these towns) and not forgive the place on account of the 45 righteous people that live there?”
  
  Verse 29
  
  ויוסף עוד..לא אעשה, I will not utterly destroy the whole region, as G’d had already said in verse 28 when He worded this as לא אשחית. Basically, the same considerations prevail in respect of all these numbers, G’d varying His reply by sometimes phrasing it as לא אשחית and other times as לא אעשה, “I will not do.”
  
  Verse 30
  
  ויאמר אל נא יחר, seeing that Avraham was afraid to belabour the same point of questioning G’d about how He administered justice, he now prefaced further questions with the request that G’d not become angry at him. In order not to stretch G’d’s patience, he now omitted reducing the numbers by five at a time, reducing them by ten each time, i.e. 40,30,20,10.
  
  Verse 31
  
   ויאמר, we already explained this type of response.
  
  Verse 32
  
  ויאמר...אך הפעם, Avraham makes clear that if there would not be at least ten righteous people, he would no longer have any argument to present which could be used to help these towns escape their deserved punishment. Significantly, he made no mention of Lot, as he believed that Lot deserved to share the fate of the city having voluntarily associated himself with the wicked inhabitants of that town. Besides, Avraham had no way of knowing if Lot had adopted the perverted lifestyle of the inhabitants of Sodom. He believed that Lot’s only way of saving himself from the doom decreed on the city was to voluntarily depart from that city.
  
  Verse 33
  
  'וילך ה, G’d’s presence withdrew from Avraham, and it became clear to him as part of his vision that he had returned to his terrestrial home, the very place where he had become the recipient of this prophetic vision.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויבאו שני המלאכים, these were the two who had previously been described as שני האנשים, “the two men.” When next to Avraham, they did not outrank him; therefore the Torah did not accord them the title “angels.” When compared to Lot, they outclassed him spiritually so much that they could not be described as אנשים, men. (Bereshit Rabbah, 50,2)
  וירא לוט ויקם לקראתם, he had learned the virtue of welcoming guests while he had been with Avraham.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  הנה נא, א-דוני, the word נא always expresses a plea. In this instance the word הנה has the vowel segol, because of the dagesh (dot) in the letter נ of the word נא. 
  א-דני, the vowel under the נ is a patach instead of the kametz we might have expected. This proves that the word is not a sacred attribute of the name of G’d. Lot, at that stage, had assumed that these strangers were simply extraordinary important people, judging by their attire and their general  demeanour. When looking at them at the beginning he had  thought they looked like angels. 
  ולינו, he had to ask them to stay the night, seeing that had arrived in the evening.
  ורחצו, the letter ר has the vowel patach, as the word is in the imperative mode. Its meaning is just as it was when the angels arrived at Avraham’s in chapter 18. The invitation to wash one’s feet is normally extended as the first step in inviting guests to partake in a meal. In this instance, Lot did not bother to announce that he would feed these angels, seeing that he had already invited them to spend the night, something which would include supper as a matter of course.
  והשכמתם, if you want you may rise early and be on your way, a remark quite similar to that of Avraham in 18,5.
  ויאמרו לא, from this verse our sages deduce that it is in order to decline invitations from insignificant people, whereas one must not turn down an invitation from prominent, highly placed people (quoted by Rashi) The same men, when visiting Avraham, had immediately accepted his invitation, whereas here, when an invitation seemed even more called for, they at first refused Lot’s offer of hospitality.
  כי ברחוב, in the public street or square of the town. They were not prepared to be the guests of anyone else in the city either.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  ויפצר בם מאד, he spoke to them intently on the subject, urging them to accept his invitation, until eventually, they did come to his house. Onkelos writes ותקיף בהם, that he actually took hold of these men until they concurred to spend the night with him.
  ויעש להם משתה, seeing it was night he did not have time to slaughter an animal in their honour, but he prepared something at short notice, served them drinks, and unleavened bread which can be prepared at short notice. It is good manners to prepare something at short notice for guests who arrived unexpectedly. The guest arriving at such a time is usually tired and does not care to wait until an elaborate meal can be prepared in his honour. The story has been recorded for all times in order to teach us how to serve unexpected guests arriving at night.
  ויאכלו. If the whole sequence is a vision which Lot did not actually experience, the meaning of the word ויאכלו must be understood literally; if the Torah describes actual events, the word means that Lot had the impression as if the angels ate and drank his food. The food and drink, which are composed of different components, simply dissolved into their basic ingredients so that they were not visible as such. [imagine water, i.e. H20, being dissolved into the gases oxygen and hydrogen, becoming invisible in the process. Ed.] This, of course, would occur miraculously.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  טרם, why did the Torah have to write the wordsאנשי סדום, “the men of Sodom,” having already immediately before identified these men as אנשי העיר, the men of the town?”   The Torah wanted to emphasise that by their actions they proved that they must be inhabitants of the city of Sodom. This bore out the Torah’s previous characterisation of the inhabitants of this city as רעים וחטאים, “wicked and sinful,” (13,13)
  ועד זקן, the old people were no better than the people in their prime whose perversions might have been due to their youthful vigour. All the people ganged up on Lot’s house. As a result of their extreme self-centeredness, they had passed a law that no stranger was to be entertained in that city. Lot’s having broken with this tradition so enraged them that they decided to teach him a lesson by attacking his guests. The reason why the Torah goes into all this detail is merely so that subsequent generations will realise that G’d’s action in destroying such people was justified.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  ויקראו...ונדעה אותם, who these people are, and how such people had dared to enter our town at night in spite of our reputation. The word ונדעה is a euphemism for the intention to kill these people, just as it is in Judges 19,22 as reported by a party involved there in 20,5 Other commentators believe that the euphemism concerns the intention of sodomising these men. 
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  ויצא....סגר אחריו, either the person within the house locked the door from the inside, or Lot locked the door from the outside. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  ויאמר אל נא, “please guard the welfare of these men for you are my brothers and neighbours; do it for my sake and leave them alone!”
  
  Verse 8
  
  הנה נא, the words mean “now!” Now restrain your urge to kill these people. I will now hand over to you my two daughters and you can satisfy your urges with them. You can rape them, seeing that they are still virgins. Alternatively, you may even kill them. This is what he meant when he added the words כטוב בעיניכם. אל תעשו דבר, “do not do something evil.!” כי על כן באו, seeing they have come to spend the night under my roof, leave them be, in my honour, I would rather have you abuse my daughters or even kill them, than to do any harm to these men.”
  
  Verse 9
  
  ויאמרו גש הלאה, they told him to get away from them, to leave and go someplace else.
  נרע לך מהם, “we will treat you even worse than them.”
  ויפצרו, they became very insistent, speaking very threateningly, beginning to assault him physically.
  ויגשו לשבר הדלת, seeing that the door was locked.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  ואת האנשים, the angels punished the men of Sodom who were at the entrance to the house 
  בסנורים, with a temporary blindness The word סנורים is a composite of the two words סני ראיה.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  ?ויאמרו...עוד מי לך פה, the same as asking “who else do you have here (in town)?”
  ובניך, your grandchildren, the children of your daughters. Lot did not have any sons. If he would have had any they would have been in the house with him, whereas married daughters would not. Or, he would have spoken to his sons also, just as he went out and spoke to his sons-in-law.
  וכל אשר לך בעיר, .and any livestock and chattels you may have in this town.
  הוצא מן המקום, do not only remove it from this town but from the entire region.
  
  Verse 13
  
  כי משחיתים.... כי גדלה צעקתם, the outcry to G’d by the victims of the cruelties of the Sodomites has become too great. In this construction the pronoun ending has been appended to the subject as well as to the predicate, just as in Isaiah 56,7 ושמחתים בבית תפלתי it has been appended to the predicate or in Isaiah 38,1 שמעתי את תפלתך where it has been appended to the subject.
  לשחתה, to destroy the town, seeing the town is part of the larger region described as המקום previously.
  
  Verse 14
  
  ויצא לוט ...לקחי בנותיו, they had become the sons-in-law having already betrothed his daughters to them. The Torah does not report that Lot spoke to his daughters, as it was understood that the daughters would concur with their husbands’ decision.
  
  Verse 15
  
  וכמו השחר עלה, at the time when dawn broke forth.
  ויאיצו, they urged המלאכים, here the angels are described as angels again, not as in verse 10 where they were described as האנשים, “the men.” The reason is that here they performed the tasks of angels, i.e. they saved Lot and they destroyed the whole region. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  ויתמהמה, Lot was still hesitant, apparently being loath to leave his wealth behind in the city. The angels therefore delayed until dawn, at which time they did not allow him time to save anything but his very life and the clothes he was wearing, even though, initially, they had asked him what else he owned in the city, implying that this too would be saved. (compare verse 12)
  ויחזיקו האנשים בידו וביד אשתו וביד שתי בנותיו, in order to ensure that they could escape with their lives. Here the angels are referred to as “the men,” seeing that they acted like ordinary men, taking Lot and family by their hands, as if they themselves were physical beings.
  בחמלת ה' עליו, they hastened to take Lot out of the city for the sake of Avraham even though the time had arrived when the destruction was to take place.
  ויצאהו וינחהו, Lot, his wife, and his daughters.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  ויהי כהוציאם, while they were in the process of removing them from the city of Sodom they urged them to hurry in order to be saved;
  ויאמר, the angel whose task it was to save him, even though there were two angels that worked together.
  אל תביט אחריך, they said that to him in order that he should not thereby create a delay. He was afraid that Lot would want to ascertain if the city behind him was really being destroyed.
  בכל הככר, in the entire valley, seeing that all the towns in that valley were being turned upside down.
  פן תספה, “lest you will be destroyed with the people of the city if you stand still. I have no authority to save you from the destruction once the process has commenced. The destruction will occur instantaneously and simultaneously in al the towns slated for this.” (compare Lamentations 4,6 on the expression ההפוכה כמו רגע).
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  ויאמר...אל נא, he begged them not to make him rush up the mountain as he was physically unable to move so quickly.
  אדוני, the word is used in the secular sense, as proved by the fact that it concludes the sentence. Onkelos also translates it in this sense, writing בבבעו כען רבוני. [this may be so in the edition at Kimchi’s disposal; in our editions the words are rendered as בבעו י-י. Ed.] Our sages in Shevuot 35 claim that every time the word א-דני appears in connection with Avraham it is invariably a reference to G’d, i.e. is a sacred word. Every time the word occurs in connection with Lot it is secular, except here. The reason it is understood to be sacred in this instance is that Lot attributed to these angels the power to kill or to keep alive. The words of our sages are astounding, seeing Lot addressed them in the plural mode, something not appropriate when addressing G’d. Besides, when an angel is on a mission from G’d, he can obviously kill or bring to life just as his Master can. Moreover, the power to revive the dead was exercised even by such prophets as Elijah and Elisha.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  הנה נא מצא עבדך חן בעיניך, seeing that the angel had told him המלט על נפשך, “save yourself,” it had become clear that the angel’s mission was to save him. Actually, both angels were on a mission of both saving Lot and destroying Sodom. The one who was speaking did so only because he was the senior of the two. The one who tried to save Lot said לבלתי הפכי את העיר, “I cannot yet overturn the city.” (verse 21) He also admitted that he was unable to destroy the town until Lot had been saved (verse 22).
  תדבקני, the vowel patach under the letter ק is in lieu of the vowel tzeyre.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  הנה נא העיר הזאת קרובה,“near” in the sense of “easy to escape to.”
  והיא מצער, it is also a small town with few inhabitants. Even though the inhabitants are admittedly wicked, they are but few in number. They appear to have been spared from the destruction on my account.
  ותחי נפשי, together with them.
  אמלטה נא, the emphasis is on the letter ט. We have a similar construction in Samuel I 20,29 אמלטה נא ואראה את אחי, where the emphasis is on the מ instead of on the letter ט.
  הלא מצער היא, he repeated the insignificance of the town due to its few inhabitants. Our sages understand the word מצער as meaning מזער, “young,” of recent origin; they therefore could not yet have accumulated so many demerits as the more established cities of the valley. (based on Shabbat 10) According to some sages Tzoar had been founded only 51 years previously, equaling the numerical value of the word נא used by Lot in his plea.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  ויאמר אליו הנה נשאתי פניך, from this verse we may deduce that when G’d dispatches an angel on a major mission, He gives the angel some discretion in the manner in which he is to carry out the task assigned to him. The angel or angels may use their own intelligence in this respect. Clearly, an angel is not like a golem, but is an intelligent being.
  
  Verse 22
  
  מהר..כי לא אוכל, because I have been commanded not to destroy the region until you have been saved.
  קרא, the city formerly known as בלע was renamed on account of what transpired on this occasion [We encountered the city and its king in Genesis 14,8. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  השמש...ולוט בא צוערה. As soon as Lot had entered Tzoar, the angel set in motion the rain that would obliterate Sodom, acting on instructions from G’d.
  
  Verse 24
  
  'וה, the angel now is called by the name of his Master, G’d. We already referred to this phenomenon in 18,3 
  מאת ה' מן השמים, what is meant is that the origin of this lethal rain was very high up in the sky.
  
  Verse 25
  
  ויהפך, He turned these cities and the valley from having been most fruitful to becoming most desolate. According to Job 28,6-8 the region had not only been good pasture land but its soil had yielded gold, gemstones, etc. The sulfur and brimstone which made up most of this rain made the earth forever incapable of producing crops or other matters of value to mankind. We know that even birds shun that region.
  
  Verse 26
  
  ותבט אשתו מאחריו, Lot’s wife who had been walking behind him turned around, seeing that she had little faith in such miracles as she had been warned would occur; This, in spite of the fact that she had personally overheard the angel warning Lot that no one was to turn around on pain of their becoming a victim of this destruction. Even though salt has not been mentioned as having been part of the lethal rain, the Torah speaking of sulfur and fire, it appears that the people themselves were turned into pillars composed partly of sulfur and partly of salt. We have proof of this in Deut. 29,22 when Moses describes the valley as it appeared in his time. The Israelites had not yet seen it, never having set foot in the land of Canaan as yet.
  נציב מלח, a ruin resembling a castle of salt which had largely disintegrated.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  וישכם...אל המקום אשר עמד שם, this is similar to 18,22 where we were told that Avraham was still standing in the presence of the Lord. This was the place where the angels had parted from him in his vision. Our sages  (Berachot 26) state that Avraham initiated the morning prayer shacharit, as whenever the word עומד is used it refers to the amidah, the principal prayer. David makes reference to this in Psalms 106,30 where he said ויעמוד פנחס ויפלל, that Pinchas stood and prayed, meaning that it behooves man to recite prayers in the morning in which he gratefully acknowledges the daylight in the universe which was provided for him before he set out to go to work. They also add (on folio 6) that it is appropriate for a person to select a specific place where he offers up his prayers on a regular basis.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  וישקף...קיטור הארץ, smoke, from the fire which had burned the earth.
  הכבשן, a sort of kiln in which one fires stones and loam into earthenware. Alternately, this kiln is used to wash earthenware vessels.
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  ויהי בשחת, the reason why the Torah phrases this thus is to remind us that Lot’s having been saved was due to the merit of Avraham. Even though, by comparison to the people of Sodom he was relatively righteous, he was not righteous enough to have deserved G’d extending Himself to save him as a result of his own merits. G’d now wanted to put Avraham’s mind at rest by indicating to him that Lot had indeed been saved from this conflagration.
  וישלח את לוט מתוך ההפכה, He had sent away from the midst of this upheaval, i.e. immediately preceding it.
  בהפך את הערים, when He was about to turn these cities inside out, for the angel had told Lot that he could not carry out his task until he had brought Lot to safety. (verse 22).
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  ויעל, as soon as he had the opportunity, after all that was to be destroyed had already been destroyed. He left Tzoar being afraid that Tzoar might face the same fate as Sodom, even though a little later, seeing that he was well aware that its inhabitants were also wicked people.
  וישב בהר, this was the mountain which the angel had originally told him to go to. (verse 17)
  וישב במערה, a cave in the side of the mountain
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  ותאמר...אבינו זקן, there is no chance that he will marry again and have children from such a woman. If we will die without having children there will not be a memory of our father at all. If you were to say that we should take husbands and have children, where would we find such husbands?
  איש אין בארץ לבא עלינו. Most interpreters assume that these daughters thought that that just as there was no survivor left from the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, so there were none in the rest of the world. It is very difficult to accept such an interpretation, seeing that they had just left Tzoar which had not been destroyed, so that they had every reason to believe that other regions of the earth had also not been affected. Not only that, but their father had told them that the reason why Sodom and Gomorrah had been destroyed was due to their inhabitants’ wickedness. I therefore prefer an explanation which I have heard in the name of Rabbi Yoseph Karo (the elder) that the elder sister told her younger sister that none of the remaining men of the world would want to marry them, seeing they had lived in the wicked city of Sodom. People would not want to associate with anyone who had only narrowly escaped the fate of the Sodomites.
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  לכה, we have already explained the meaning of this expression on Genesis 11,9 as well as the meaning of the word לכו, the same in the plural mode.
  נשקה את אבינו יין, enough to make him drunk, so that he will not know what to do when we sleep with him. He certainly would not agree to sleep with his daughters while in full possession of his faculties. Anyone subscribing to the cultural mores of an Avraham would not knowingly engage in such a practice. This story is related in order to teach us that even people not subscribing to the moral standards of the Torah would not stoop to this kind of sexual licentiousness. The entire story reveals the origin of the peoples of Ammon and Moav, two nations who will feature prominently in Jewish history from the time even before the Jews entered the Holy Land until the destruction of the first Temple. G’d prevented the Jewish people under Moses from attacking these nations seeing that their founder, Lot, had been a nephew of Avraham. Also, the Jewish people were not given any part of the lands occupied by these nations at the time when Moses and Joshua were involved in conquering the lands which became their home land.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  ותשקין...בלילה הוא, the letter ה at the end of the word which would have served as the definitive article for the adjective is missing here, as it is also Samuel II 6,2 את העגלה חדשה, [which should have beenהחדשה  Ed.] just as it is also missing in Numbers 28,4 את הכבש אחד, instead of האחד.
  ולא ידע, even when his daughter broke off the physical contact with her father, Lot remained totally unaware of this. [this is why we speak of “drunk as Lot,” when referring to someone’s drunken stupor. Ed.] The Torah mentions this detail to hint that had he noticed any of this Lot would have resisted the sexual union with his daughter and would have severely remonstrated with her for performing such a despicable act. According to an allegorical approach, (quoted by Rashi,) the dot over the letter ו in this word suggests that Lot did notice when his daughter broke the contact, and therefore he can be faulted for not ensuring that the same did not happen to him on any of the following nights.
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  ויהי...אמש, the previous night; the same word is used to describe a previous night when Lavan had been chastised by G’d and warned not to harm Yaakov in Genesis 31,42.
  
  Verse 35
  
  ותשקן..ובקמה, this time with the letter ו in the word ובקמה missing.
  
  Verse 36
  
  ותהרין, they each became pregnant as a result of one sexual union with their aging father. As soon as they became aware of this, they desisted from further such contact with their father.
  
  Verse 37
  
  ותלד..מואב, meaning מאב, “from my father I bore this son.”
  אבי מואב, the founding father of the people called Moabites until this day.
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  והצעירה...בן עמי, meaning “the father of this child was a member of my family.” This name was somewhat more chaste than the name given by her older sister, as she did not spell out that Lot was the father of her child.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויסע משם, from Eloney Mamre, the place where he resided most of the time. The Torah fails to mention what prompted Avraham to leave his home in this fashion. It could not have been due to the famine, seeing that at that time no famine is reported as having existed in that region, as opposed to when Yitzchok left his home and went to the land of the Philistines as reported in 26,1. Seeing that in that connection the Torah referred to this famine as being additional to the one in the days of Avraham, and we know that at that time Avraham went to Egypt and did not settle in the region between Kadesh and Shur, we cannot attribute his move to a famine. Perhaps what motivated Avraham was the need to fulfill the commandment by G’d to dwell in all parts of the land of Canaan. The Torah would indicate, obliquely, that the land of the Philistines was included in what G’d had described as “the land of Canaan,” even though the Philistines were distant descendants of Mitzrayim, a grandson of Cham but not directly descended from Canaan. Eventually, the coastal plain inhabited by the Philistines became part of the tribal territory of Yehudah. This may be why the Torah refers to this as ארצה הנגב, the southern region, seeing that Yehudah’s territory is described as the southern part of the country in Joshua chapter15.
  וישב בין קדש ובין שור, the Torah did not bother to tell us precisely where Avraham settled. Later on, we are told that he settled in Gerar, the capital of the land of the Philistines. The part of the verse mentioning this fact is not related to the earlier part of the verse. Besides, the terms וישב and ויגר are totally different from one another, the former speaking of someone settling down with a view to remaining there for a long period, whereas the term ויגר always reflects the intention of the person described to remain there only for a relatively brief period of time, as for instance in Genesis 37,1 where when Yaakov settled down, the Torah contrasts this with the fact that his father and grandfather could not settle down there permanently but had only sojourned there,מגורי אביו. It is customary for Scripture to employ different words when repeating basically the same message. Perhaps, initially, Avraham had settled in one of the locations in the regions such as באר לחי רואי, subsequently moving to Gerar, seeing that באר לחי רואי was situated  between Kadesh and Shur, as we know from Genesis 16,4.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  ויאמר...אל שרה אשתו, concerning his wife Sarah he told anyone inquiring about her אחותי היא, he told the same to Avimelech who inquired, as we know from verse 5 when the latter referred to Avraham having told him that Sarah was his sister. We find a similar meaning of the word אל in Samuel I 17,49 when the lineויך את הפלשתי אל מצחו, means: “it struck the Philistine on his forehead,” or the line אל ההרים לא אכל in Ezekiel 18,6 where the word אל does not mean “to” but the line means: “if he has not eaten on the mountains.” Avraham said this as soon as he arrived in Gerar, as he had heard that the people of that town were wicked people, as he mentioned to Avimelech in verse 11 where he told him that there was no fear of G’d in that town. A generation later Yitzchok had a similar experience in Gerar. Neither Avraham nor Yitzchok are on record as having made similar comments about the local populations of other towns they visited. As to why Avraham risked going to a town full of wicked people and endangered both himself and his wife, this is something we discussed in 12,12. What is more surprising is the fact that Sarah, so many years after her experience in Egypt, was still so physically attractive that she inspired physical passions among the people who saw her. Clearly, her good looks must have been the result of her regaining her youthful vigour when she became pregnant at the time the angels visited Avraham, and she herself remarked on that phenomenon. The time frame in which the events reported in this chapter occurred must have been immediately after the beginning of her pregnancy, mentioned in 21,1 in the past tense, i.e. וה' פקד את שרה, “and the Lord had benevolently remembered Sarah (allowing her to become pregnant).
  וישלח, after Avimelech heard about Sarah’s beauty, he sent to have her brought to his palace.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  ויבא אלוקים אל אבימלך בחלום הלילה, a similar mode of expression has been chosen by the Torah when reporting G’d as appearing to Lavan and warning him not to harm Yaakov (Genesis 31,24). The wicked who do not deserve a communication from G’d, sometimes experience such a visitation as a mark of honour for the righteous people who are the subject of such a visitation. Pharaoh of Egypt at the time when he had seized Sarah had not been granted even such a dream, but the plagues visited upon him and his servants had been used to indicate the displeasure of Avraham‘s G’d with Pharaoh’s conduct. The differences in G’d’s dealing with different people are described by Elihu in Job 33, 14-16, “for G’d speaks time and again- though man does not perceive it- in a dream at night, a night vision, when deep sleep falls upon men, while they slumber in their beds. Then He opens men’s understanding and by disciplining them leaves His signature.” The two methods G’d employs are either dreams or afflictions.
  והיא בעלת בעל, she is out of bounds to you. Even the first human being had already been commanded not to commit adultery, as our sages derived from the words ודבק באשתו, meaning that he is to have intimate relations exclusively with his own wife. (Genesis 2,24) From all we read it is clear that the people of that time considered the sin of adultery so severe that they were prepared to kill the husband in order not to violate the commandment not to commit adultery. (compare the comment made by Avraham to Sarah in 12,12) They were aware of the sin of committing murder but considered it as a lesser sin. Our sages paid attention to the expression בעלת בעל as opposed to אשת איש, suggesting that according to Avimelech’s mores, a woman who had become married but whose marriage had not yet been consummated would not be included in the prohibition of being someone else’s wife. Girls who were merely betrothed would not be considered as out of bounds on account of their being betrothed. [a major difference between Jewish law and the Noachide laws. Ed.]
  
  Verse 4
  
  ואבימלך לא קרב אליה, the reason was that G’d had restricted his lust. This is why G’d said to him in his dream in response to the accusation that He would kill the innocent, that the only reason Avimelech had not touched her had been that He, G’d, had made him temporarily impotent.
  ?הגוי גם צדיק תהרוג, if You were to kill me just as you would kill my people. I am a leader and practice law and justice in my country. I am not on the same level as my common people. This explains also verse 9 where Avimelech distinguishes between himself and his Kingdom (subjects) by saying to Avraham “that you have brought on me and my kingdom (people) this great sin?” Furthermore, he argued that he considered himself righteous, having had reason to believe that Sarah was unattached.
  
  Verse 5
  
  הלא הוא אמר לי, when I asked him concerning Sarah’s marital status. I had not even relied on what my servants had been told, but I asked him personally, to be certain.
  והיא גם היא, when I asked Sarah after I had taken her to my palace she also told me that “Avraham is my brother.” In view of this, what is my sin?
  בתם לבבי, in perfect innocence, if I had had any reason to believe that she was a married lady, even my heart would not have desired her, i.e. I would not even have lusted after her. 
  ונקיון כפי, and my hands were clean! When I took her to my palace I did not demean her but I respected her dignity in every way.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  ויאמר...בתם לבבךsignificantly, G’d did not add the words ובנקיון כפיך when acknowledging part of Avimelech’s complaint. The fact that Avimelech had not touched Sarah was evident, could be proved, whereas Avimelech’s intentions were private, could not be proved. Only G’d Himself would know if he spoke the truth.
  מחטו לי, the sin would have been directed against G’d only if he had transgressed the laws not to sleep with someone else’s wife, a command issued to all the descendants of Noach. Even if G’d had not issued a specific command in this regard, common sense would dictate such a law in a civilised society. The One Who had provided man with intelligence certainly expects that we use our intelligence to legislate such basic laws without which life on earth would become intolerable, anarchic. We must view our common sense as a messenger from G’d, an instrument that acts as a protection against man experiencing all kinds of harm and problems in his life on earth. When man commits violence against his fellow man this reflects an absence of common sense, i.e. a failure to use one’s common sense, seeing that the end result will be the termination of life on earth. If this is the result of violence perpetrated in order to secure land or chattels, how much more so would such a process of civilisation’s disintegration be accelerated if everyone would go assaulting people physically and raping his neighbour’s wife?
  מחטו, the letter ו instead of the letter א in this word substitutes for the letter ל in the requisite mode of the verb. 
  על כן לא נתתיך, as we explained already, this is a reference to G’d having made Avimelech impotent. By doing this, G’d had done Avimelech a great favour. The reason why G’d extended Himself on his behalf was because He knew that Avimelech had indeed believed that Sarah was unattached. G’d did not want that Avimelech would become a sinner in regard to the wife of the prophet Avraham. Even though, granted that in the final analysis G’d intervened due to Avraham and Sarah being the potential victims, He could have saved Sarah from Avimelech’s clutches by a variety of other means. Seeing that Pharaoh’s thoughts at the time when Sarah was under his control were quite different from those of Avimelech, G’d had subjected Pharaoh and his household to a number of painful physical afflictions instead of appearing to him in a dream. The inhibitions G’d imposed on the entourage of Avimelech were temporary and left no permanent negative effect.
  לנגע אליה, even touching her without engaging in sexual intercourse. G’d had removed any desire from Avimelech to have physical contact with Sarah.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  . ועתה...כי נביא הוא. He is therefore close to Me, and I am close to him, willing to respond favourably to his prayer. I will not forgive you even when you give back this man’s wife to him, until he manages to pacify me by means of his prayer. Then I will forgive you, and you will know this when all the afflicted people will have been cured from their affliction. The fact that Sarah was not married is not the only consideration in this affair. The fact that you took her against her will is a sin of violence, a very severe sin, all the more so seeing that she is the sister of such a righteous man as Avraham. Violating the feelings of such a man constitutes a sin in its own right. You are guilty of punishment, even if not of the death penalty.
  וחיה, as if the Torah had written ותחיה “and you will live.” The construction is parallel to Genesis 12,3 והיה ברכה, “you will become a source of blessing. The verb ותרפא is in a “weak” mode as in Joshua 5,8 עד חיותם, ”until they have re- covered.” We find a similar construction in Isaiah 38,21 וימרחו על השחין ויחי, “if they will smear it on the rash he will recover.”
  וכל אשר לך, the reason why they have all be stricken is that they all approved of what you did and no one suggested that you give back Sarah to Avraham. 
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  וישכם, he did not wait until the hour that kings normally rise from their beds seeing that his heart was trembling on account of the dream he had just experienced, in which G’d told him that he was in need of forgiveness and the prayer by the prophet even though he would restore Avraham’s wife to him.
  ויראו האנשים מאר, all his servants who had agreed with their king appropriating this woman, and who had praised her beauty in his ears.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  ויקרא, he wanted to hear Avraham’s arguments and to appease him so that he would forgive him and pray on his behalf.
  ?מה עשית לנו, by saying that she is your sister, thereby placing traps for me and my servants.
  ומה חטאתי לך, how did I sin against you that you repaid me with evil making me guilty of death?
  ?והבאתי עלי ועל ממלכתי חטאה גדולה, if I had been killed by G’d my kingdom would have been lost, as he said “are You going to a righteous nation also?”
  אשר לא יעשו, it is not fitting for a man of your stature to be the cause of your fellowmen becoming guilty of mortal sin.
  
  Verse 10
  
  ויאמר, Avimelech wanted to know why Avraham had not personally protested the forced abduction of Sarah instead of allowing the king to become guilty of a greater crime. Surely a man such as he must have had a good reason for allowing this to happen without protest!?
  
  Verse 11
  
  ויאמר..רק אין יראת אלוקים, Avraham replied that though the land was good there was no feeling of fear of the Lord  in it. This was the only drawback of that country. As a result, if I would have protested they would have killed me in order not to become guilty of the greater sin of adultery.
  
  Verse 12
  
  וגם אמנה, besides she is indeed my sister. The expression אמנה is equivalent to באמת, “in truth.” The word occurs in the same sense in Joshua 7,20   אמנה חטאתי, where Achan admits having stolen from the booty of Jericho. The word אמנם or אמנה both mean basically the same. Avraham in effect told Avimelech: “even though I did not protest the violence committed against Sarah this does not make me a liar, as she is indeed my sister, being the daughter of my brother, Legally, nieces are just as children as grandchildren are considered as legally equivalent to children.” (compare Rashi. 
  אך לא בת אמי, seeing Avraham’s brother Haran had been born to his father Terach by another wife than his mother. Furthermore, seeing that Avimelech was certainly unaware of this, it would have been quite in order for Avraham to marry Sarah even if she had been the granddaughter of Terach from the same wife as the one who had born Avraham. Our sages, taking their cue from what Avraham said here, state that a paternal sister is not of the same category as a maternal sister, only the latter being considered as full a sister. (Sanhedrin 58). According to this, Avraham would have been entitled to marry a first generation paternal sister, not only a second generation paternal sister such as Sarah. He would not have been allowed to marry a first generation maternal sister, however.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  התעו אותי אלוקים, the meaning of the word התעו is similar to הגלו, “exiled.” When someone is exiled from a place with which he is familiar, he will tend to lose his way in areas with which he is unfamiliar.
  אלוקים, this word here is sacred. The reason why the word is used in the plural is because the listeners refer to their gods in the plural, so the Torah uses a syntax familiar to ordinary people. In spite of this the word is treated as a sacred name of G’d, one that must not be erased, such as when Job speaks of אלו-ה עושי, literally: the “G’d Who have made me.” (not: has made me). (Job 35,10). We find a similar construction where אלוקים is sacred and at the same time treated as if totally in the plural mode in Psalms 149,2 ישמח ישראל בעושיו instead of בעושו. (as opposed to בראשית ברא אלוקים where the verb is in the singular) A somewhat less perplexing construction is found in Joshua 24,19 אלוקים קדושין הוא. [even though the adjective is in the plural, at least the pronoun הוא is in the singular. Ed.]
  מבית אבי, from the house of my brothers and family, as when G’d instructed him in 12,1 מארצך ומבית אביך וגו'. 
  ואומר לה, seeing that we were coming to countries about which we knew nothing or very little, I said to her, out of my fear of the local inhabitants, 
  אל כל המקום, actually, we find that this stratagem was employed by Avraham only twice. We must therefore assume that Avraham meant that he had told Sarah that in any location which appeared to warrant such a white lie, he told her to use it. As soon as we hear from others that the people in the place which we are approaching are evil people, we need to avail ourselves of this strategy in order to enhance my chances of survival. This applied to locations in which Avraham would only be a transient. Wherever he settled down, people knew who he was and respected him, and would not dream of molesting either him or Sarah. We know that Avner, Eshkol and Mamre were actually allies of Avraham. Even the people of Kiryat Arba referred to him as a “prince in our midst.” (23,6)
  אמרי לי, on my account, concerning me; Actually, many people asked Avraham concerning Sarah’s marital status. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  ויקח, He appeased him both with words and money, asking him for forgiveness and urging him to pray on his behalf. He also told him that he was welcome to stay in his country wherever he chose to settle, seeing that he would issue orders that neither he nor Sarah be molested.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  ולשרה אמר הנה נתתי אלף כסף, in addition to the livestock, men and women servants he had given Avraham, mentioned in verse 14. The purpose of the cash was to enable her to buy herself elegant clothing.
  וכל אשר אתך, all your entourage should also have been outfitted with elegant clothing. Anyone belonging to your household was meant to look their best thanks to this money I gave to your brother.
  לאחיך, to the person you had described to me as “your brother.”
  כסות עינים, something appealing to your eyes and all those who look at you. Your brother was supposed to use this money to buy such garments for you. What are meant are specifically coloured garments, as the word עינים frequently describes gay colours. Compare the Torah’s description of the appearance of the manna in Numbers 11,7 as ועינו כעין הבדולח, “and its colour like the colour of crystal.” Or, Ezekiel 1,16 כעין תרשיש, “as the colour of beryl.” It is possible that the embroidering on the garment consisted of a variety of colours.
  ואת כל ונוכחת, the Torah tells its readers that after all that Sarah had experienced at the hands of Pharaoh and Avimelech, she never again described Avraham as her brother instead of as her husband. If the word ונוכחת were to be understood as part of what Avimelech had said to Sarah, the letter ת at the end of this word would have required to have a dot, dagesh in it, whereas it is spelled “weak,” i.e. without such a dagesh, to indicate that it is in a third person feminine mode and not part of direct speech, second person feminine. (compare a similar construction in Isaiah 23,15)
  
  Verse 17
  
  ויתפלל...את אבימלך, he again possessed an active libido, just as he had before G’d struck him.
  ואת אשתו ואמהותיו, the ones who had been supposed to give birth but had been unable to due to this affliction. Even though, generally speaking, we cannot determine precisely when a baby that is due to be born will be born, the women who had entered labour at the time the affliction struck could not give birth so that it was clear what the affliction was connected to. After Avimelech had dreamt the dream which the Torah described in detail, he called together both his servants as well as Avraham early in the morning. If so, when did they experience the impediment to delivering the babies due? Perhaps they experienced labour pains which were not relieved for even brief periods in between. Or, perhaps, Avraham took his time before he appealed to G’d in prayer to relieve the situation. We know that when women are in labour there are a number of ways in which their husbands can alleviate their pains and bring on the birth. All of these attempts had failed so that it became clear that some supernatural power had its hand in what was happening. 
  וילדו, this word may refer to Avimelech’s wife and his maidservants; alternately, it may refer to Avimelech’s ability to ejaculate semen again, something he had not been able to do. Onkelos translates this as ואתרוחו, meaning that their orifices which had been closed opened up again. Why would he not translate the word וילדו as “they gave birth?” Perhaps what he meant was that they did give birth, and he did not really mean that their orifices had been closed so that they could neither urinate nor defecate, as seems to be the opinion of our sages (Baba Kama 72).
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  כי עצר עצר בעד כל רחם, among the women, and possibly also among the animals which were meant to give birth at that time. (as we quoted our sages as saying). In fact the Talmud says that even hens which lay eggs instead of producing live chicks from their bodies were equally affected.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  וה' פקד את שרה, she conceived and gave birth in accordance with the times predicted. Seeing the matter was something so unusual, miraculous, the Torah repeats this fact repeatedly. Normally, when the Torah repeats certain information it does so by using different words, changing the syntax; Here too, the verse commences with the verb פקד, but then uses the word ויעש to tell us the same thing. At the very end of the verse it changes the syntax a third time, writing כאשר דבר, “as He had said.”
  
  Verse 2
  
  ותהר, seeing that the conception had not been mentioned in the previous verse, the Torah now reports conception and birth as if it had been a consecutive activity. We find a similar construction in Genesis 4,1 ותהר ותלד את קין, “Chavah conceived and gave birth to Kayin.”
  לאברהם, as G’d had said “אשר תלד לך שרה,” “whom Sarah will bear for you.” This is a customary form of syntax, as for instance in 16,15 ותלד הגר לאברהם בן, or Exodus 21,4 וילדה לו בנים ובנות, and many similar examples. A woman is considered similar to the earth in this respect, i.e. just as the earth yields fruit for its owners, so a woman produces children for her husband after he had planted his seed in her. The child was named after its father.
  לזקוניו, the Torah writes this so that we better understand why Sarah had laughed when she had heard the prophecy in 18,12 and had said that her husband was too old to sire children. Another reason for the expression לזקוניו is to inform us that whereas Sarah had regained her youth at that time and had ovulated again after having ceased to do so for many years, Araham did not experience any rejuvenation, but sired a child in spite of not shedding signs of old age. There are some words in the Hebrew language which always appear in the plural mode, זקונים is one of them, so are נעורים and בתולים. 
  אשר דבר אותו, the word אותו here is the same as if the Torah had written עמו, “with him.”
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  ויקרא, he complied with G’d’s instructions issued in 17,19 to call the son that would be born to him by Sarah Yitzchok.
  
  Verse 4
  
  וימל...כאשר צוה אותו אלוקים, compare 17,12 that any son should be circumcised when eight days old. Our sages explain that the word אותו, means that only the father is commanded to perform circumcision on his son, not the mother. 
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  ואברהם...את יצחק בנו, this verse is another example of the word את appearing in conjunction with verbs which appear in the passive mode. To name just a few such examples: Numbers 26,55 יחלק את הארץ, or Deut. 20,5 ולא ימס את לבב אחיו. What is the reason that the Torah saw fit to write this verse at all? Seeing that the Torah had told us that Avraham had been 99 years old when he had received the commandment of circumcision, and G’d had told him that Sarah would bear this son for him in the following year, we knew that he would be 100 years old at that time! (17,21) Perhaps the Torah wanted to tell us that Avraham had completed 100 years when Yitzchok was born and that the previous prophecy had been revealed to him when he had completed 99 years. In that event, Sarah’s pregnancy lasted fully 12 months, so that the news revealed in our verse is that her pregnancy was unnaturally lengthy.
  
  Verse 6
  
  ותאמר שרה צחק, she said that she really called the boy יצחק in order to give expression to the joy G’d had granted her. She was convinced that everyone hearing about her good fortune of having given birth in her old age would share her joy at this. Any person being surprised by some unexpected happy event laughs for joy.
  
  Verse 7
  
  ותאמר, she said something else reflecting her happy surprise,
  מי מלל לאברהם, who would have dared foretell Avraham  that Sarah would nurse babies? If G’d Himself had not been at work in this, no one would have foretold Avraham that something like this could occur.
  לזקוניו, we already explained the meaning of this word in verse 2. As to Sarah speaking of בנים, children in the plural mode, although she had given birth to only one child, she assumed that if she had been able to nurse one child there would be nothing to prevent her from nursing more children if she so desired. There is an allegorical Midrash on this verse (quoted by Rashi) saying that many women did not believe that Yitzchok was drinking mother’s milk from Sarah’s breast. In order to silence their doubts or derision, Sarah offered to nurse also the children of such women.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  ויגדל הילד ויגמל , he stopped receiving mother’s milk. This occurred after he was 24 months old. This was the standard period that babies nursed at the breasts of their mothers.
  משתה גדול, this too may have been the custom in those days, to mark the baby starting to receive solid food with a great celebration. Alternately, Avraham gave such a party to mark his personal joy over Yitzchok having attained that stage. Apparently this development of the baby coincided with his beginning to speak. He was capable of being taught the letters of the alphabet. Our sages in Tanchuma Kedoshim claim that the age at which children could learn the letters of the alphabet was when they had reached age 3.
  
  Verse 9
  
  ותרא...מצחק. Ishmael was belittling Yitzchok for having a father who was so much older than he.
  
  Verse 10
  
  ותאמר...גרש האמה, it was inconceivable to expel the son without his mother as she would not remain after he had gone.
  כי לא יירש, “he imagines that he will share equally in the inheritance because he is your son. This is the reason why he is so overbearing, making fun of my son.”
  עם יצחק, the words suggest that Sarah had told Avraham “didn’t G’d tell you that He would perpetuate His covenant with Yitzchok who Sarah will bear for you? (17,21)?”
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  וירע הדבר...על אודות בנו, even though Ishmael was the son of a slave-woman, he was at the same time also Avraham’s son, and he loved him as a father loves one’s son, especially seeing that he was his firstborn. He was merciful towards him like a father is merciful to all his children. Moreover, he had taught him to behave and had taught him the ways of the Lord. In fact, if he, Avraham, had taught all and sundry the ways of the Lord, he had most certainly not neglected to teach these ways to his own son. Therefore, the request by Sarah to expel his own son was a source of great chagrin to him. Avraham kept his chagrin to himself and did not express anger at his wife as he was concerned with preserving שלום בית, peaceful marital relations with his wife. This was the state of affairs until G’d intervened in the matter.
  
  Verse 12
  
  ויאמר...על הנער ועל אמתך, G’d knew that Avraham was not only displeased about Sarah’s request to expel Ishmael, but he was also chagrined at being asked to expel Hagar, his maid-servant. [described here as his servant rather than as Sarah’s servant. Ed.] Even though the Torah had only spelled out that Avraham had felt aggrieved on account of his son (verse 11), the reason why our text had mentioned only his son was that he was his principal concern. He was prepared to quarrel with Sarah about the future of his son, whereas he was not prepared to make the continued presence of Hagar an issue between them. G’d, however, knew how he really felt concerning Hagar.
  כל אשר תאמר, this was not a carte blanche for Sarah except in the matter of Ishmael and Hagar. The point was that Ishmael was not to share in Avraham’ s heritage. כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע, the promise I had given to you in 17,8 applies only to Yitzchok as he is the seed specifically yours. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  וגם את בן האמה, do not worry that he will perish when he leaves your house; on the contrary, I will make him develop into a great nation because he is your descendant
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  וישכם, to carry out G’d’s instruction.
  ויקח לחם וחמת מים, he gave her enough food and water to last for a day or two. She was unable to carry more than that. He also gave her a plentiful supply of water as the distance to Egypt was considerable. On the other hand, she might have had relatives much closer than in Egypt. He gave her also silver and gold so that she could replenish her supplies, although the Torah did not make a specific mention of this.
  ואת הילד, he placed the bread and the water on her shoulder, and arranged for Ishmael to walk ahead of her. He was approximately 15 and the time, and if he would tire, Hagar would have to carry him for a while either on her shoulder or in her lap.
  וישלחה, either from his house, or he accompanied her some distance until outside the town limits.
  ותלך ותתע, she did not know the route once she had entered the desert.
  
  Verse 15
  
  ויכלו, Hagar’s problems became ever more acute. The reason why the Torah writes all this detail, is to teach that if man is confident that G’d will help him overcome his difficulties in the end, then his troubles do not multiply in order to teach him to appeal to G’d for help. The detail here has also been written in order to show how G’d deals with people who love His name. He appeared to Hagar on two separate occasions rescuing her from acute distress, performing miracles on behalf of her son.
  ותשלך את הילד, whom she had been carrying, seeing that she had become too tired to carry on. When she saw that she had been unable to locate any water, she threw him from her lap under a shrub. According to Onkelos שיחים are small trees. [it was doubly frustrating to know that there must have been a source of water nearby, how else could these trees exist? Ed.]
  
  Verse 16
  
  ותלך, after she had thrown Ishmael under one of the small trees, she went away a distance and sat down.
  הרחק, the word is in the infinitive instead of in the past tense, the reason being that while she did distance herself she wanted not to be so far away that she would be totally unaware of what happened to Ishmael.
  כמטחוי קשת, the root of the word is טחוה, the construction being a combination participle and something especially emphasised, such as by means of a dagesh. The meaning is the distance a bow can be tensed for the arrow to be shot to the furthest point of its range. Possibly, the word כמטחוי is a noun.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  וישמע אלוקים את קול הנער, he too had raised his voice and was crying.
  מן השמים, she heard his voice without seeing the source of the voice as opposed to the first encounter she had with an angel in 16,13. At the beginning of the verse the Torah uses the proposition את, whereas at the end of the verse it switches to the preposition אל. The letters ת and ל are used interchangeably here without the meaning of the preposition undergoing any change.
  באשר הוא שם, at the very site where Hagar had thrown the boy. The message to Hagar was that at the very site where she thought that her so was going to die, there G’d heard his voice, his prayer. Our sages (Rosh Hashanah 16) derive from this wording that human beings are not judged by the Heavenly Court on the basis of what they might become guilty of in the future, but their judgment is based on their status at the time judgment is in progress. If someone is wicked at the time the Heavenly Court is in session, the fact that G’d foresees that he will (would) become righteous at some point in the future is not taken into consideration. Equally, if someone at the time when the Court is in session is deemed innocent, the fact that G’d foresees that he will become a great sinner is not used to influence his judgment at that time. There is an interesting aggadah, according to which the angels remonstrated with G’d at this time, challenging G’d’s mercy on the basis of the untold harm Ishmael’s descendants would visit upon G’d’s people, the Jews in the future. The angels referred specifically to the Ishmaelites denying Jews on the march into exile water to quench their thirst. (a reference to Isaiah 21,13-14) G’d silenced them by asking whether at this particular point in time Ishmael deserved to die. They had to admit that he did not. Hence G’d felt free to exercise His mercy and to let him live.
  
  Verse 18
  
  קומי...והחזיקי את ידך, do not let your hand go of him, (do not abandon him) for he will not die by thirst, for I will still make him into a great nation.
  
  Verse 19
  
  ויפקח אלוקים את עיניה, perhaps the well had been there all the time but its top had been covered with some material which made no one assume that a well hid underneath such a covering. Alternatively, it was some distance away.
  ותלך ותמלא את החמת, G’d expanded her range of vision so that she now saw the contours of a well she had not previously been able to see. Perhaps that well had not existed and G’d had provided it at this time on a temporary basis to keep Ishmael alive. The matter may have been similar to an experience Shimshon had in Judges 15,19 when G’d split the depression in the jawbone and produced sufficient water to quench Shimshon’s thirst.
  ותשק את הנער, the sequence sounds misleading, as she had drunk herself when she saw the well, then she had filled the hose and brought it to her son to drink, after which she had filled the hose again to continue on her way. The positioning of the letters ו such as ותלך, ותמלא.ותשק is not at all unusual. Examples of such constructions may be found in Isaiah 64,4; Exodus 14,21; Exodus 15,20, et al. An alternative meaning could be that she drew water from the well with the hose being used as a pail, and carried it to where Ishmael was lying, giving him to drink there.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  ויהי אלוקים את הנער, He ensured Ishmael’s success in his undertakings.
  ויגדל, he amassed wealth. We encounter a similar meaning of the word ויגדל in Genesis 26,13 describing Yitzchok’s economic success in the land of the Philistines.
  וישב במדבר, first he settled in the desert nearby, moving further afield to the desert of Paran later on.
  ויהי רובה קשת, the word רבה may be understood as נער, lad. Onkelos translates it as רביא. The word קשת is an adjective mode of the word keshet, bow. The mode is similar to that of ganav, someone practicing thievery, or salach, someone apt to forgive. An alternative way of understanding the word רובה is that it means the same as יורה, someone shooting. He developed the technique of shooting arrows by means of a bow. [a far less dangerous mode of hunting than bodily facing the adversary. At this point Kimchi draws on the points made already by Rash’bam on our verse. Ed.] He adds that the ability to hit distant targets enables archers to practice what the Torah called ידו בכל, attacking all and sundry, even distant targets. He quotes examples of ancient peoples who became known for this skill, apparently distant descendants of Ishmael, especially the בני קדר.  Reference is made to these people, (in that capacity?) in Isaiah 21,17  Our sages suggest that it is appropriate for the sons to perfect themselves in the trade, vocation or skills in which their father excels. (Erchin 16) They also base this on Kings I 7,14 where Chirom is described as having mastered the art of being a coppersmith just like his father. Yaakov’s sons, when presented to Pharaoh in Genesis 47,3, also were described as continuing the tradition of their father as shepherds.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  וישב...ותקח לו אמו, she took a wife for him from her own family, seeing that he had become separated from his father’s family. It is proper for people to marry into members of their family (not too close) as a stronger bond of mutual love is liable to be forged between men and women of similar backgrounds, such as both being members of the same clan
  
  Verse 22
  
  ויהי בעת ההיא, at the time Yitzchok was born, or at the time he was weaned. At any rate, Avraham was still in the land of the Philistines. This is why the Torah now reports Avimelech saying that he was interested in receiving assurances from Avraham. Had Avraham already left the land of the Philistines prior to this, the Torah would have had to report that Avimelech traveled to Avraham in order to suggest the treaty he wanted to conclude. When he had seen that a son had been born to Avraham, in his old age, and they saw that Sarah was the one who had given birth to him, they began to take seriously the promises made by G’d to Avraham concerning the future of his descendants. The reason that Phicol the head of Avimelech’s army was mentioned, was to underline that the words Avimelech addressed to Avraham had been what his army chief had proposed.
  
  Verse 23
  
  ועתה..אם תשקור לי, perhaps the subject here is the immediate future, i.e. ועתה. Avimelech is concerned that within the next or subsequent generation the friendly relations between Avraham and himself might sour. Therefore he suggests a treaty reinforced by an oath as he is sure that Avraham would not renege on an undertaking confirmed by an oath. He is trying to commit the next 3 generations to this undertaking he asks from Avraham. 
  The words לי ולניני ולנכדי comprise three generations. The word נין refers to the son, whereas the word נכד refers to the son’s son. The same words appear in the same sense in Isaiah 14,22 והכרתי לבבל שם ושאר נין ונכד, “I will wipe out from Babylon name and remnant, son and grandson, etc.”
  כחסד אשר עשיתי עמך תעשה עמדי, I allowed you to settle in any part of my country that you chose to settle in, and I respected you.
  ועם הארץ אשר גרת בה, I expect you also to act in a friendly manner with all the inhabitants of this country who will survive me, both you and your children and grandchildren after you, seeing that you have been treated well in this country by its people.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  ויאמר אברהם אנכי אשבע, implying that Avimelech on his part has to swear also. The word אשבע is spelled with the vowel chirik under the letter א, Generally, when a verb in the first person is in the passive mode, it has the vowel segol so that the combination of aleph-chirik should not be misunderstood as if it had been spelled אי.
  
  Verse 25
  
  והוכיח אברהם, seeing that they had both agreed to a pact and had confirmed it by a mutual oath, Avraham now complained about the servants of Avimelech having stolen his wells, especially the well he had dug in Beer Sheva. Beer Sheva was on the border between the land of Canaan and the land of the Philistines, and Avimelech’s servants had argued that Avraham had dug the well on land belonging to the Philistines. In response to Avraham’s complaint both Avimelech and Avraham went from Gerar to Beer Sheva to inspect the area and find out who had been wronged. Seeing that they saw that Avraham’s shepherds were grazing their cattle in that region it was natural that they had dug for water there in order to provide water for their livestock. Even though the Torah did not spell out precisely what occurred, it is reasonable to accept the scenario which I have described.
  
  Verse 26
  
  ויאמר...וגם אנכי לא שמעתי, seeing that neither you nor anyone else has told me about this I cannot be held responsible for this.
  
  Verse 27
  
  ויקח, apparently Avraham had taken some sheep and cattle and given it to Avimelech to keep the covenant. These animals were used to confirm the treaty which had been agreed to between Avimelech and Avraham and their respective children.
  
  Verse 28
  
  ויצב, Avraham selected from amongst these animals seven sheep to be placed aside from the others. He took 7 seeing that the number seven, שבעה, and the word for oath שבועה are practically identical. The location was now named Beer Sheva to reflect symbolically both the seven sheep set aside here as visible sign of the covenant and the fact that this covenant had been confirmed by an oath of either party to the treaty.
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  ויאמר...תהיה לי לעדה, “this gift that I am giving you shall serve as proof for me.”
  
  Verse 31
  
  על כן...כי שם נשבעו, the word כי lacks the conjunctive letter ו in front. We find similar constructions with the missing conjunctive letter ו in Chabakuk 2,11 שמש ירח, instead of שמש וירח. Another such example is found in Exodus 1,2 ראובן שמעון instead of ראובן ושמעון. Had the letter ו not been missing, we would have clearly understood at first glance that both the oath and the seven sheep are referred to as a “package deal.” Naming a location was a very important step in laying claim to a region as one’s inalienable property.
  
  Verse 32
  
  ויכרתו...ויקם אבימלך, Avraham remained at Beer Sheva with his flocks for a day or two longer before returning to the land of the Philistines to his house in Gerar.
  
  Verse 33
  
  ויטע אשל, he planted some saplings there to serve as proof that the well nearby was now his undisputed property. The word אשל describes certain plants (fruit-bearing) as In Samuel I 22,6 תחת האשל ברמה, “under the eshel in Ramah). According to our sages in Beytzah 27 the reference is to tall trees which are difficult to uproot. Our sages in Midrash Tehillim 106 understand the word אשל as an acronym for אכילה, שתיה, לינה, “eating, drinking, staying overnight.” In other words, Avraham established a hotel there to serve people passing that region. He taught the people around Beer Sheva to practice the art (virtue) of hosting strangers. In order to fulfill that virtue one must provide the three ingredients represented by the three letters in the word אשל.
  ויקרא שם, Avraham used the opportunity of assembling the local people and describing his and Sarah’s experiences to them in order to give them first-hand evidence of how G’d had looked after him against all odds. He contrasted this with the local deities being worshipped who could not protect those who sacrificed to them. א-ל עולם, he pointed out that his G’d was not only powerful locally, but was a G’d Who was equally powerful allover the globe, seeing the globe is His, He being the One Who had created it. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויהי אחר הדברים האלה, after what happened to Avraham with Avimelech and as a result of his pact he had resided among the Philistines for many years, so that he had decided to migrate to Beer Sheva. At that point he received the instruction from G’d concerning his only son (by Sarah). It is very difficult to explain the matter of G’d’ “testing” someone, seeing that G’d knows in advance what the result of such a test is going to be. What then is the point of such a test? If the point was to demonstrate to the world at large that Avraham successfully passed such a test, how could this be accomplished in a setting where only Avraham and Yitzchok were present? He had even left the lads who had accompanied him behind so that there were no witnesses whatsoever to his carrying out a command which he had not even told Yitzchok about until the last possible moment! Even if Avraham had told someone what had transpired on the mountain, who would have believed him? The truth is that the purpose of the trial was to demonstrate to the world Avraham’s love for G’d. It was not meant to demonstrate anything to the generation during which Avraham lived, but to prove this to subsequent generations of people who believed in the Torah which was handed down to us by Moses at the command of G’d Himself. All that is written in the Torah [including such stories as that of Bileam and Balak, none of which had been witnessed by any Jew alive at that time, Ed.] is meant to teach the extent to which we are expected to demonstrate our love for G’d if and when the occasion arises. We know that Avraham loved Yitzchok more than he loved himself, seeing that he was already old and did not expect anymore out of life. If Yitzchok were to die at that time before he had married and raised a family, he would not have enjoyed any true satisfaction in his life on earth. This thought must have been very upsetting for his father Avraham. If he was nonetheless prepared to carry out G’d’s command without hesitation this was indeed a feat that all his descendants would marvel at. The fact that Avraham, who had prayed to G’d for sinners to be given a reprieve, did not even pray to G’d to spare the life of Yitzchok until he had at least married and started to raise a family, is meant to be an inspiration to all of us. Moreover, G’d Himself had provided Avraham with arguments which would have entitled him to at least defer sacrificing Yitzchok since he had told him that he, Avraham, would be known in history through Yitzchok. How could such a promise be fulfilled if Yitzchok were to die now? This story became the powerful message which Yitzchok transmitted to his son Yaakov, and which Yaakov transmitted to his sons. After the Torah was committed to writing the story became famous throughout the world, some people believing it, others not. Nowadays, after primitive paganism has ceased to exist in most of civilised society, most of mankind believes the story recorded in the Bible without hesitation. If large sections of mankind express some doubts about what is written in the Torah this concerns only whether everything written in the Torah as fact needs to be understood as historical, literal truth, or if many stories are to be understood as allegorical, but conveying the same ethical and moral messages. Similarly, these doubters believe that many of the practical commandments in the Torah were not meant to be fulfilled literally, but were examples demonstrating G’d’s attitude to certain problems confronting man. The very fact that the majority of mankind does believe that Avraham did what the Torah writes he did, is proof that Avraham had lived the kind of life which inspired man to believe that one can love G’d more than anything else in the universe.
  ויאמר אליו אברהם, the vision took place at night, seeing that immediately afterwards the Torah reports Avraham as rising early in the morning. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  ויאמר...את יחידך, even though he is your only one and you love him very much as he has been born to you by your beloved wife when both of you were already well into your old age, and although My request is a very difficult one, I am asking you to do this.
  ולך לך, this phraseology is quite common. We have encountered it in 12,1, in Jeremiah 5,5, in Exodus 18,27 as well as in Numbers 22,34 and again in Genesis 45,19. There are more such examples.
  אל ארץ המריה, Jerusalem and district are referred to as ארץ המריה, and this is why the mountain on which Yitzchok was bound is also known by that name. Compare Chronicles II 3,1 לבנות בית ה' בירושלים בהר המריה, “to build the House of G’d in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah.” Our sages, as quoted by Rashi, say that the name reflects the fact that G’d’s instructions to man are issued from that mountain. [the seat of the Jewish Supreme Court which decides when there is any doubt about the authenticity of Torah legislation. Ed.] Onkelos translates the term as לארעא פלחנא, “the land where the priests perform service.”
  על אחד ההרים, even now G’d did not tell Avraham precisely on which mountain he was to offer up Yitzchok as a burnt offering. Instead, G’d only said: אשר אמר אליך, just as at the time when Avraham had been told to leave Charan and move to the Land of Canaan in 12,1 he had been told only to move to a country which G’d would specify later on. At that time Avraham had correctly assumed that he was to set out in the direction of the Land of Canaan. The absence of this detail in both instances was to show us the readers that instead of questioning G’d on details, Avraham set out to undertake difficult tasks without looking for any excuse to delay carrying out G’d’s instructions. It would have been so easy to ask G’d why, if he was to offer Yitzchok as a sacrifice, he first had to travel a long distance to the site where this was to take place. After all, we are speaking about a man of 137 years of age. Actually, if we do not err, G’d had two good reasons why He told Avraham what to do in such an ambivalent fashion. Firstly, to give Avraham additional credit for complying with a command which was wrapped in a riddle, without questioning G’d about it. If G’d had asked him to do this at once near his home, Avraham would not have had time to recover from the initial shock after hearing G’d’s instructions. If, after having had time to digest the implications of what had been asked of him, Avraham proceeded without hesitating, this is even more to his credit. The second reason why G’d worded the instructions in the manner in which the Torah records them, is to teach us that the site where this binding eventually took place is such a holy site; moreover after Avraham named the site, we know that it is one where the attribute of Justice may be changed to the attribute of Mercy due to the manner in which man relates to G’d’s commands. Not only that, but man learned that sometimes the intention behind an action is worth more to G’d than the action itself, so that the binding of Yitzchok rated in G’d’s eyes as if his father had actually sacrificed him.
  
  Verse 3
  
  וישכם אברהם, he rose early to carry out G’d’s bidding without telling Sarah anything about it. He was afraid that she might do harm to herself out of her love for Yitzchok.
  את שני נעריו, the ones who usually accompanied him on any journey.
  אל המקום אשר אמר לו, to the land known as Moriah, seeing that G’d had not yet revealed to him on which mountain he was to offer Yitzchok as a burnt offering.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  ביום השלישי וישא אברהם, the letter ו is something additional, a phenomenon we encounter frequently, such as in Genesis 36,24 ואלה בני צבעון ואיה וענה. The Torah could also have written ביום השלישי נשא אברהם את עיניו, “on the third day Avraham raised his eyes.” (using the ordinary past tense, instead of the future tense with the vav hahipuch. It is possible to justify the use of the form with the letter ו by understanding this verse as a continuation of the previous verse and reading that one as if it had been written: וילך אל המקום ביום השלישי, “he went (arrived) to the place on the third day.” At that time he raised his eyes in the direction of the site in question, i.e. Jerusalem. In other words, once Avraham had entered the general area known as ארץ המוריה, he raised his eyes to look for the specific site G’d must have had in mind. At any rate, he did not yet know which mountain G’d had chosen for him to erect the altar on which to sacrifice Yitzchok. According to Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 31 and other Midrashim, the words וירא את המקום מרחוק refer to Avraham actually seeing the mountain in question. He identified it as he saw a column of fire on that mountain. He asked his son if he saw anything specific on any of the mountains, to which Yitzchok replied that he saw a column of fire on one of the mountains. When Avraham repeated the same question to Ishmael and Eliezer previously described as נעריו, his lads, they both answered in the negative. Upon hearing that both of these men did not notice anything out of the ordinary, he told them to remain near the donkey which could also not see anything unusual. שבו לכם עם החמור, with those who are like donkeys.
  
  Verse 5
  
  ויאמר...ונשתחוה, from these words the lads understood that Avraham would not only prostrate himself there in prayer but would offer an animal as part of such prayer. They reasoned this way, having observed that Avraham took kindling and a knife when going up the mountain. Normally, a reference to השתחויה includes slaughtering a sacrificial animal, as we know from Samuel I 1.3, describing Elkanah’s habits.
  
  Verse 6
  
  ויקח, he did not take the donkey along so that the lads should not think that they were going to a distant location. Also, there would not be anyone guarding the donkey at the time when he would be occupied with binding and slaughtering Yitzchok. Furthermore, he did not want the donkey to enter such sacred precincts.
  
  Verse 7
  
  הנני בני, with a dagesh also in the second letter נ. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  ויאמר...אלוקים יראה לו השה לעולה בני, Avraham’s reply to his son is capable of two interpretations. One interpretation would be that the word בני is a response to Yitzchok’s cry or question, meaning “I am here my son; G’d will select the lamb for the burnt offering.” In other words: “don’t worry G’d already knows who is going to be the lamb for the offering. He will put it at our disposal.” The second interpretation of Avraham’s answer would arrange the words as follows: “G’d will select the lamb for the offering; who is the lamb? It is my son.” Yitzchok understood from this that he had been chosen to be the offering. This is why the Torah continues, significantly:
  וילכו שניהם יחד, “they continued walking together,” i.e. of one mind and of one spirit.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  ויבאו אל המקום, this refers to Mount Moriah.
  אשר אמר לו האלוקים, when Avraham and Yitzchok had been walking together (after leaving the lads behind) G’d told Avraham the exact location, showing it to him in a prophetic vision. According to Bereshit Rabbah 56,2 He showed him either a column of fire over that mountain or a localised pillar of cloud, as we mentioned earlier. According to this aggadic interpretation the words אשר אמר לו refer to the moment when he became aware of this phenomenon and his awareness was the equivalent of what is described in our verses as an אמירה, a verbal communication.
  ויערוך את העצים, he arranged them above the fire to kindle them.
  ויעקד את יצחק, he bound both his hands and his feet so he should not involuntarily kick when the knife would strike him. This was in spite of the fact that Yitzchok was perfectly willing to be the offering. He was afraid that at the last moment he would rebel; this was why he asked his father to tie him securely. (Bereshit Rabbah 56,8)
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  וישלח...לשחוט את בנו, to first slaughter him before the fire would burn up the body. This is the usual procedure when meat offerings are brought on the altar.
  
  Verse 11
  
  ויקרא...מן השמים, he heard a voice without seeing a visual image.
  אברהם, אברהם, G’d repeated his name to ensure that Avraham would listen immediately.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  ויאמר...ואל תעש לו מאומה, again G’d repeated what He had said in different words, in order to lend additional emphasis to His warning not to touch Yitzchok.
  כי עתה ידעתי, if we were to explain this word as derived from the root ידע in the kal conjugation and we follow the path we outlined in verse 1 that G’d wanted Avraham to translate his potential into an actual, in verse 1 of this chapter, the problem is that we never find the root ידע in a transitive mode; therefore I suggest that the meaning of ידעתי is similar to Exodus 33,12 ידעתיך בשם, or Exodus 33,17 ואדעך בשם. [This means כי שב החלק, “individual attributes form an integrated part of the larger pattern of one’s personality.” This is my understanding of the somewhat obscure phrase כי שב החלק, seeing that we do not have the author’s commentary on the verses in which he quotes himself as having interpreted the root ידע in such a fashion. Ed.] This allusion is sufficient for the initiated. (author’s words).
  כי ירא אלוקים אתה. The word יראה, “fear,” mentioned here is none other than a form of אהבה, love, seeing that the fear was not something physical, concern for his body, but concern that he soul should not suffer irretrievable damage. Avraham was prepared to sacrifice his son to demonstrate that his love for abstract, invisible G’d was greater than his love for his physical, mortal son. He wanted to ensure that neither of them would forfeit their lives in the world to come.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  וישא, he raised his eyes in order to see if there was some pure animal suitable for a sacrifice which he could offer in lieu of his son.
  וירא והנה איל אחר נאחז, after it had become enmeshed in the thicket.
  בסבך בקרניו, this served Avraham as an invitation from G’d that seeing that this ram was caught in a thicket away from the flock it belonged to, something which its shepherd had not even become aware of. This is why we have learned in the Mishnah Avot 5,6 (according to some scholars) that among the things which had been created at dusk on the 6th day of creation was also this ram which would eventually serve as the sacrifice brought by Avraham instead of his son. If Avraham had been able to locate the shepherd of this ram, he would have compensated him for the value of the animal. He would not have wanted to offer an animal as a sacrifice without paying for it.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  ויקרא...ה' יראה, a reference to his having said to Yitzchok in verse 8 that G’d would select the animal for the offering.
  אשר יאמר היום, a reference to the day on which this story is being related. This occurrence would be remembered every time G’d would manifest Himself on that mountain. When the Temple would be built, this event would be commemorated, for instance. Avraham had been told in a prophetic vision why this mountain had been chosen by G’d for this particular event. It was because also in the future Avraham’s descendants would make a point of offering their sacrifices on that mountain. בהר ה' יראה, G’d would manifest Himself in the future also on this mountain. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  ויקרא, He called him a second time to inform him that as compensation for what he had just been prepared to do, G’d would compensate his children when the occasion would arise to do so.
  
  Verse 16
  
  ויאמר בי נשבעתי, G’d added an oath to the blessing He had already bestowed on Avraham. When G’d swears an “oath” it is as if He were to say “by My life, etc.” Just as He is eternal and therefore will be able to keep His oath, so He can keep His oath to the children and grandchildren of the ones to whom He promises something by oath. While it is true that G’d does not need to swear an oath to assure us that He will keep His word, the new element in G’d swearing an oath is that even if the recipient of the oath did not keep his part of the bargain, i.e. sinned in the meantime, G’d promises that this will not invalidate His blessing, the one He confirms by an oath. Furthermore, He added another dimension to the existing blessing, 
  
  Verse 17
  
  וירש זרעך את שער אויביו, the meaning of the words שער אויביו is ארץ אויביו, the land of its enemies. A land surrounded by oceans and mountains is difficult to conquer. Eretz Yisrael is such a country. When one has breached the coastal defences, or conquered the mountain ranges, it is as if one had broken through the gates of the fortified walls around a city. This is why the Torah here describes such a victory as “inheriting the gates of one’s enemies.” We find a similar expression used in Nachum 3,13  פתח נפתחו שערי ארצך, “the gates of your country will be completely open.” The prophet refers to the country lying at the mercy of an invader. G’d added further:
  ככוכבי השמים וכחול, by this simile, and especially the repeated reference to two different hyperboles, He wanted to reinforce the meaning of this promise. Up until now, the only simile for the multiplying of Avraham’s seed had been the expression כעפר הארץ, “as the dust of the earth.” (13,15) On another occasion (15,5) the comparison had been to the stars. Now, two comparisons are mentioned, showing that the blessing had been reinforced. והתברכו בזרעך, this too is an additional dimension of the promise made to Avraham concerning his offspring.
  וירש, one of the letters י that we would have expected as part of this word is missing. It is the י which is part of the root of the verb ירש. The י which does appear is the one describing the future tense indirect speech masculine. [this is common for roots beginning with the letter י. Ed.] 
  כי ברך, we already explained the meaning of the repetition of such formulations.
  
  Verse 18
  
  והתברכו, the meaning of this word is not identical with the wordונברכו  in 12,3 which we explained at the time as meaning that wherever you would reside the people around you would benefit from you or your children’s proximity. In this verse the meaning of the word והתברכו is that the gentile nations, thanks to their prayers, will accumulate merits and therefore blessings for themselves. They will make the kind of blessings Avraham has experienced the focus of their own prayers. They will acknowledge Avraham’s G’d as the source of all blessings.
  עקב, as a reward. It is an apt simile, seeing that he heel, עקב is the lower end of the body, so the reward is what one acquires at the conclusion of performing G’d’s commandments.
  אשר שמעת בקולי, both in this instance as well as in all the other instructions I have issued to you
  
  Verse 19
  
  וישב אברהם, there was no need to mention that Yitzchok accompanied him. Rather it mentioned Avraham mentioned, because he was the principal.
  וישב אברהם בבאר שבע, the Torah did not mention for how many years Avraham lived in Beer Sheva, seeing Sarah died there, [something which must have greatly dampened his joy at living there. Ed.] 
  
  Verse 20
  
  ויהי, after the binding of Yitzchok.
  גם היא, just as Sarah had born a son, so Milkah bore these children to Nachor your brother. It would appear that Milkah had stopped bearing children for a while already, but she had not been barren as had Sarah. Therefore Avraham was given the news that more children had been born for Nachor by his wife Milkah. This whole paragraph describing the children born to Nachor, both by his wife and his concubine Re-umah, has been written in honour of Avraham and to tell us among other facts that Rivkah had been born.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  את עוץ בכורו, as we explained already on Genesis 10,15 in connection with the phrase את צידון בכורו. 
  אבי ארם, perhaps Aram was the better known of the two, and that is why his father is mentioned as an adjunct to his more famous son Aram. We have a similar construction in Genesis 10,21 אבי כל בני עבר, and numerous other examples in Chronicles dealing with historical details. Generally, people so described are complimented, although on occasion such descriptions may mean something derogatory, as in Genesis 9,18 אבי כנען. We have commented on these matters in connection with Genesis 10,23. 
  
  Verse 22
  
  ואת כשד, this man became the founding father of the famous nation known as the Kasdim as we mentioned on 11,28.
  
  Verse 23
  
  ובתואל ילד את רבקה, Laban is not mentioned as the focus of the story is Rivkah. The whole paragraph is recorded only on account of Rivkah.
  
  Verse 24
  
  ופלגשו...ותלד גם היא, the words ותלד גם היא must be understood as ותלד לו גם היא, that his concubine also bore these children for Nachor. The letter ו at the beginning of the word ופלגשו made it unnecessary to add the word לו, “for him,” after the word ותלד.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויהיו חיי שרה מאה שנה ועשרים שנה ושבע שנים .The Torah repeats the word “year” or “years” three times, even though this verse could have been written using the word שנה only once. We encounter a similar “waste” of the word “year” and “years” in Genesis 6,9 in connection with Noach, as well as in connection with בני ישראל, “the Children of Israel” in Numbers 8,19 where that word occurs no fewer than five times We also find such a repetitive use of the word “year” when we are told about Avraham’s death in Genesis 25,7. Even when reporting the death of Ishmael in Genesis 25,17 the word שנה is repeated three times. Some commentators claim that this is a feature of the Holy Tongue, which endeavours to be clear and unambiguous. When a large number of years (unit) is mentioned the word שנה, “year” appears in the singular mode, whereas when less than ten years are mentioned the years appear in the plural mode, i.e. שנים. There is an aggadic approach to these seemingly superfluous words, especially in our verse here (mentioned by Rashi) which sees in the wording an allusion to the fact that Sarah at her death was as pure and beautiful as at 7 or at 20 years respectively. Seeing that the word שנה did not occur at the beginning of the verse, the verse concludes with the summary שני חיי שרה.
  שני חיי שרה. When reporting the death of Avraham and Ishmael, seeing that the verses commenced with the words ימי שני, these words are not again repeated at the end of the respective verses. It is possible that in all of these instances the word שני at the end is a hint that the persons concerned lived until the completion of that particular year.
  
  Verse 2
  
  ותמת שרה בקרית ארבע, this is where Avraham and Sarah resided after they had left Beer Sheva.
  בקרית ארבע, Arba was the name of a man whose was known by this “nickname” as he had three sons, and they, just as he himself were giants, so that there were four giants. Compare Joshua 21,11. His three sons were called ששי,חימן, תלמי. 
  ויבא אברהם, he came from outside the house as he had not been present when Sarah died.. Alternately, he had been out of town at the time when Sarah died.
  לספד, to eulogise her with words and elegies.
  ולבכותה, and to weep for her. These two verbs are used on occasion without the prepositions אל and על as for instance in Psalms 69,11 ואבכה בצום נפשי, “when I wept and fasted;” the meaning of the prefix ב in front of צום is equivalent to the preposition על, “I fasted on account of the threat to my soul.” Compare also Genesis 36,35 ויבך אותו אביו, “his father wept for him.”
  
  Verse 3
  
  ויקם אברהם מעל פני מתו, in order to attend to the funeral arrangements for the body of Sarah. The reason why the Torah added the word מתו, “his dead,” seeing we all know that Sarah had been his wife, i.e. “his dead,” is that this is an apt description for the body of the deceased person, such as מתי, “my dead,” in verse 4, or מתך, “your dead,” in verse 6.
  וידבר אל בני חת, the בני חת were the inhabitants of the town, whereas חת was a son of Canaan. (compare 10,15). Avraham assembled all of them to one location in order to address them.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  גר ותושב, I describe myself first and foremost as a stranger, seeing that I have come from another country. Yet I also describe myself as a resident, seeing that I have lived among you for many years and I intend to continue to remain among you. This is why I am asking you to give me some place within your country as an inalienable place to be mine and my son’s after me. At the moment I ask for only enough to bury my dead.
  ואקברה מתי מלפני, so that I can remove my wife’s body and bury it.
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויענו, they agreed by telling him so.
  
  Verse 6
  
  שמענו אדני, this was said by their spokesman speaking on behalf of all of them. This is why he addressed Avraham as adoni in the singular mode, whereas the words following are all in the plural mode.
  נשיא אלוהים, G’d has given you an elevated position, and we consider your status as such among us.
  במבחר קברנו, they possessed many caves within which to bury the dead, and each family had such a cave reserved for interring its dead. Every corpse was buried in an individual coffin, the overall description of such a place being the word קבר, tomb. This is why the spokesman spoke of 
  איש ממנו את קברו, he considered not the individual grave but the family’s burial grounds. They intended that Avraham should ask one of them to share their family plots with him.
  The words לא יכלה in verse 6 mean that no one would withhold his burial plots from Avraham if the latter chose to use it. We come across this verb in a similar usage in Samuel I 25,33 אשר כליתני היום הזה מבא בדמים, ”for preventing me from seeking redress in blood.” 
  
  Verse 7
  
  ויקם אברהם וישתחו, he rose on his legs and folded them in a manner signifying gratitude for the positive response he had received from the בני חת, informing them next of precisely what it was that he was requesting.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  וידבר...את נפשכם, the word את נפשכם means ברצונכם “your pleasure, your goodwill.” We find the word נפש used also in this sense in Psalms 27,12 אל תתנני בנפש צרי, “do not deliver me to the pleasure of my oppressors.”
  ופגעו לי, “plead on my behalf.”
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  ויתן לי את מערת, he did not ask anything from Efron other than the cave, not the field in which it was situated.
  המכפלה, the word is a noun describing a subordinate function. If it were an adjective the word מערת should have had the prefix ה. Our sages disagree concerning the meaning of the word מכפלה. Some think that it describes a cave above another cave, (root כפל, double) others claim it means a cave within another cave. Alternately, the word describes this particular location, i.e. that the whole cave was known as the “cave machpelah” on account of the dual cave contained in that field; this is also why the field itself was considered as almost subordinate to the cave in question.
  כסף מלא, each coin would be of full weight, like a brand new coin which had not lost some of its original weight through being in circulation. The Torah makes this clear by adding the words עובר לסוחר, acceptable by any merchant.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  ועפרון..באזני בני חת, in a loud voice, making sure they could all hear him. In this verse the Torah emphasises the aural aspect of the negotiations, whereas in verse 18, at the conclusion of the transaction the visible aspect, לעיני בני חת is stressed, as at that point eye-witnesses were more important. We find such a sequence of aural perception and visual perception also in Job 29,11 כי אזן שמעה ותאשרני ועין ראתה ותעידני, “for the ear that heard acclaimed me, and the eyes that saw were my witness.”
  לכל באי שער עירו, including all the people of his city, prominent or plain people.
  באי שער, people who enter or leave through the gate. In other words, everybody. Sometimes the Torah refers to באי שער, people entering through the gate, other times יןצאי עירו, people leaving via the gate. (compare Genesis 34,24) It all amounts to the same thing. For the sake of brevity the Torah mentions only either באי or יוצאי. Sometimes it mentions both, as in Jeremiah 17,19.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  לא אדוני שמעני, not like you say that you want to pay the full value of the property. Take it for free, as a gift, and not only the cave, but I am also donating the field to you.
  נתתי, I have already given it to you as a gift,
   לעיני בני עמי, in front of the members of my people who are all witnesses to this transaction between me and you. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  וישתחו, Avraham bowed to Efron in everybody’s presence.
  
  Verse 13
  
  וידבר...אך אם אתה לו שמעני, I wish you would have listened to what I said that
  נתתי כסף השדה, I have already prepared the money for the field, if you’ll accept it you will be doing me a favour,
  ואקברה, and I will proceed to bury, as the matter does not permit further delay.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  אדוני...ביני ובינך מה היא?, what difference does such a paltry sum make, whether you want to pay it or do not want to pay it, go ahead and bury your dead.
  
  Verse 16
  
  וישמע...עובר לסוחר. Silver coins acceptable by the most discriminating merchants who weighed each coin to assure themselves that they were not being short-changed.
  
  Verse 17
  
  ויקם, it “arose” for Avraham as a purchase, and acquisition. The unusual sounding word קם here also occurs in this sense in Leviticus 27,19 וקם לו, where it describes the legal procedure of redeeming property from the Temple treasurer by paying a premium. The term is chosen to describe a transaction of a permanent, enduring nature. 
  אשר לפני ממרא, השדה והמערה, both were outside the actual town limits of Kiryat Arba, the present day Chevron then having been known as Mamre. (compare also verse 19). [The Torah makes certain that all the names by which this location had ever been known is mentioned so that no one in the future could challenge this cave as belonging to the Jewish people. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  לעיני בני חת. He weighed the money for Efron in the presence of all the assembled people, so that Efron sold the cave and the field to Avraham also in the presence of all his townspeople. He also handed Avraham a document confirming the sale.
  בכל באי שער עירו. While all the people of his town were present. The expressions בכל, לכל (compare verse 10) mean basically the same. We find similar formulations in Exodus 27,19 where the two expressions occur in the same verse, i.e. לכל כלי המשכן בכל עבודתו.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  ואחרי כן...אל מערת, the preposition אל means the same as the prefix ב, i.e. במערת שדה המכפלה. Compare Exodus 25,21 ואל הארון תתן את העדות instead of בארון.
  
  Verse 20
  
  ויקם...מאת בני חת, All the townspeople had agreed to the sale of Efron’s fields to Avraham. They were quite keen for Avraham to own an ancestral plot in their midst.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ואברהם זקן, this is either past tense of the verb, or an adjective;
  בא בימים, the years when man thinks about his departure from this earth and is concerned to make sure that his son or children are safely married while he is still around.
  וה' ברך את אברהם בכל, he lacked nothing, and did not need anything in this life except to see his son well married.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  ויאמר...זקן ביתו, the word zekan is a genitive (adjective) of the word zaken just as the word kevod is a genitive of the word kavod. Its meaning here is that this servant had grown up in Avraham’s household until he himself had become elderly. Or, its meaning could be that this servant was older (in the sense of senior) to all Avraham’s other servants. 
  מושל בכל אשר לו, he deserved to be entrusted with this task.
  שים נא ידך תחת ירכי, it was customary to make a person reinforce the promise that he would carry out an assignment by his placing his hand within the control of his master. This was a symbolic gesture meaning that just as his hand was under the control of his master so his personality would be under the control of his master to carry out his assignment. This was such a firmly established custom that the gesture itself was equivalent to swearing an oath. We find that in Genesis 47,29 when Yaakov wants an assurance from his son Joseph that he would not bury him in Egypt but in the land of Canaan, that he requests the same symbolic gesture from Joseph. There are commentators who understand this verse as Avraham requesting an oath from Eliezer. If that were correct, the Torah should have used the familiar formula of ואשביעך בה' אלוקי השמים, “I want you to swear in the name of the Lord of the Heavens to carry out this specific task.” [we must understand the author to mean that the oath and the symbol should have been part of the same verse if indeed placing his hand within the control of his master had been part of the oath. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  ואשביעך..ואלוקי הארץ, meaning that the same G’d Who is ruler in the heavens also exercises His control down here on earth. Do not think that if you do not honour an oath made to the G’d in heaven that failure to honour it would not have negative consequences for you here on earth. When Avraham speaks of his own self, as opposed to the need to make someone else take an oath, he only needs to refer to the “G’d of the heavens” (compare verse 7) Avraham was well aware of G’d being also the G’d on earth. In Bereshit Rabbah 59,8 Rabbi Pinchas is quoted as saying that until He revealed Himself to His creatures G’d was known only as the “G’d of the heavens,” whereas after He revealed Himself to His creatures [or to an individual creature by performing a miracle for such a person Ed.] He also became known as the ”G’d of the earth.”
  מבנות הכנעני, for the entire Canaanite tribe is cursed since the days of Noach, and Avraham’s seed is not to be merged with that of a cursed tribe.
  יושב בקרבו, compare the verses 36 in our chapter as well as Genesis 48,16 where one or the other of these words is used to describe the environment in which our patriarchs lived.
  
  Verse 4
  
  כי אם אל ארצי, he referred to Aram Naharyim.
  ואל מולדתי, the town in which I was born, i.e. Ur Kasdim. Avraham meant to say that there Eliezer would find his family; he hinted at Rivkah, seeing that he had been informed of her birth. According to Rabbi Yitzchok in Bereshit Rabbah 59,8 the words “to my land” reflect a well known proverb according to which people prefer to plant seed originating in their own backyard even though the strain is known to be inferior to those available elsewhere.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  ?ויאמר...ההשב אשיב, supposing that by the time I return from my mission you will no longer be alive, tell me if I should bring your son back there in the event that the girl I select refuses to move here? Even though Yitzchok was not present during this discussion, Eliezer calls his potential migration to Aram Naharayim a השבה, “return,” as he refers to Avraham who had left that region, not to Yitzchok who had never been there in the first place.
  
  Verse 6
  
  ויאמר...השמר לך, for Avraham did not want the claim on the land of Israel which G’d had promised him and which had been established through his physical presence in that land, to become subject to doubt through an even temporary migration of Yitzchok. 
  פן תשיב, so that you do not bring back. We find a similar formulation in Genesis 3,3 פן תמותון, “so that you will not die,” and in Genesis 31,24 פן תדבר עם יעקב, “so that you will not speak with Yaakov, etc.”
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  אשר לקחני, since He took me out from there to give this land to my offspring, He would surely not want me to bring my son back there.
  הוא ישלח מלאכו, to ensure the success of your errand to take a wife for my son from there.
  ואשר דבר לי, both before I left that country and afterwards.
  ואשר נשבע לי, at the time when I had bound Yitzchok.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ואם לא, the meaning is clear.
  
  Verse 9
  
  וישם, the meaning is clear. (verse 2)
  
  Verse 10
  
  ויקח...וכל טוב, not literally “all the good,” but most of the good things. The exaggeration here is similar to when the Torah describes כל הארץ, “the whole earth” as going to Egypt to buy grain. (Genesis 41,57) What is meant is: “most people from all over.” There are many such “exaggerations.” What the Torah meant was that Eliezer took with him samples of most of the precious possessions in Avraham’s household in order to show the family of the potential bride that she would be marrying into a wealthy family. Our sages (quoted by Rashi) explain the term וכל טוב as referring to a document in which Avraham had appointed Yitzchok as his sole heir. Eliezer brought this document with him, i.e. בידו, “in his hand.”
  אל ארם נהרים, so called because it was the confluence of two rivers.
  עיר נחור, this refers to Ur Kasdim where Nachor had remained behind after his father Terach had moved to Charan together with his other son Avraham.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  ויברך הגמלים, he made them go down on their knees in order that the jugs of water could be presented to them for them to drink. While all this was happening he prayed to G’d to arrange for the right kind of girl to put in an appearance.
  אל באר המים, near the well.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  ויאמר...הקרה נא לפני, “arrange for me,” as had been predicted by Avraham. This is what he meant when he added  ועשית חסד עם אדני אברהם, “perform an act of loving kindness for my master Avraham.”
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  והיה הנערה, seeing that the subject matter had already been introduced, the definitive article ה is in place, as opposed to Deuteronomy 22,23 כי יהיה נערה, where the subject had not been referred to previously.
  אשר אמר אליה, by this qualification Eliezer freed himself from the obligation to address a blind or lame girl. However, he still did not free himself from the obligation of speaking to a slave-girl. or someone born from an incestuous relationship, etc., seeing that such girls have no exterior marks by which one can immediately identify their status. Seeing that this was so, he prayed that G’d would do a kindness to his master and arrange that the girl whom he would approach to offer water would be a girl suitable as a potential wife for Yitzchok.
  אותה הוכחת, after passing this test, I will know that she is the one which You, G’d, have selected for Yitzchok, and I will take her as a wife for him.
  ובה אדע, if she will be good, and the daughter of good people I will know that You have indeed performed a kindness for my master.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  ויהי הוא, and here indeed he was gratified that the first girl whom he addressed met all the qualifications he had stipulated. Not only was she a member of Avraham’s family, but she was also physically attractive, revealed a number of character virtues immediately on acquaintance, and she was a virgin.
  טרם כלה לדבר, while he was still formulating his prayer, G’d was already setting in motion the answer to his prayer as soon or even before he had articulated all of it. (compare Isaiah 65,24).
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  והנערה...ואיש לא ידעה, not even in an unconventional sexual embrace. [these words were added as additional to the statement that she was a virgin. Ed.]
  ותמלא כדה, which she had drawn from the well, and which was filled with water. Seeing that the water from this well was only marginally below the surface of the earth the” well” is referred to as עין, “fountain,” although one did have to go down some steps to get at the water. Some scholars derive from allusions in the text that the water actually rose toward Rivkah, seeing that the text speaks only of ותמלא כדה, “she filled her jug,” instead of saying “she went down and drew water and filled her jug.” A similar formulation, without using the word “she drew water,” is used in 21,19 where Hagar was filling the hose with the newly discovered well. [one would have to say that when giving water to camels Rivkah did not enjoy this heavenly assist as in verse 20 she did have to “draw water.” Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  וירץ, seeing that he saw her beauty, plus the fact that his request seemed to have been answered so promptly, he ran towards her, relying on the fact that he had enjoyed a heavenly assist.
  הגמיאני נא, the word has a similar meaning to השקיני, “give me to drink!”
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  ותאמר שתה אדוני, the Torah records this detail in order to tell us of Rivkah’s good manners; although she did not know of the stranger’s social status she addressed him as “my lord.” She was very prompt and actually let him drink directly from her hand.
  
  Verse 19
  
  ותכל...עד אם כלו לשתות, she meant that she would continue drawing water for the camels until she could ascertain that they would stop drinking. Alternately, the word אם is a substitute for the word אשר. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  ותמהר ותער כדה, she poured the water in the jug into a trough from which the beasts were in the habit of drinking.
  
  Verse 21
  
  והאיש משתאה לה, he was amazed at her, i.e. at the speed with which she went about her work. However, he still kept silent, not wanting to ask her who she was until she would have completed providing the camels with water.
  ההצליח, if she were also a member of a good family, and one related to Avraham.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  ויהי...ויקח, “he took out the jewelry planning to give it to her after he had asked her the relevant questions. This is also how he describes the sequence of what occurred at the well when he relates the nature of his mission in Betuel’s home before eating the first course of the meal served (verse 46)
  בקע, a half shekel. He placed it on her nose as mentioned in verse 46. Similarly, in sequence, he placed the other pieces of jewelry on her hands, bracelets 
  weighing ten pieces of gold (ten סלעים in weight according to Onkelos). 
  
  Verse 23
  
  ויאמר, he now asked about her family, and whether in the home of such a family there was room to accommodate him and his entourage.
  ?היש בית אביך מקום ללין, The meaning of the word ללין is a verbal mode meaning the same as להלין, “to provide lodging.” The letter י indicates the transitive conjugation hiphil. The word ללון by comparison which is in the simple conjugation (intransitive) kal, describes what the person enjoying the lodging does, i.e. spend the night. Both the enquiry and the response are the same, i.e. Rivkah answered the question asked, she did not answer obliquely, seeing that she used the verb “to lodge” in a different conjugation. After all, Eliezer had asked her both about lodging for the camels and lodging for himself and his men. It is possible to understand the exchange between Eliezer and Rivkah as meaning: “is there room in your father’s house to provide lodging,” a reference to the camels only, whereas Rivkah responds “not only is there room for the camels but there is also room for the men.” The author quotes Job 24,7 to show that the verb לון when used in the transitive mode ערום ילינו מבלי לבוש, “they will have to spend the night without clothing” also means the same as the intransitive conjugation ילונו.
  
  Verse 24
  
  ותאמר , she answered him on his first question; seeing that Milkah and Betuel were well known she told him all this.
  
  Verse 25
  
  ותאמר, she answered his second question, volunteering more information than Eliezer had requested. She wanted to portray the generous nature of her family by mentioning that they would also provide straw and fodder. She volunteered all this before Eliezer had given her anything. (until after she had answered his questions.)
  ומספוא, a general term describing any fodder other than straw. It is some kind of barley and oats.
  גם גם, the reason why Rivkah used the word גם, “also,” twice is that it was a customary way of speaking, just as we are in the habit of repeating the word אנחנו. An example of this repetition elsewhere is found in 43,8 גם אנחנו, אם אתה, גם טפינו. Each word גם is intended to reinforce the one mentioned previously.
  
  Verse 26
  
  ויקוד, a bow somewhat more perfunctory than the one known as השתחויה. According to our sages the former means touching one’s face to the ground, whereas the latter involves prostrating one’s body and stretching out with the arms and legs. At any rate, the procedure was to symbolise his gratitude to G’d for having heard his prayer.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  חסדו ואמתו, if someone constantly endeavours to do what is good and pleasing in the eyes of the Lord, and he succeeds in his personal endeavours, this is no more than just, he deserves to do so. We describe this as G’d’s אמת, “truth.”
  חסד on the other hand, is the recognition that G’d has granted one loving kindness over and beyond what one could have expected based on one’s general conduct. In this instance G’d’s חסד was that not only did He make Eliezer meet a girl who was suitable for marriage to Yitzchok on the basis of her personal virtues, but beyond that she was also qualified through being a member of Avraham’s family. Eliezer attributed these favourable developments to the merits of his master, not to his own.
  אנכי בדרך, and I had no idea where to spend the night and G’d guided me to בית אחי אדוני, for Nachor was Avraham’s brother and Milkah was his brother’s daughter. This is why he used the plural formulation saying: achey adoni instead of the singular mode as he did when he recounted these events in verse 48 when he said bat achi adoni. Both formulations were accurate with a slight shift of emphasis. The author quotes Genesis 46,21 echi varosh (names of Binyamin’s sons) as a tool to help one remember these two constructions of the words achi and achey. After Eliezer had thanked the Lord for making his mission successful, he produced the jewelry and gave them to Rivkah. 
  
  Verse 28
  
  ותרץ, she ran home full of joy and told what happened in her mother’s house. She did not tell anything in her father’s house for a daughter shares her experiences with her mother and not with her father.
  כדברים האלה, the general outline of what had transpired without going into each detail.
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  ולרבקה אח, it is mentioned here seeing that in the report of Nachor’s family he has not been mentioned.
  
  Verse 30
  
  ויהי כראות, this is reported in order to inform us that Lavan was envious of anyone getting something he did not have, even including his sister. He was the opposite of his sister who had displayed such generous traits. Lavan ran in order to bring these precious items into his own house.
  וכשמעו, when he heard that the stranger had spoken to his sister concerning selecting a wife for the son of his master. This is what is meant by
  כה דבר אלי האיש. עמד על הגמלים. The words על הגמלים mean the same as עם הגמלים, next to the camels. We have a parallel construction in Exodus 35,22 ויבאו האנשים על הנשים, “the men came in addition to the women.” The meaning here is that Eliezer was seen by Lavan as standing as if waiting for Rivkah to return accompanied by a senior member of the family to invite him and escort him to their home.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  'ויאמר בא ברוך ה, he meant that he could see that G’d had blessed Eliezer with wealth  and therefore 
  פניתי הבית, for you and your men, מקום לגמלים, and I have also cleared space to accommodate the camels.
  
  Verse 32
  
  ויבא....ויפתח, Laban released the various straps, etc., of Eliezer’s camels, something that is done when beasts of burden arrive at their destination. According to an aggadic interpretation quoted by Rashi  the expression ויפתח applies to the muzzles which Eliezer had placed around the camels’ mouths to prevent them from eating grass or stalks belonging to private individuals along the route they had been traveling. According to our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 60,8) on
  ויתן תבן ומספוא, Rabbi Acha concludes that mundane conversation of men such as Avraham’s servant Eliezer is esteemed more highly by G’d (the Torah) than the learned discussion of Torah by the children of the patriarchs; he derives this from the inordinate amount of detail provided by the Torah to the minutiae of the story of Eliezer at the well. On the other hand, basic legislation in the Torah concerning ritual impurity is often only hinted at by a letter here or an extra word elsewhere in the text. The same scholar continues: the washing of the feet of the servants of our patriarchs ranks as more worth reporting than details of the impurities of certain creepers and if the blood of such creepers confers ritual impurity similar to their bodies. This goes so far that the greatest scholars were not able to resolve their understanding of these rules by reference to what is actually written in the text of the Torah.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  ויושם, the word is spelled ויישם, “he placed,” although it is read as vayussam, “it was placed.”  We find a similar anomaly in Genesis 50,26 when placing Joseph’s remains in a coffin is reported. The root of the verb is ישם.
  ויאמר דבר, either Lavan or Betuel is the subject
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  ויאמר עבד אברהם אנכי, our sages (Baba Kama 92) consider this as an example of a popular proverb that one should mention any personal deficiency before commencing to carry out whatever mission has been assigned to him. [according to this interpretation Eliezer, instead of considering it a privilege to be the servant of a man like Avraham, considered it a stigma that he was a slave. Ed.]
  
  Verse 35
  
  וה' ברך את אדוני, to such an extent that I, his slave, am received with such honour.
  
  Verse 36
  
  ותלד, even though he had a son from another woman. Seeing that he loved Sarah so much, and she was such an intimate soul-mate of his, and seeing that he loved Yitzchok the son of his old age, 
  ונתן לו את כל אשר לו, so that Yitzchok is wealthy and greatly honoured in his own right.
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  וישביעני, if you were to ask that if all this is true, why is that I come all this way to find a wife for this man, the reason is that my master made me swear to find a suitable wife for his son from among members of his own family.
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  ואמר... אלי, the word veulai is spelled with the letter ו missing, something which gave rise to an interesting aggadic interpretation mentioned already by Rashi. Accordingly, Eliezer himself had hoped to have his daughter marry Yitzchok in the event that the woman he found in Aram Naharyim would be unwilling to relocate in the land of Canaan. This is why he had referred to this possibility with the words אלי, לא תלך האשה אחרי, “to me (if) the woman will not follow me (to the land of Canaan).” The truth is that Eliezer related all the events exactly as they had occurred. We are not able to provide conclusive reasons why the Torah sometimes chose to write certain words defectively, (with a letter missing) or by adding a letter which could have been omitted. There are too many such instances for us to find satisfactory explanations for all of them. Eliezer related the events that had occurred to him in his conversation with his master as well as how G’d had arranged things after he had set out on his mission. His sole purpose was to demonstrate from the course of events that G’d loved Avraham so much that He had made his mission so spectacularly successful up to this point. G’d had responded even to his own prayer in exactly the manner in which he had hoped he would. As a result, the very idea of denying his request would appear out of the question, seeing that it was so clear that the entire sequence of events must have been engineered by G’d, personally. If we find some different nuances here and there in the events as reported by the Torah and as related by Eliezer, this is meaningless, just as different nuances in the wording of the Ten Commandments in the Book of Exodus and the Book of Deuteronomy are not meant to raise concerns as to their authenticity of either version. Everything until the word ועתה in verse 49 is quite clear.
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  ועתה...חסד ואמת, emet is the honour and respect that you owe members of your family. You owe even more respect to Araham the most illustrious member of your family. If he requested the hand of your daughter in marriage for his son, you are duty-bound to honour his wish. If you agree to this even though it entails her leaving her homeland and moving far away, this may be considered an act of loving kindness, חסד, on your part.
  ואפנה על ימין או על שמאל, either more prominent and important members of his family than you, or less prominent family members than you. At any rate, I will take a wife for Avraham’s son for Yitzchok from this country since he does not want a daughter-in-law who grew up in the land of the Canaanites.
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  ויען לבן ובתואל, Lavan spoke before his father seeing that Betuel was an old man and the affairs of the family were already being conducted by his son Lavan.
  מה' יצא הדבר, seeing that matters occurred in the way you have told us, we have no say in the matter. If we were to deny your request the result for us would be רע, bad. If we agree without protest it will turn out to be of benefit to us, seeing it is all in the hands of G’d Who has made your mission so successful thus far.
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  הנה.. כאשר דבר, for He has arranged everything in accordance with your request.
  
  Verse 52
  
  ויהי..וישתחו ארצה, prostrating himself on the ground with arms and feet extended.
  
  Verse 53
  
  ויוצא, seeing that Rivkah had been given to him, he produced more silver, gold, and clothing.
  ומגדנות, this word includes anything of value, including exotic fruit and fancy garments. The word appears also in Chronicles II 32,23 in a similar sense.
  לאחיה ולאמה, for they were the mainstay of the household, Betuel being old and frail. According to an aggadic interpretation (Bereshit Rabbah 60,12) based on Lavan speaking instead of his father, he had died suddenly as he intended to raise obstacles to the marriage.
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  ויאכלו, this has been explained, i.e. now that Eliezer had explained his mission he felt free to eat the meal which had been placed before him.
  
  Verse 55
  
  ויאמר אחיה ואמה , when there are both major and minor characters in a story, the Torah attributes what is happening primarily to the major character. Although Rivkah’s mother was senior to Lavan, he, in his capacity as the manager of this household was mentioned first. We find something similar in Numbers 12,1 where Miriam, who was junior to Aaron is mentioned first since she did the talking and Aaron only listened. This is also why Esther is mentioned first in Esther 9,29, although the position as prime minister occupied by Mordechai was senior to that of the queen. The initiative of what is reported in the verse was Esther’s, hence her name is mentioned first. 
  ימים או עשור. a year or at least 10 months. The word ימים meaning “a year” also occurs in Leviticus 25,29. Our sages arrived at the conclusion that this verse is the source for giving a bride a period of 12 months during which she may provide for herself economically before moving in with her husband.
  ועשור, a general, as opposed to a specific adjective, including any number. This does not apply to such verses where the number is an ordinal number such as בעשור לחודש “on the tenth of the month” in Leviticus 23,27 and other places in the Torah. In those verses the word עשור is an adjective describing the tenth day of the month.
  
  
  Verse 56
  
  ויאמר אליהם, seeing that it is clear that G’d has made my mission successful, do not cause me any delay of even a single day. 
  אל תאחרו אותי, By delaying her departure you would be delaying my return home.
  שלחוני, let me depart with the girl,
  ואלכה לאדוני, and I will go to my master as he has commanded me in order to bring him a wife for his son. How could I possibly return empty-handed?
  
  
  Verse 57
  
  ויאמרו נקרא לנערה, they suggested to ask Rivkah in Eliezer’s presence, for if they would speak to her only privately Eliezer might interpret a negative response by Rivkah as being the result of family pressure on her to remain for a while.
  ונשאלה את פיה, they would ask her if she wanted to go with Eliezer at this time. From verse 51 it is clear that basically it had been settled that Rivkah would marry Yitzchok, and the family would not have said “here Rivkah is before you take her and go,” unless they had first secured Rivkah’s willingness to marry Yitzchok. It is forbidden to force marriage on anyone. According to Kidushin 41, a father may not make use of the right to marry off his daughter, the minor, unless she is old enough to understand the implication of giving her own consent, by saying: “I want to marry so and so.”
  את פיה, a reference to her wishes just as in Joshua 9,14 ואת פי ה' לא שאלו, “they had not asked G’d about His wishes in the matter.” 
  
  
  Verse 58
  
  
  
  Verse 59
  
  וישלחו, Lavan and his family, this is the meaning of the word אחותם, which, if taken literally would mean “their sister.”
  ואת מינקתה, the Torah does not mention the other attendants sent with Rivkah, seeing that the מינקת, nursemaid, is the highest ranking of them all. Eliezer and his men were worth mentioning in their own right as part of the entourage, although regarding who was riding, the women were mentioned. In that context the nursemaid is not accorded any special recognition, seeing that she too was subservient to Rivkah.
  
  
  Verse 60
  
  ויברכו, when they came to the end of the distance they accompanied her away from Aram Naharayim and wanted to take final leave they blessed her as was customary.
  היי, the letter ה has both the vowel patach and the semi-vowel sheva.
  לאלפי רבבה, thousands which in due course would increase to become tens of thousands. Seeing that the largest individual number in the Holy Tongue is רבבה, i.e. 10,000, and they did not know a word for “million,” they had to express it in those terms.
  וירש זרעך, it so happened that the wording of their blessing coincided with the wording used by the angel at the time of the binding of Yitzchok (22,17)
  את שער שונאיו, we already explained this term in Genesis 22,16.
  
  
  Verse 61
  
  ותקם, after they had departed from accompanying her on foot, Rivkah mounted the camel and rode. It is not good manners for the departing person to ride while those accompanying her are walking on foot. This part of the story teaches us this basic point of good manners, something that Rivkah was aware of.
  אחרי האיש, for he knew the way so that he had to be in the lead and Rivkah and her entourage behind him.
  ויקח העבד את רבקה, he took her to be by his side so that she would not be apart from him, a sign of his high regard for her.
  
  
  Verse 62
  
  ויצחק, now the Torah tells us that Yitzchok encountered them as if by coincidence. The fact is, of course, that G’d arranges matters for the benefit of those whom He loves without their even being aware of it at the time.
  בא מבוא, Yitzchok “happened” to come from that direction on that very day.
  באר לחי רואי, he did not reside there, for he resided in Chevron with his father. This is the part known as ארץ הנגב, the southern part of the land. Yitzchok had either some herds or some other business which required him to travel to this place known as באר לחי רואי, from time to time. On the day that Eliezer was about to return to Chevron, he too was on the way there. The meaning of the word מבוא is “a place which one travels to from time to time.” Upon leaving באר לחי רואי on the way to Chevron, he would spend the night in one of the inns on the way from there to Chevron.
  
  
  Verse 63
  
  ויצא יצחק, he left the town where he had spent the night. He went without knowing it, on the same route that Rivkah his wife to be was traveling on the way to meet him. He had gone out
  לשוח בשדה, to walk among the bushes,
  לפנות ערב, at the time when the sun turns down towards the horizon. This is the time of day when many people go for a walk among the shrubs and bushes. While he was thus walking, he raised his eyes looking further along the route he was walking on and he saw גמלים באים, and he veered off his path to walk toward them to check if this was Avraham’s servant Eliezer who was walking at the head. This is what Rivkah meant when she referred to the man who was walking לקראתנו, (verse 65). ותשא, she thought that possibly the man approaching might be Yitzchok; this is why she asked the servant, to find out if her assumption was correct.
  
  
  Verse 64
  
  ותפול מעל הגמל, when she saw him and Eliezer told her that this was Yitzchok, she lowered herself from the camel, fell on the ground, covered her face with her veil and remounted and rode on. This story teaches us that when a woman has achieved the status of being betrothed it befits her to cover her face until such time as she is a properly married woman. 
  
  Verse 65
  
  ותאמר, she had asked Eliezer who the man was before she alighted from the camel. She did so only after having been informed that the man was her husband to be, Yitzchok. She had not enquired about every person that they met on the journey, but in the case of Yitzchok, the fact that he approached sideways had made her wonder if, by chance, this was Yitzchok or someone from his household. This is why she added the words: ההולך בשדה לקראתנו, she had observed that this man was busy in the field and only after he had seen them did he come walking in their direction.
  
  
  Verse 66
  
  ויספר, Eliezer told Yitzchok all that happened to him since he had commenced his mission. He did so during the time it took to reach Avraham’s house after Yitzchok had met them. It is possible that they arrived in Chevron on that same day, or the day following.
  
  Verse 67
  
  ויביאה, when they arrived in Chevron he brought her to the tent of his mother Sarah. It was customary in those times for the man and his wife to have totally separate living quarters. When they would sleep together the man would go to his wife’s tent, as for instance when Leah said to Yaakov אלי תבא, “come to me,” i.e. “come to my tent” (Genesis 30,16) We also find that when Lavan searched for his teraphim that  he is reported as conducting separate searches in Yaakov’s, tent as well as in Rachel’s tent and in Leah’s tent. (Genesis 31,33).
  האהלה שרה, a construction similar to Numbers 34,2 הארץ כנען, or in Joshua 3,14 הארון הברית.
  ויקח את רבקה, he took her to complete the marriage ceremonies as people do, i.e. they get married under a wedding canopy, a ceremony followed by a banquet.
  ותהי לו לאשה ויאהבה, he discovered her many virtuous qualities including her chastity, qualities he had admired in his mother Sarah. Seeing that most husbands love their wives, the statement “he loved her,” here, must have an additional significance. The Torah writes this to tell us that Yitzchok loved the outstanding qualities of Rivkah. This is why the statement is followed by the line
  וינחם יצחק אחרי אמו, after having mourned his mother for a suitable period. He was still mourning his mother after 3 years had elapsed since her death. Now that he recognised his mother’s qualities personified in his wife he was able to console himself over his mother’s death.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויסף אברהם, he took another wife although he already had had two wives. He meant to continue siring children in his old age in order to comply with the blessing/command to increase the world’s population. Seeing that the continuity of his own seed [the Jewish people having originated in seed from both a Jewish father and a Jewish other, Ed.] had been assured, he was not concerned with the antecedents of Keturah. We can be certain, however, that he selected a woman who personally possessed all the good qualities he would have desired also for a wife for his son. The only thing he did not insist on was such a woman’s national background. He was certainly not looking for experiencing disappointments with any children from Keturah, having experienced enough disappointment with Ishmael. We may safely assume that Keturah was not of Canaanitic descent, seeing that even Hagar the Egyptian had not been of such descent. (compare 17,3) Keturah was not a concubine, This is why the Torah writes ויקח אשה, as apposed to the mention of פלגשים, concubines, (verse 5). The sons of the concubines are not mentioned by name whereas the sons of Keturah are all mentioned by their names. This fact alone clearly shows that their status was superior to the sons of Avraham’s concubines. The essential difference between a wife and a concubine is that though both are exclusive partners of the men with whom they live, the former, when becoming wives, underwent the ceremony known as chuppah, and the union was celebrated with a wedding party, whereas a concubine was not accorded all this pomp and ceremony. [after the Torah was given, the essential; difference in status was that no financial settlement, ketuvah, was made when a concubine was taken by a man as his companion.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  ויקשן, The Torah mentions only some of the children of Keturah’s sons. In the case of Yokshon even a grandson of Keturah is mentioned. Altogether the Torah mentions by name 16 such sons and grandsons. We are hard-pressed to know the reason for the Torah’s selectivity in mentioning only part of the many grandsons, etc. Perhaps those whom Avraham or at least Keturah still knew before they died, are mentioned by name, whereas those who were born by his/her sons after he had died were not mentioned. Considering that Avraham had married Keturah when he was 140 years old or older, he lived for only another 35 years, it would have been unlikely that he saw grandchildren from Keturah, considering that we have no record of anyone marrying below the age of 29 in those days.
  אשורים ולטושים ולאמים, we do not know why the names of these three sons appear with the plural ending ים at the end. Possibly, these sons knew why they had been named thus. It is interesting that מצרים, a son of Cham, also gave his sons names ending with the ים plural ending. According to Onkelos, the names mentioned here were not their real names, as he translates their names as למשריין, ולשכונין, ולנגון.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  ויתן, he distributed his wealth during his lifetime in order to forestall quarrels about his inheritance after his death. כל אשר לו ליצחק, he had appointed Yitzchok as his heir as he had been commanded to do by G’d when Ishmael had been expelled. (21,12) Anything the other sons received was in the nature of “gifts,” not “inheritance.”
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  ולבני הפילגשים he had no concubines from whom he had fathered children, but the concubines in his household were concubines of male servants in his household. Their children were, of course, members of Avraham’s household who had been of service to Avraham and who had adopted his lifestyle. He gave them gifts consisting of silver and gold and livestock according to his own evaluation of who deserved how much. He most certainly gave even more valuable gifts to Ishmael and to the sons of Keturah even though the Torah does not specifically mentions this. If he gave gifts to people towards whom he had no legal obligation at all, it is obvious that people towards whom he did have such an obligation would receive their due.
  מעל יצחק בנו, in order that they should not interfere with him after his death and could not quarrel with him about the inheritance.
  קדמה אל ארץ קדם, he sent them off in an easterly direction. According to another interpretation, the words refer to a specific country among the countries of the East. It could well refer to Charan or Ur Casdim or both, regions which were generally loosely known as ארץ קדם, [just as we speak about the regions of the Middle East, or the Far East in our time. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  ואלה...חי, a verbal construction in the past tense. The root of the verb is either חיי or חיה.
  
  Verse 8
  
  ויגוע וימות, whenever the Torah speaks of גויעה this refers to an easy, painless kind of death not preceded by lengthy illness.
  בשיבה טובה, having seen children and grandchildren and having been treated  with respect and dignity all his life. According to a Midrash quoted by Rashi, it means that he lived to see his son Ishmael return to the fold as a baal teshuvah.
  זקן ושבע, satisfied with the number of his years he had been granted to live on earth.
  ויאסף אל עמיו, to join the members of his family who had preceded him in death. The Torah applies this expression to one’s family regardless of whether they were righteous people or sinners.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  ויקברו אותו יצחק וישמעאל בניו, seeing they were more honoured than his other sons and had been more beloved by him. This is why they took upon them themselves the procedures connected with their father’s burial even though the sons of Keturah were also in this region. Alternately, Avraham had already sent those sons away during his lifetime so that only Yitzchok and Ishmael remained in the region.
  'אל מרת המכפלה אל שדה וגו, the expression אל מערת is equivalent to the word במערת “in the cave of.” We find a similar expression in Exodus 25,21 concerning the Holy Ark. There are many more examples of this formulation.
  על פני ממרא, we have explained this term already on 23,17.
  
  Verse 10
  
  השדה, every time the burial in this cave is mentioned in the Torah the fact that Avraham had purchased the cave and the field is mentioned also. It is to pay tribute to the love for G’d by Avraham, who in spite of G’d’s promises of owning the entire land, had been unable to bury even his own wife in that land until had had purchased a burial plot for her. Avraham never for a moment queried G’d about this problem he had been forced to cope with.
  מאת בני חת, we have explained this on 23,20.
  קבר אברהם ושרה אשתו,  compare what we wrote on 24,55.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  ויהי...ויברך, he made Yitzchok as successful in his undertakings as He made his father Avraham.
  עם באר לחי ראי, as if the Torah had written בבאר, “at the well.” We have a similar construction in Deuteronomy 8,5 וידעת עם לבבך, “you shall know in your heart.” Or, compare Genesis 35,4 תחת האלה אשר עם שכם, “under the terebinth in Shechem.” Or, compare Samuel II 19,38 עם קבר אבו ואמי “by the graves of my father and mother.”
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  ואלה תלדות ישמעאל, the Torah mentions Ishmael’s descendants as a tribute to his father Avraham, seeing he had been Avraham’s firstborn son. The Torah also wanted to inform us that Ishmael produced 12 princes in accordance with the promise made to Avraham by G’d.
   The repetition of the fact that אשר ילדה הגר, was to emphasise that although Ishmael had been the son of a slave-woman, he rose to such eminence. Avraham loved him because he was his firstborn son, and G’d blessed him on account of Avraham, and this was  why He made him so successful. (compare 21,20)
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  ואלה...לתולדותם, in the chronological order of their birth. The firstborn of them all was Nevayot.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  אלה, the general rule follows the individual components of the general rule. This is a method employed by the Torah on many occasions.
  ואלה שמותם, the Torah reminds us that whenever a person or a people mentioned in Scripture bears any of these names of the princes of Ishmael, he or they are descendants of Ishmael even if  many generations previous.
  בחצריהם ובטירותם, wherever they had claimed their ancestral inheritance they existed in splendour and numerical prominence. The word חצר refers to an open, unwalled city, whereas the word טירות refers to cities which were surrounded by walls.
  שנים עשר נשיאים לאומתם, twelve princes corresponding to the number of their families (tribes). Each one of the ones named by the Torah was a tribal chief, member of a family which grew into a mighty tribe bearing the name of their first founder. We find further detailed examples of these tribes in Chronicles I 5,19. A number of these tribes have been mentioned in different contexts in the Books of the Prophets.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  ואלה, The Torah mentions Ishmael’s age at death also as a form of tribute to his father Avraham as we have already mentioned (verse 12). According to our sages in Megillah 17 this information also serves us to calculate how old Yaakov was during certain episodes which occurred during his life.
  
  Verse 18
  
  וישכבו, the descendants of Ishmael mentioned by name in this paragraph resided in different regions extending from Chavilah as far as Shur, as these were the regions which became their ancestral holdings.
  על פני כל אחיו נפל, in accordance with the prediction of the angel in 16,12 foretold to his mother even before he had been born. We explained the meaning of the phrase there. The word ונפל is to be understood as similar in meaning to the same word in Judges 7,12, (נופלים) where it means “falling in battle.”
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  ואלה תולדת אברהם יצחק בן אברהם אברהם. Whereas the Torah when listing Ishmael’s descendants had restricted itself to a brief summary, now when reporting about Yitzchok, the Torah elaborates a great deal more both about Yaakov and about his brother Esau.
  אברהם הוליד את יצחק, we are told in Baba Metzia 86 that Yitzchok’s facial features were so similar to those of his father that anyone ever encountering Yitzchok immediately knew that he must be the son of Avraham. The reason that this had been arranged so by G’d was that when someone claims to have become a father in his old age, some people tend to doubt the “father’s” claim, assuming that the woman who had born that child must have been unfaithful to her husband, or that at least the baby now presented as this father’s was in fact a foundling. Yitzchok’s amazing similarity to his father precluded anyone from making such spurious accusations. Another reason that the Torah repeated something which we all knew, i.e. that Avraham had sired Yitzchok, was that Yitzchok possessed the same virtues and wonderful qualities which Avraham excelled in, so that it was clear who must have been his father not only physically, but that the same father also transmitted a spiritual legacy to his son.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  ויהי יצחק, the verse tells us that G’d intervened benevolently in Yitzchok‘s life just as He had done in the life of his father; Rivkah too was barren, unable to conceive children unless through a miracle. The fact is proven when we consider that Yitzchok married her at 40 and until he was sixty he could not father a child. G’d had deliberately intervened in the bodies of our matriarchs in order to demonstrate to the nations of the world that He loved Avraham and Yitzchok and therefore He performed miracles to enable their wives to bear children for them. Our sages in Yevamot 64 conclude from the above that G’d so looked forward to the prayers of the patriarchs that He quasi provoked them into praying for the gift of children.
  מפדן ארם, from the fields of Aram. Padan Aram is referred to as the field of Aram in Hoseah 12,13. Also in Arabic, the place is known as “the field of Padan.” Alternatively, according to Bab Kama 96, it is possible that the word פדן describes a pair of something, such as a pair of oxen being referred to in the Talmud as פדנא דתורי. There were two countries [according to our author. Ed.] both of which straddle the river Euphrates, one being Aram Tzova, the other Aram Naharayim. This is why each is described as if it were a pair. We know of other “Arams” that are “pairs,” such as ארם דמשק and ארם בית רחב, (Samuel II 10,6). Seeing these localities were each very close to the other they are referred to as if they were twin cities, pairs. It appears that פדן ארם was part of the land known as אור כשדים, whereas ארם נהרים was part of the region known as חרן.
  אחות לבן הארמי, because the family was known through him and he conducted the affairs of that house, as we have explained at the time.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  ויעתר, he prayed long and hard asking that his wife should bear a child, seeing that he loved her very dearly [and would not consider marrying anyone in addition to her. Ed.] He would not even consider taking any of Rivkah’s handmaids as a partner, as had his father Avraham who had married Hagar. As a result of all this prayer, Rivkah did finally become pregnant.
  לנכח אשתו, on behalf of his wife, explaining that the reason for his intense prayer was that he did not want to marry anyone else. His prayer did not so much concern his becoming a father as his becoming a father of a child born by his wife Rivkah. He prayed in the presence of his wife so that he would be better able to concentrate on her problem. [whereas the Torah had written that both Avraham and Sarah had been barren, nothing about Yitzchok being sterile had been written anywhere. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  ויתרוצצו, as soon as the fetuses had developed to the point where they were able to move, they moved far more violently than is the custom, so that Rivkah had the impression that quarrelling was going on inside her.
  ותאמר אם כן, after she felt these strange movements she consulted with other women who were pregnant or who had born children if they too had experienced such a phenomenon. After they all denied ever having experienced such feelings, she burst out asking: אם כן למה זה אנכי, why should such a thing be reserved for me?
  'ותלך לדרוש את ה, some of our sages (quoted by Rashi) say that she went to the academy of Shem in order to inquire from him about the meaning of such strange goings on inside her. The truth is that Shem was still alive at that time for he survived Avraham by 31 years. If Shem was identical with Malki Tzedek he would have resided in Jerusalem at that time. Why are we told all this? To draw our attention to the fact that she bypassed her father-in-law Avraham, who we would think, was better qualified than Shem to answer her question. Avraham remained alive until Esau and Yaakov were 15 years of age.
  ותלך, perhaps Avraham and Keturah lived in the same house together with Keturah’s children.
  
  Verse 23
  
  ויאמר ה' לה, by means of the prophet who was either Shem or Avraham.
  שני גויים, the word is written with two letters י and a letter ו which is read but does not appear in the text, something which has been explained in the Talmud Avodah Zarah 11 as affording us the opportunity to read it as גיים, or גאים, a reference to both the Roman Emperor Antoninus as well as Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi, who both occupied lofty positions and were so wealthy that vegetables which have a limited season were never absent from their table all year round.   The reading of the text (as opposed to the spelling) would represent the plain meaning then, i.e. peoples.
  ושני לאומים, in view of this word here, i.e. a second word referring to nations, it is possible that the spelling of the word גיים is parallel to a plural ending as found in the word איים, from אי, “wild beasts.” The problem is that we do not find לאומיים spelled with two letters י anywhere so that we cannot use it as describing the nature of Esau and the Romans descended from him. Our sages in Yevamot 76 view the spelling as teaching that marriage, i.e. weddings in the accepted sense are not legally possible when only one party to such a union is Jewish, i.e. has already converted. The word גיות is also understood in the sense of widowhood during the lifetime of their husbands. (Samuel II 20,3) The prophet told Rivkah that the strange phenomenon she was experiencing in her womb was a sign that two totally different nations would develop from the twins she was about to give birth to. Most children born by the same father and mother will grow up as part of one and the same nation. Not so in the case of Rivkah’s children. The proof that this interpretation was correct was the very fact that they were already quarrelling with one another even before having been born into this world.
  ושני לאומים, we have already mentioned several times  (21,1) that it is the practice of the Torah when repeating something to use different words to say basically the same thing.
  ממעיך יפרדו, as soon as they come out of your womb they will each develop in a different way, even physically. One would be hairy, his skin reddish looking, whereas the other would have smooth skin like normal babies. They would be different in their deeds and choice of occupations as soon as they would be old enough to make such choices. The Torah testifies to this by describing Esau as כי ציד בפיו, being a hunter, whereas Yaakov is described as יושב אהלים, a dweller of tents, i.e. studious bookish type. They would also hate one another as a matter of course.
  ולאם מלאם יאמץ, they will never be evenly matched in strength, one of them always being stronger or weaker than the other. (Megillah 6) The letter ל in the word לאם is “weak,” spelled without the dagesh it ought to have. There are numerous such anomalies in Scripture, as for instance Judges 8,2 מבציר אביעזר, where the letter ב in the word mivtzir is unaccountably written without the dagesh. A similar anomaly exists in Ezekiel 32,30 מגבורים בושים, where the letter ג in the word מגבורים should have had a dagesh in it. There are other examples of this phenomenon.
  ורב יעבוד צעיר, the word את which we would have expected before the word צעיר is missing. It is not clear who will serve whom, i.e. the predicate in such a construction as is before us. The only clue we have to determine who is meant as serving whom, is the fact that normally the active subject is written first in any verse. In other words, there is a hint that the senior brother (Esau) will eventually be subservient to the junior one (Yaakov). In some verses similarly constructed there is no doubt as to who is the active party. For instance in Job 14,19 אבנים שחקו מים, “water wears away stone,” there is no question that the stone does not wear away water, i.e. that the first subject mentioned is the active one. Similarly, in Isaiah 64,1 מים תבעה אש, “water drowned fire,” there can also be no doubt as to which subject is the active one. The reason we face the problem of meaning in our verse is that the future of the two peoples is not spelled out clearly, in the prophecy, seeing that history teaches that the Jewish people enjoyed distinct periods in which it was in the ascendancy, whereas over the last 1000 years plus the opposite is the case. The only part of the prophecy which is clear is that during most of history Esau was indeed subservient to Israel, hence Esau is mentioned first in this part of the verse, seeing that it is the principally active subject. Not only this, but after the arrival of the Messiah this situation will be restored with Edom/Esau serving his junior brother Israel. The word רב being applied to the older of the twins refers to his seniority at the time of birth, seeing he emerged first from Rivkah’s womb. It follows that the one who emerged last must be referred to as the צעיר, the younger one. We find another examples of the word רב or at least its plural רבים referring to chronological seniority in Job 32,9 לא רבים יחכמו, “it is not the seniors who are wise.” 
  
  Verse 24
  
  וימלאו ימיה, the days of her pregnancy.
  והנה תומים בבטנה, the twins in her womb emerged. The word תומים is spelled defective with the letter א of the root, i.e. the middle letter missing. According to an aggadic interpretation the missing letter hints at the fact that only one of these twins would become a righteous Individual (quoted by Rashi).
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  ויצא הראשון אדמוני, even though most newborn babies are reddish in colour, this was one was exceptionally so.
  כלו כאדרת שער, as hairy as a fur coat. He had tufts of hair all over him. In both of these regards he was different from other newly born babies.
  ויקראו שמו עשו, those who saw him spontaneously called him עשו, giving expression to something that was strange, unusual about this baby. [the name would somehow reflect the word מעשה זר. Ed.] It is also possible that Yitzchok and Rivkah are the ones naming this baby as Esau.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  ואחרי כן...וידו אוחזת בעקב עשו, this too, was an allusion that at the end of time he would dominate Esau, as a human being dominates something matters which he grabs with his hand. The heel is the lower end of the body. It was clearly a hint from G’d concerning the future, as a normal baby does not manage to extend his hand outside the placenta and make contact with its twin.
  ויקרא שמו יעקב, Yitzchok named him thus.
  ויצחק בן ששים שנה, this is mentioned to let us know that Rivkah had been unable to bear a child during 20 years.
  
  Verse 27
  
  ויגדלו הנערים, as soon as they grew up their activities diverged completely from one another, one concentrating on mundane activities, activities which showed immediate profitable results, the other concentrating on the acquisition of knowledge, wisdom, i.e. abstract matters. One was an extrovert, at home in the fields, mountains, etc, whereas the other was an introvert as reflected in the term יושב אהלים.
  אהלים, the reason why the Torah wrote this word in the plural mode is because Yaakov studied with any wise man he came across. He was indiscriminating in this regard, being totally devoid of deceit or evil, wanting only to amass knowledge.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  ויאהב, there was no need to mention that Yitzchok loved Yaakov; clearly his love for Yaakov was constantly on the increase seeing that Yaakov was righteous, etc. Esau’s claim to his father’s love was due only to the venison he brought his father from his hunting expeditions.
  בפיו. This meat was especially tasty. Moreover Yitzchok was already aged, being more than seventy years old, Clearly, unless Esau had been at least 12 years old at the time he would not have known how to hunt with bow and arrow.
  ורבקה אוהבת את יעקב, exclusively; the reason was that Yaakov pursued a lifestyle that would lead to eternal life, whereas Esau did the opposite. Not only did he not lead a life leading to eternal life after death, but he actively forfeited even life on earth, exposing himself to needless dangers. Seeing that Yitzchok was aging and sitting at home most of the time, he was not aware of Esau’s doings and was easily led to believe that Esau led a virtuous life, basing his belief on the daily supply of venison his son provided for him. The story unfolds at a time when Yitzchok was already incapable of seeing well with his physical eyes. The story of the sale of the birthright is told primarily to illustrate the disdain with which Esau looked upon spiritual values as a valuable acquisition, something guaranteeing a person life beyond death.  
  
  Verse 29
  
  ויזד, the formulation of vayazed which normally should have been vayizad with a dagesh in the letter ז, the middle letter of the root, is not as unusual as it appears, [the author discussing this in detail in his grammar known as shoroshim. Ed] The meaning of the expression is that “he cooked a dish ויבשל נזיד;” the Torah reports that on a certain day when Yaakov had cooked a dish Esau returned from the hunt tired and found the dish Yaakov had cooked ready for eating. He requested to be given some of it so that he could eat it. The purpose of this story being recorded in the Torah is in order to contrast Yaakov’s virtues with Esau’s irresponsible way of looking at life. Not only that, but Esau considered the gobbling up of food as an end in itself, he was what our sages call a גרגרן, glutton. Yaakov, on the other hand, was so little concerned with the physical gratifications available on earth that when cooking for himself, he cooked a dish of lentils, the simplest undistinguished vegetable. If, in spite of his general outlook, Yaakov refused to share this dish with Esau unless the latter sold him his birthright, even though Essau was his brother, this demonstrates Yaakov’s intelligence and his moral principles which made it difficult for him to give something for which he had toiled to someone who was self-centered and who did not make any contribution to civilisation at all, assuming that whenever he felt ravenous he could demand to be gratified by what belonged to others. It is concerning people like Esau that Solomon said in Proverbs 22,16:נותן לעשיר אך למחסור, “(He who oppresses the poor) is like giving gifts to the rich. The end result is loss.”
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  ויאמר...הלעיטני נא, the word הלעיטני is equivalent to האכילני, “feed me!” Our sages in Shabbat 155 in dealing with methods permissible to feed one’s livestock on the Sabbath, say אין ממארים את העגלים אבל מלעיטים אותן, “whereas it is forbidden to use mechanical devices to feed one’s animals one may do so by hand.” In other words, הלעטה describes the crudest form of introducing food into one’s mouth.
  מן האדם האדם הזה, a reference to the lentils, which when peeled, look reddish. The reason why he repeated the word האדם unnecessarily was that it reflects his intense desire for them. This is why he called his name Edom, to reflect the fact that he was always attracted, nay, fascinated by anything red.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  ויאמר יעקב מכרה כיום, the letter כ in the word כיום is known as the כ האמתי, a formulation we also encounter in Samuel I 9,13 כי אותו כהיום תמצאון אותו, “for truly today you will find him.” Other examples of this prefixכ  being used to emphasise the truth of something are found in Numbers 11,1 and Proverbs 10,20, as well as in Hoseah 5,10. In our verse the letter כ means that Yaakov did not want Esau to sell him the birthright symbolically, but that he meant for a fully fledged legal transaction to be completed, his making a proper kinyan acquisition. [I believe this supports the view of our sages that what was at stake was not Esau’s share as a firstborn in an extra third of his father’s estate, something that at this point was only a potential claim as opposed to an actual claim, and therefore could not have been transferred legally in a binding manner. What was at stake were obligations a firstborn is duty bound to fulfill from the time he is physically and mentally capable of doing so. Yaakov felt that Esau was spiritually not equipped to perform such duties, hence he wanted to relieve him of them. Yaakov could not acquire the spiritual aspects of the birthright merely by pointing out to Esau that it was a burden for him anyway, as the position of the firstborn was something firmly entrenched in the culture of his time. Seeing that the world at that time was concerned with material wealth primarily, Yaakov had to compensate Esau according to the terms other people would understand as being appropriate. Ed.] In spite of Yaakov compensating his brother Esau in “real” terms for something to which his claim was thus far only potential, he was punished for initiating such a sale because he had upset the norms of civilised society by doing so. The fact that Esau rose to great prominence and distinction and hardly seems to have suffered any disadvantage for the deal Yaakov offered him, did not exonerate Yaakov from trying to upset the norms of society. [this view, i.e. that Yaakov paid Esau with money, not with a dish of lentils, is supported at least in part by Ibn Ezra. Ed.]
  
  Verse 32
  
  ויאמר  עשו, it is not clear whether the Torah records Esau’s reflections on Yaakov’s demand, something Esau did not articulate, or whether Esau told Yaakov in so many words that the birthright was of no value to him as he did not expect to live long enough to benefit from it
  
  Verse 33
  
  ויאמר השבעה לי, he was afraid that Esau would have second thoughts after having eaten.
  
  Verse 34
  
  ויעקב נתן לעשו, as the price for the birthright. He is not reported as having given Esau wine, as the wine he drank was that belonging to the household of his father. However, fresh bread, which Yaakov had baked for himself, he did give him together with the dish of lentils. My father, of blessed memory, wrote that Yaakov positively compensated Esau with money, and that the dish of lentils and the bread he gave him and which they both ate together was only to seal the bargain between them, a custom to which we have already referred. [It is difficult to know whether our author adopted this interpretation, or whether he did not consider it as the plain meaning of the text as written. Personally, seeing that the author generally distinguishes between a past tense constructed with a letter ו when appearing as a prefix to a future mode, and the ordinary past tense, the word נתן instead of ויתן should have made him adopt his father’s interpretation as the plain meaning. Ed.] 
  וילך, he returned to the field to continue hunting.
  ויבז, even after he had eaten and drunk he did not feel that Yaakov had tricked him and taken advantage of him when he had felt hungry.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויהי רעב בארץ, in the land of Canaan.
  מלבד, meaning that since the last mentioned famine in Genesis chapter 12, there had not been another famine in the land of Canaan. The only reason Avraham had left the land of Canaan at that time had been the famine, and his desire to save the vast herds of cattle and sheep owned by him at that time.
  וילך יצחק, Yitzchok, relying on the treaty between his father and Avimelech the King of the Land of the Philistines, considered it the natural thing to do to move to the region ruled over by Avimelech in order to sojourn there until the famine would pass. Avimelech at that time had stipulated that the treaty between them would remain in force for grandchildren and great grandchildren of the signatories. (21,23)
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  וירא, perhaps it had been part of Yitzchok’s plan to move all the way to Egypt as had done his father in similar circumstances, knowing that the food supply in Egypt was more abundant than that in any other country in the civilised world at the time. G’d appeared to him, meaning to dissuade him from carrying out such a plan, seeing that in the Land of the Philistines there was no famine at the time. In view of this, G’d said it would be better for him to reside there on a temporary basis than to move all the way south to Egypt. The Land of the Philistines is historically considered as part of the Land of Canaan as we have written in connection with 15,21 in reference to 15,18. G’d repeats this in verse 3 so that there could be no doubt about it [as some of us might have thought after considering that Avraham might have signed it away when he concluded his treaty with Avimelech at Beer Sheva. Ed.]
  שכון בארץ אשר אמר אליך, in this verse the instruction is שכון, “make a permanent residence,” whereas in verse 3 the same instruction speaks of גור בארץ, “establish a temporary residence.” The commandment is reinforced that Yitzchok should not leave the Land of Canaan at that time or at any time in the future, the reason being
  אשר אומר אליך, what I have said to your father is equally valid for you. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  גור...לך ולזרעך, I have already explained this in connection with the previous verse.
  
  Verse 4
  
  והרבתי...ונתתי לך לזרעך, for them it will be an outright gift as they will not only dwell there but will expel the gentiles from this land. The word זרעך is intended to apply to the descendants of Yaakov, seeing that this is the only seed common to Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov. והתברכו, I have explained this on 23,18.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  עקב אשר שמע אברהם, the reason why I have given him the land is because he heeded my voice even to the extent of offering his only son as a burnt-offering.
  משמרתי, מצותי, חוקותי, ותורותי, G’d included all the commandments, hinting that all the commandments, i.e. chukotai, contain elements of which the rationale has been revealed and some which have not. Even the seven Noachide laws, applicable universally, contain elements the reason for which has not ever been revealed to the people but whose rationale is familiar only to the wisest scholars. Examples of such commandments are: the prohibition of grafting or crossbreeding, eating (amputated) limbs of a living animal אבר מן החי. To describe such laws, the Torah here mentions the word חוקותי, “My statutes,” whereas the description מצותי refers to commandments which the human mind understands or even applauds. It matters not that these commandments be performed by different parts of the body, i.e. the mouth, the hands, or merely the heart. Similarly, it matters not whether they are positive commandments, requiring action, or negative commandments requiring self-restraint. Some commentators (compare Torah Shleymah 25) claim that Avraham was only 3 years old when he recognised the existence of G’d and began to worship him, so that the numerical value of the letters in the word עקב=172 would comprise the number of years which Avraham carried out G’d’s commandments. Other commentators place the time when Avraham became convinced of monotheism as the only religion as being when he had completed his fortieth year. (Bereshit Rabbah 30,8) This appears to be more probable. Our sages claim that Avraham observed all the commandments spelled out in the written and the oral Torah including such rabbinic ordinances as Eyruv Tavshilim (Yuma 28). They base this on the word משמרתי, seeing this word refers generally to the type of “security fence” סיג, introduced by the Rabbis to safeguard us against violating Biblical injunctions. What the rabbis meant therefore was that Avraham invented such safeguards for himself in order not to violate the basic prohibitions.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  וישב, he accepted G’d’s instruction to remain within the boundaries of the land promised to his father Avraham.
  
  Verse 7
  
  וישאלו...לאשתו, an inquiry regarding his marital status, especially the woman in whose company he had been seen. We find a parallel construction in 20,13. There are numerous such constructions, and I have dealt wit them in my commentary on 12,12.
  
  Verse 8
  
  ויהי...וישקף, compare our commentary on 18,16 on the word וישקיפו. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  ויקרא...אך הנה אשתך, the word אך in this verse means the same as the word אבל, “but, however.” It also appears in this sense in Exodus 31,13 אך את שבתותי תשמורו, “but you must observe My Sabbath days,” (even when engaged in building the Tabernacle) In Exodus 21,22, when speaking about someone dying as a result of an injury deliberately inflicted upon him, the Torah writes אך אם יום או יומים יעמוד, “but if the victim can stand on his feet for a day or two days, etc.” (his death is not directly attributable to the injury described). In our verse, Avimelech challenges Yitzchok who had presented his wife as being his sister by saying: “but I have seen with my own eyes that she is your wife!” He used the fact that he had observed Yitzchok being intimate with Rivkah as proof that therefore she must be his wife, as no one sleeps with a woman who is not his wife.
  ואיך אמרת, the Avimelech mentioned in our chapter here was not the same one that lived in the days of Avraham. Had he been the same it is inconceivable that he could have asked Yitzchok such a question. He had, after all, had experience with Sarah and Avraham concerning the same subject. The Kings of the Philistines generally assumed the title “Avimelech,” just as the Kings of Egypt generally assumed the title “Pharaoh.”
  
  Verse 10
  
  ויאמר.. כמעט שכב, he meant that it had been very likely that someone among his people would have slept with Rivkah seeing that Yitzchok had represented her as being his sister. They would not have considered such a sexual encounter as something sinful and therefore Yitzchok would have been to blame for any guilt arising from such an encounter.
  
  Verse 11
  
  ויצו, after Avimelech had found out that Rivkah was Yitzchok’s wife, he had to inform the people of this fact to ensure that no one would touch her. Also, he had to warn the people not to harm Yitzchok, so that he would not be killed on account of his wife.
  
  Verse 12
  
  ויזרע...מאה שערים, 100 times as much as they had expected to harvest from this planting.
  'ויברכהו ה, He made him successful in all his undertakings.
  
  Verse 13
  
  ויגדל, in material wealth and all types of possessions.
  הלוך וגדל  the word הלוך is an infinitive mode of the verb, whereas the word גדל is an adjective or also an infinitive.. We encounter a parallel construction in Exodus 12,9 ובשל מבושל. The meaning of the phrase is that Yitzchok’s wealth kept on increasing and he kept on becoming a man of great substance until he had reached a point where he could be described as גדול מאד, “very great.”
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  ויהי לו מקנה צאן ומקנה בקר, he had acquired both flocks of sheep and herds of cattle. Both words מקנה have the vowel tzeyreh indicating that they are in a construct mode. 
  ועבודה רבה, he also engaged extensively in agriculture. Compare Proverbs 12,11, עובד אדמתו, “tilling his own land.” Compare also Genesis 4,11 כי תעבוד את האדמה, “when you till the soil.”
  ויקנאו אתו, they were jealous of him on account of his astounding success.  The absence of the dagesh in the letter נ indicates that this is an intransitive mode of the verb קנא.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  וכל הבארות, after Avraham had died the local populace was no longer afraid of Yitzchok. Also, the Avimelech with whom Avraham had made the pact and who had restored the wells to Avraham had died in the interval. Why then did the Philistines stop up the wells instead of using them for their own flocks? They were afraid that in the event that when Yitzchok would grow up he would be as powerful a figure as his father he would appropriate these wells. Therefore, they reasoned the only way to deny him these wells is by also denying them to themselves. Therefore they closed them up so that no one supposedly would be able to locate them.
  
  Verse 16
  
  ויאמר ..כי עצמת, you have become wealthier and able to dispense more good than we. He used the plural ending nu instead of nee, i.e. ממני, meaning that Yitzchok had become not only more powerful than any individual in his country, but even more powerful than a whole group of Philistines collectively. He suggested that Yitzchok exposed himself to acts of violence due to the jealousy of him of so many Philistines so that even Avimelech’s warning to his people not to molest him might be ignored. My father of blessed memory understood the word ממנו as applying to all the Philistines collectively.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  וילך..בנחל גרר. The word נחל describes a valley even though there was no river in that valley. We have another example of this in Deuteronomy 2,36 העיר אשר בנחל, “the city which was located in the valley,” or Samuel II 24,5 ימין העיר אשר בנחל, “to the right of the city in the valley.” The most potent proof for our statement is Genesis 26,19 ויחפרו עבדי יצחק בנחל, “the servants of Yitzchok dug in the valley.” If there had been water, a rivulet, or something in the valley, what did they have to dig for? Gerar was the name of the town in that valley, the place where Yitzchok settled. He dug many wells in that region as he owned much livestock and had to provide water for his beasts.
  
  Verse 18
  
  וישב יצחק...אשר חפרו, the servants of his father.
  כשמות, with the same names in order to maintain unbroken continuity of ownership.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  ויחפרו, they dug even deeper than initially in order to supply sufficient water for the livestock.
  וימצאו שם באר מים חיים, after they kept digging, they found this additional well beneath the old well. This is why the Torah did not write that they found מים, i.e. simply water, but באר, that they found a new source of water.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  ויריבו  לנו המים, as we explained in connection with Avraham and Avimelech (21,25), the quarrel was if the source of the water was part of the region of Gerar or part of the region of Beer Sheva. The old quarrel resurfaced now between the shepherds of Yitzchok and those of Gerar.
  ויקרא שם הבאר עשק, He gave it a name so that in the future when he would become more powerful than they, the shepherds of Gerar would not be able to claim the well as theirs without protest. The very name already foreshadowed that the claim to this well would be disputed. The meaning of the name עשק as describing dispute is known to us from our sages in Baba Kama 9 המוכר את השדה ויצאו עליה עשיקין, “if someone sells a field and a quarrel ensues concerning it.”
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  ויחפרו...שטנה, from the word “Satan.” The name reflected the fact that every time they dug with success they would be subjected to this hatred.
  
  Verse 22
  
  ויעתק, he removed his digging tools from the immediate neighbourhood so that the shepherds of Gerar should not be able to claim future discoveries of water as belonging to them. It was clear beyond doubt that the area where Yitzchok’s servants dug now belonged to the region of Beer Sheva. This is why he called this well רחובות, to inform subsequent generations that the ownership of this well had never been disputed.
  ופרינו בארץ, seeing that this is not subject to dispute we can now become fruitful and multiply in this land.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  ויעל משם באר שבע. This was not far away from Gerar as we already explained. As to the reason for the expression ויעל, “he went up,” the reason for this is that the part of the Land of Israel which is known as the traditional Land of Israel was on a spiritually higher level than the part occupied by the Philistines. This is also why we find the expression ויעלו פלשתים in Judges 15,9 (against Shimshon) as well as the phrase uttered by King Sha-ul in Samuel I 14,36 נרדה אחרי פלשתים, “Let us pursue the Philistines by descending.” This expression occurs again and again. [this seems unnecessary as any student of the topography of Eretz Yisrael knows that the Philistines lived in the coastal strip, i.e. the topographically lowest region of the country, so that considerations distinguishing between areas of higher sanctity and lesser sanctity are hardly needed to help us understand the wording of the Torah here. Ed.] All these stories about the digging of the wells and the names they were called by were intended to inform us that in the part of Eretz Yisrael traditionally promised to Avraham, his son Yitzchok was digging according to his undisputed right. In those areas he also did not encounter opposition when naming these wells. All of this was an indication to them of which parts of Eretz Yisrael G’d had meant for them to plant seed in, i.e. the part of the land that G’d would give to the Israelites in the first instance. (under Joshua).The regions in which the Philistines dwelled did not really come under full control of the Israelites until many hundreds of years later. This accounts for the ongoing wars at intervals between the Israelites and the Philistines. These skirmishes were basically border-wars, neither side planning to conquer the territory of the other permanently. [according to the author the problem would be permanently settled only in Messianic times. Ed.] It is an outstanding issue similar to the territory of three Canaanite tribes, the Kenite, Knizite and Kadmoni, which formed part of G’d’s promise to Avraham in chapter 15 at the covenant between the pieces but has never yet been under Jewish sovereignty.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  וירא, this vision was meant to encourage Yitzchok not to be afraid on account of these territorial disputes over the sources of water for his flocks. He reassured him that those hating him now would not only give up their opposition but would come pleading for a peace-treaty with him; this is why He added that Yitzchok’s success would be linked to that of G’d’s servant Avraham. We see this promise fulfilled already in verse 26 when the King himself travels to see Yitzchok and is forced to acknowledge that the combination of Yitzchok’s G’d and Yitzchok is too powerful for him to oppose.
  בעבור אברהם עבדי, seeing that Avraham had complied with all of G’d’s instructions just like a slave carrying out the dictates of his master.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  'ויבן...ויקרא בשם ה. Just as Avraham had been in the habit of doing.
  ויט שם אהלו, he fixed his abode in Beer Sheva. 
  ויכרו שם עבדי יצחק, just as Avraham had dug for water there, Yitzchok now ordered his servants to dig a well there. While they were engaged in digging this well and Avimelech came up from Gerar, Yitzchok’s servants came to tell him that they had met with success and had brought in a new well. All of this is reported here to show G’d’s timing was intended to demonstrate to Avimelech that Yitzchok was successful everywhere and that he better be in awe of him.
  
  Verse 26
  
  ואבימלך...ואחוזת מרעהו, Avimelech had a powerful minister whose name was Achuzat (Bereshit Rabbah 64,9) The Massoretes claim that the word is not the name of a human being. Accordingly, the word מרעהו would have to be understood as similar to Kings I 4,5 רעה המלך, “a companion of the king, a close friend.” The leading minister, comparable to a prime minister in a constitutional monarchy, always had the title רע המלך, “the King’s closest associate.” The letter מ in the word מרעהו belongs to the groups of letters known as אותיות א-מ-ת-י-ן which often are used as additional letters. For instance, we find this extraneous letter מ in connection with רע also in Judges 14,20 ותהי אשת שמשון למרעהו אשר רעה לו, “Shimshon’s wife then married one of those who had been his wedding companion.” Onkelos translates the words אחוזת מרעהו as “a group of his supporters.” Accordingly, the verse means that Avimelech took with him a number of his close advisers, friends. According to Onkelos the meaning of the letter מ in the word מרעהו is a mem hashimush, a formative letter varying pronoun endings, etc., so that the word רעהו would be the same as רעיו, His companions, and the unusual plural ending, the same as in Nachum 2,4 מגן גבוריהו, “his warriors’ shields.” The word גבוריהו is an alternate for גבוריו.
  ופיכל שר צבאו, this was the same general who had held this position in Avraham’s time with the former Avimelech.
  
  Verse 27
  
  ויאמר...ותשלחוני, the plural mode here indicates that at the time when Avimelech had expelled Yitzchok he had done so by following the advice of his ministers and notables. He had also said at that time “לך מעמנו,” Go from us!”
  
  Verse 28
  
  ראו, the letter ו at the end instead of the customary letter ה as the last letter of the root is not unique, we encounter it also in Isaiah 6,9 or as בכו לא תבכה, in Isaiah 30,19. There are other parallel verses in Scripture. 
  תהי נא אלה בינותינו, a reference to all the people of his country having sworn to keep this agreement with Yitzchok, to be confirmed by an oath between the two representatives of the parties concerned, i.e. Avimelech and Yitzchok.
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  אם תעשה, they knew that if Yitzchok so intended he was able to harm them, seeing that the people of Beer Sheva would assist him in all that he would ask them to. [Avimelech’s trip to Yitzchok who had labeled him and his cohorts as hating him had been akin to going to the lion’s den. Ed.] For the people around Beer Sheva Yitzchok was a prince of G’d who could do no wrong. He was the personification of his father whom they had greatly admired. This is why Avimelech prefaced with words with the remark: אם תעשה עמנו רעה כאשר לא נגענוך, as if to say: “surely you are not going to repay our kindness with an act of hostility merely because you are now in a position to do so!” The phrase is to be understood as if the word אשר (כאשר) is to mean the same as בעבור, “on account of, in return for.” The word אשר appears in that sense in Kings I 15,13 אשר עשתה מפלצת לאשרה, “on account of the abominable thing she had done.” Another such usage of the word אשר occurs in Deuteronomy 4,40 אשר ייטב לך ולבניך אחריך, “in order that He will do good for you and your children.”
  וכאשר עשינו עמך רק טוב, the word וכאשר at the beginning of Avimelech’s words must be imagined as having been repeated after the word טוב, as if he had said ובעבור שלא עשינו עמך רק טוב, “and on account of the fact that we have only treated you kindly.” We find a similar construction in Psalms 9,19 ותקות ענוים תאבד לעד,”the hope of the afflicted will not be lost forever;” in that phrase the word “not” appears in the first half of the verse, i.e. כי לא לנצח ישכח אביון, “for the hope of the destitute will not be ignored (forgotten) forever. There are many such constructions throughout Scripture where a word at the beginning of the verse is doing double-duty, i.e. must be assumed to have been written also in the second half of the same verse in order to make it intelligible.
  'אתה עתה ברוך ה, seeing that G’d has made you so successful you are now in a position to do us harm if you so desire. This would not be appropriate seeing that we have throughout treated you in a friendly manner while we had been in a position to inflict harm upon you. Even when we expelled you we did so in a manner that did not make you suffer an indignity. When we told you to leave, this was only on account of the envy your success had aroused among the Philistine man in the street. We wanted to insure that they would not allow their envy of you to provoke them into harming you.
  
  Verse 30
  
  ויעש להם משתה, in order to preserve the friendly atmosphere he prepared a feast for them and they ate and drank together.
  
  Verse 31
  
  וישכימו..וישלחם, they rose early and he sent them off after accompanying them for the appropriate distance.
  
  Verse 32
  
  ויהי ביום ההוא, before Avimelech and his entourage had departed. This was deliberately timed by G’d to demonstrate to Avimelech the extent of Yitzchok’s success so that they would remain in awe of him.
  
  Verse 33
  
  ויקרא אותה שבעה, on account of the oath that Yitzchok and Avimelech had sworn there. Avraham had done the same. (21,31) Even though he had not named the well itself שבעה, he named the entire region Beer Sheva, both on account of the oath and on account of the seven sheep which had been the physical symbol of that oath. Both Avraham and Yitzchok named the event in the presence of Avimelech.
   As to the Torah writing: על כן שם העיר באר שבע, and we know that the place had been known by that name already since the days of Avraham, the Torah informs us that the name Avraham gave it might not have endured, but that this event now ensured that the name would be permanent. When a certain location commemorates two historic events both in the life of the father and that of the son, this will be remembered for far longer as everyone recognises that more than coincidence was the reason why the historic event which produced the name occurred precisely there. 
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  ויהי עשו, the reason why he did not marry until he was 40 years of age was that he wanted to emulate his father who had married at the age of 40. He wanted to create the impression that he was walking in the footsteps of his father. However, he did not observe his father’s ways who had not been allowed to marry a woman of Canaanite descent. In that respect he followed his eyes, judging by external appearances, not ancestry, and personal virtues. He had not bothered to consult with his father. He was guided by the influence the family of his wives wielded in the land of Canaan, for after mentioning the names of the wives it becomes clear that the father of each was a well known personality. Seeing Esau appeared a great man to the fathers of these girls, they consented to let him marry them.
  
  Verse 35
  
  ותהיין מורת רוח, they angered their in-laws and opposed them in every way. They even reversed the customs practiced by Rivkah in her household.
  מרת, a noun, just as מרת נפש in Proverbs 14,10. The root of the word is מרר, embitter, the only difference between the word here and that in Proverbs being the vowel under the letter מ. Here we have the vowel cholem, whereas in Proverbs it is written with a kametz chataf, abbreviated vowel kametz. It is also possible that the root of the word here is מרה, in the sense of Isaiah 63,10 מרו ועצבו את רוח קדשו, “they rebelled, and grieved His Holy Spirit.” This too is a variation of the theme of bitterness. If we accept this word as the root of the word מרת in our verse, the meaning would be that these women actively engaged in causing anger, frustration to Yitzchok and Rivkah. The whole story would then have as its purpose to show how disdainful Esau was of the sensitivities of his parents. He did not even protest his wives’ behaviour or move them out of the patriarchal home.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויהי כי זקן, the word זקן is a verb in the past tense. The Torah relates that Yitzchok kept on aging until his eyesight was badly impaired. Yaakov experienced a similar problem; (48,10) In fact most people experience the problem of failing eyesight in their old age. In some instances this is a sudden phenomenon, in others it is a phenomenon experienced gradually. In the case of Yitzchok he was struck with this affliction more than 20 years before he died. He misinterpreted the onset of this phenomenon considering it as foreshadowing that his death would occur soon. In the event he was proven wrong. However, this is what prompted him to call in Esau at this time to bestow his blessing upon him before his death. Perhaps this failure of his eyesight at a premature time was one of the afflictions with which the righteous are sometimes afflicted. It may be that the reason why the Torah bothers with telling us this detail is to inform us that G’d subjects some of the righteous to some afflictions in this life in accordance with His wisdom. Some commentators attribute Yitzchok’s premature blindness to the smoke of the incense burned by his daughters-in-law to their respective deities. (quoted by Rashi).
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  ויאמר...לא ידעתי יום מותי. Perhaps I will die suddenly so that I will not have a chance to bless you close before my death.
  
  Verse 3
  
  ועתה...כליך, the tools you use to hunt with.
  תליך וקשתך, now he spelled out the tools in detail. Possibly, there were other hunting instruments in addition to these. תליך, is the quiver in which one keeps the arrows. Onkelos translates it as סיפך, “your sword,” (the ending ך in the word as a personal pronoun.). A sword would also be a tool which is hung in a scabbard, or suspended from one’s belt, so. that the root תלה implied in the word תליך is part of his translation.
  וצא השדה, Yitzchok issued this instruction as Esau did not go out hunting on a daily basis.
  צידה, spelled with the letter ה, but read as ציד. According to a well known aggadic interpretation the letter ה is an allusion to 5 major halachic requirements in killing an animal to make it fit for consumption by Jews. (compare Torah Shleymah 23)
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  ועשה, he did not ask for venison because there was shortage of food in his home, for he was exceedingly wealthy. We observe that aged people progressively get tired of the food they are used to, and they crave something new to give them an incentive to eat and enjoy their food. Venison is a different kind of meat, not comparable in taste to the meat of sheep or goats or beef. Therefore Yitzchok asked Esau to bring him something which would put him in a pleasant frame of mind, the kind of good feeling which is a necessary prelude to bestowing a blessing with one’s entire heart. He was well aware that he needed something to put him into the right frame of mind as Esau’s general conduct was not one that commended itself to his father so that he would gladly volunteer such a blessing as he felt he was obligated to dispense. There would be no need to send Yaakov on such an errand prior to blessing him, as his righteousness made blessing him something natural.
  
  Verse 5
  
  ורבקה היתה שומעת בדבר יצחק, she saw that Esau had gone to carry out his father’s instructions and she told Yaakov about it as she was jealous that Esau should obtain this blessing. She did not realise that Yaakov would be blessed even if he did not receive a blessing from his father, and that was also what his father had assumed. Yitzchok was a righteous man, and he would never have become guilty of depriving Yaakov of a blessing which he deserved by giving it to Esau instead. Rivkah was so consumed with her love for Yaakov that she advised him to engage in cheating in order to secure the blessing for himself. She did not feel that there was something sinful in doing that.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  ורבקה..לאמר, she had a conversation with her son Yaakov, at the end of which she told him that his father had sent out Esau to bring him venison as a prelude to receiving the blessing.
  
  Verse 7
  
  הביאה, she gratuitously added the words 'לפני ה, as if they had been Yitzchok’s words (which they were not). She intended thereby to convince her son Yaakov that the blessing about to be given to Esau was of an unusual, critical importance, one that would reflect a prophetic utterance by Yitzchok.
  
  Verse 8
  
  ועתה...לך נא אל הצאן, to their flocks.
  טובים, fat ones. We find that Avraham (18,7) also offered the angels calves which were רך וטוב, “tender and fat.” When we read about the seven good cows Pharaoh saw in his dream (41,26), the word for “fat” is also טובות.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  ויאמר...שעיר. seeing that his skin was covered with hair all over, even his hands and throat.
  
  Verse 12
  
  אולי...כמתעתע, seeing that he can hardly see I would deceive him saying that I am Esau, and if he will feel me and find that my skin is smooth, he will become angry and demand to know how I dared to deceive him and instead of blessing me he will curse me.
  ימושני, the root of the word is משש, the letter shin has a dagesh.
  כמתעתע, the root of the word is תעה, even though both the first and second root letters appear twice in the word.  We have a parallel expression מעשה תעתועים in Jeremiah 10,15, as well as in Chronicles II 36,16 ומתעתועים בנביאיו, a reference to false prophets and religious dignitaries who deceive their followers.
  והבאתי, I will be the cause of bringing a curse upon myself.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  וילך..ותקח...החמודות, costly garments which he would wear on special occasions, especially when taking his places among the leading personalities of his time. He would keep these clothes wrapped in fragrant flowers from the field so that they would exude such a fragrance when worn. This is why Yitzchok reacted to Yaakov’s appearing before him dressed in these garments by saying: “the fragrance of my son is like the fragrance of the field.” Rivkah also covered Yaakov’s throat and arms with the skins from the goats so that Yitzchok would think that Esau was indeed standing before him.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  ותתן את המטעמים, no mention is made of the meat as it was included in what is described here as מטעמים, The latter are considered as the major ingredient of the meal as this is what Yitzchok had asked his son Esau for (verse 4). He wanted the meal to be well spiced so that he would find it tasty, to his liking.
  ואת הלחם, for she prepared fresh bread for him. 
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  ויבא אל אביו, into the room where he was lying down. He called to him: אבי, seeing he (Yitzchok) could not see him.
  הנני, with a dagesh in both letters נ.
  ?מי אתה, seeing that he had addressed him simply with the word אבי, he had doubts about whose voice he had heard he had to ask: “who are you?”
  
  Verse 19
  
  ויאמר...אנכי עשו בכרך, some people wonder how Yaakov, a righteous person, could say something like this, an outright lie in their opinion. Actually, the matter is not so strange seeing that Yaakov knew that he was entitled to the blessing more than his brother, and that the spirit of prophecy would come to rest on Yitzchok so that he would bless him instead. If, in a situation such as this, the tzaddik changes words so that they sound like a lie, this is in order and does not reflect on him negatively. Our example is Samuel I 16,2 where G’d tells the prophet Samuel to go and crown one of Yishai’s sons as the future king of Israel. In order to escape suspicion in case Sha-ul would challenge his trip to Chevron where Yishai lived, G’d told him to take with him a calf and to claim that he was taking it to Chevron to offer as a sacrifice. Besides, Yaakov was well aware that both his father and his grandfather had on occasion told lies about the marital status of their wives. No one ever accused either as having told lies, seeing there was an adequate reason for telling such a lie. Yaakov therefore was entitled to tell such a lie under the circumstances, and by representing himself as the one who was to get this blessing this did not turn him into a liar. Furthermore, in doing what he did he carried out his mother’s instructions. The Torah specifically orders איש אמו ואביו תיראו “you shall be in awe of your mother and father.” (Leviticus 19,3) Also, his mother was known to be a prophetess, so that her instructions could be trusted without reservations. Onkelos translates verse 13 עלי קללתך בני, to mean that what Rivkah said was “I have received a prophetic vision telling me that you will not be cursed.”
  קום נא שבה, he told his father to get up and sit up as he had found him lying down.
  ואכלה, an imperative mode with an added letter ה, the letter א having a chataf kametz, an abbreviated vowel kametz.
  
  Verse 20
  
  ויאמר יצחק, because of the sound of Yaakov’s voice his mind had been alerted so that he began to examine the person standing before him more closely. The fact that so little time had elapsed since he instructed Esau to go hunting made him suspicious that it might not be Esau standing there.
  כי הקרה ה' אלוקיך, “your merit has assisted me to accomplish my mission so quickly, seeing that what I did was for your sake.”
  
  Verse 21
  
  ויאמר...ואמשך בני, the letter ש in the word ואמשך lacks the dagesh we would expect if it were in the transitive mode. It should have had this dagesh just as it is written with the dagesh in the word ימושני in verse 12 and in verse 22.
  
  Verse 22
  
  ויגש...והידים, he did not examine the skin on the (supposed) smooth part of his throat. He relied solely on checking his arms.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  ולא...ויאמר אתה זה, this is a form of a question, even though it is not accompanied by the letter  ה in front of the word אתה which we would have expected to introduce such a question. We find a similar construction in Kings I 1,24 אתה ומרת אדניה ימלוך אחרי? “did you (King David) say that “Adoniah will rule after me?” There are numerous similar constructions in Scripture. The reason why Yaakov phrased this as a question was that he was still not convinced that it was Esau because the voice [as well as the mode of speech. Ed.] was so similar to that of Yaakov. He was afraid of appearing as swindling Esau to whom he had promised the blessing, if he we were to bless Yaakov instead, although he loved Yaakov dearly. This is why he still continued with the examination.
  
  Verse 25
  
  ויאמר...ואכלה מציד בני, as if he had said: “from your venison.” However, he used a formulation which was customary at the time.
  ויבא לו יין, in order to gladden his heart. In those days people generally did not drink wine with their meals unless the expression משתה, is employed by Scripture to indicate that wine was served.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  "And kiss me". And he did not say "And I will kiss you". Kissing always depends on the greater party who kisses someone of lesser status. When they are equal each one kisses his fellow as in "And each man kissed his friend". Rather he said so (kiss me) because Yitzchak could not see Yaakov and was not able to kiss only to feel. Therefore he told his son to kiss him.
  
  Verse 27
  
  ויגש...וירח את ריח בגדיו, while he was still engaged in kissing him the fragrance of Yaakov’s clothes inspired Yitzchok. We had described the fact that one kept good clothing in scented bags or wooden boxes until they would be worn again.
  ויברכהו, after having inhaled the pleasant fragrance of his clothes and having said: 'ראה ריח בני כריח שדה אשר ברכו ה, that he enjoyed the odour of his clothes. Why, if he blessed him after inhaling the fragrance, does the Torah write the word ויברכהו before describing the odour of the clothing in detail? This was to tell us that Yitzchok’s heart was already gladdened by both the food and the wine so that the Holy Spirit came to rest upon him and to inspire the blessing.
  ראה, an imperative mode; who was this addressed to? This was not addressed to a specific person, but it is a mode of speech addressed to anyone who considers what follows as pertinent to himself. We have a similar usage of the imperative not being addressed to someone specific in Jeremiah 13,18 אמר למלך ולגבירה, as well as in Isaiah 60,6 קול אומר קרא!, “a voice says: call out!” No specific person is addressed by this proclamation. Similarly, in Isaiah 35,3 חזקו ידים רפות. Also in verse 4 of that chapter we encounter a similar construction.
  'אשר ברכו ה, He blessed the field, i.e. the grass growing there was of good quality. “The fragrance of my son is comparable to the growth of the vegetation on the field which G’d has blessed.” The meaning of the letter ו at the beginning of the next verse which commences with the actual blessing, is not that it adds to what preceded it, but that it introduces something new. It is similar to the letter ו in וישא אברהם את עיניו in 22,13 where it also is not a continuation of what preceded it but the beginning of a new paragraph, a new detail of the story being discussed. There are many examples of the letter ו performing such a function. It is, however, also possible to explain the letter ו at the end of the word ברכו, as referring to Yitzchok’s son, so that Yitzchok would be saying: “behold the fragrance of my son which is like a field which G’d has blessed, so that his blessing would be that Yaakov should continue to enjoy such fragrance also in the future. The blessing would then continue in the next verse with the words ויתן לך spelling out specific elements of that blessing. The letter ו in ויתן would then be the standard connective letter ו.
  
  Verse 28
  
  ויתן לך...מטל השמים, something that you will require. Yitzchok did not mention rain, seeing that dew is always beneficial whereas rain can prove very destructive on occasion, as we know from the deluge or when it falls at the wrong time. These blessings were said not only to Yaakov (Esau) personally, but were meant to remain effective also for his offspring. Similarly, the blessing Yitzchok gave to Esau afterwards was also meant not only for himself but for his descendants afterwards.
  ומשמני, the letter מ in the word מטל is to be understood as if it were written twice as if the Torah had written וממטל (the מ in front of the letter ש not having been a formative letter in the word ומשמני) Alternatively, the meaning of the word assuming the letter מ was a formative letter, it would be the same as the word משמני in the blessing Esau received in verse 39.
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  יעבדוך....הוה גביר לאחיך, a reference to Esau’s sons (descendants); the same is meant when Yitzchok speaks about בני אמך, “your mother’s sons,” i.e. her descendants. These blessings came true in the time when David defeated the Edomites, and they will come true again in the days of the Messiah.
  אררך ארור, in the singular mode, meaning each person cursing you will be cursed individually.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  ויהי...מצידו, as if the Torah had written מצודו, “from his hunting expedition.” The Torah chose a noun instead of a verb in its infinitive form. We find a similar construction in Numbers 10,2 ולמסע את המחנות, which means the same as ולהסיע את המחנות, “and to set the camps (army groups) in motion.” We also find such a construction in Ezekiel 17,9 למשאות אותה משרשיה, “and to remove it from its roots.” A third example which comes to mind is Numbers 23,10 ומספר את רבע ישראל, “or number the animals born to the livestock of Israel?” The word מספר is used there as if the Torah (Bileam) had said לספר, “to count.” [I assume that when the Torah quotes a human being, such as here, G’d dictated Bileam’s words to Moses, seeing that neither Moses nor any other Jew had heard a single one of Bileam’s blessings. Ed.]
  
  Verse 31
  
  ויעש...ויאמר, this is quite clear.
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  ויחרד; he displayed his emotional upset in front of Esau in order that Esau should not think he had deliberately fooled Esau by blessing Yaakov. He said:
  מי איפוא, the words mean: “who is he, and where is he now?”
  ואכל מכול, of all the tasty dishes which he served me.
  בטרם תבא, “before you could come. If I had not eaten of all the type of food he had prepared for me, and you would have arrived while I was in the middle of eating, I would have stopped eating from his food and have helped myself to yours and have blessed you. However, since I have eaten my fill before you came I cannot do this now since I have blessed him already.” 
  גם ברוך יהיה, since I have already blessed him I confirm my blessing for I knew that he was my son (not an outsider).
  
  Verse 34
  
  כשמוע...גם אני, “I am also your son, no less than he is.” The letter א in the word אני has the vowel kametz, although it does not signify a comma or something similar, as it is intended to stress the word “I.” We find a similar construction in 31,52 אם אני לא אעבור אליך, where we also would not have expected the kametz instead of the vowel patach. There too, the kametz is used to provide emphasis on the word “I.” Another example of the use of the kametz in the word אני as a means of emphasizing the speaker is Psalms 89,28 אף-אני בכור אתנהו, “I will appoint him firstborn.”
  
  Verse 35
  
   ויאמר...במרמה, by making his hands appear hairy.
  
  Verse 36
  
  ויאמר, when Esau heard that his brother had used subterfuge to obtain the blessing by making his hands appear as if they were hairy, he said: הכי קרא שמו יעקב, “he was called the crooked one for good reason!” The letter ה at the beginning of the word הכי serves as confirmation of something, as if to say: “truly!” We find it used in a similar sense in Kings I 21,19 הרצחת וגם ירשת!, “ You not only murdered but meant to inherit!” Or, Numbers 20,10: המן הסלע הזה! “from this very rock!” Esau said that Yaakov had truly deserved the name they had given him at birth. Actually, the word יעקב has two connotations; one is connected to deviousness, deceit, as in Jeremiah 17,10 עקוב הלב , “the heart is full of deceit;” or, also from Jeremiah 9,3 כי כל אח עקוב יעקב, “every brother takes advantage.” On the other hand, the word also is derived from עקב, heel, not a negative connotation at all, but possibly a positive one, suggesting humility, modesty, the opposite of pushiness. Yaakov combined both qualities.
  ויעקבני,  he tricked me twice.
  את בכורתי לקח, there is no greater type of craftiness than to exploit one’s brother’s hunger and fatigue and to buy his birthright for a dish of lentils. Now he has also taken my blessing by deceit.
  הלא אצלת לי ברכה, “you have not even reserved a minor blessing for me!” You have given everything to him. How could that be?
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  ויען, concerning the exclamation that Yitzchok had not even reserved a small blessing for Esau, he answered: הן גביר שמתיו לך, ואת כל אחיו נתתי לו, seeing that I have appointed him as senior to you and to all his brothers, (compare verse 29) i.e. to Esau’s brothers (kin)
  סמכתיו, I have appointed him as central, i.e. have decreed that all his family be close to him for all times (compare the word תסמכני in Psalms 51,14 ורוח נדיבה תסמכני, “let a vigorous spirit sustain me.” This can only be effective if all the relatives are close by. It is also possible that the meaning of the word סמכתיו is סעד, משען support of a financial and psychological type. If so, the prefix ב in the word סמכתיו would be missing, as if Yitzchok had said: ובדגן ותירוש, “and with corn and wine,” instead of ודגן ותירוש.
  ולכה איפוא, as for you, now מה אעשה, what can I do? What kind of a blessing remains for you after all this? The formulation is similar to Isaiah 22,16 מה לך איפוא, “what have you here?”
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  ויאמר...אחת, can you not even grant me a blessing concerning any aspect of life which you have not given him?
  
  Verse 39
  
  ויען...הנה משמני הארץ, the earth which you will inherit and on which you will dwell will belong to the most productive areas of the earth, i.e. the Mountain of Seir.
  ומטל השמים, your land will be rich and from above it will enjoy the dew from heaven so that this will be a blessing adequate to sustain you and will be also a blessing for him, seeing that his land will also be fruitful, productive.
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  ועל חרבך תחיה. This is the one blessing which will be exclusively yours, your ability to survive by means of your sword and the fear you will inspire in your enemies. They will fear your prowess in war.
  ואת אחיך תעבוד, this too is a blessing as it is of benefit to you to serve your brother rather than to have to serve others.
  והיה כאשר תריד, when the time comes when it is your turn to rule over him,
  ופרקת עלו, and then you will not serve him as this (your shaking off his yoke) is his punishment for his sin
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  וישטום...יקרבו ימי אבל אבי, he wished fervently for the day of his father’s death which was expected soon as else why did he already bless his sons? He planned to kill Yaakov after the mourning period after his father would have passed. He did not ant to kill Yaakov while their father was still alive, so as not to be responsible for Yitzchok dying as a result of grief over having lost his son.
  
  Verse 42
  
  ויגד לרבקה, how did she get to know about Esau’s intentions which he had not articulated? It is possible that she experienced a prophetic revelation, seeing that she was a prophetess. (compare Rashi) It is also possible that what Esau had thought about doing, he inadvertently mentioned to someone so that the one who had heard him reported it to Rivkah.
  מתנחם לך להרגך, he acts as if he is already consoling himself over the death of Yaakov. Or, the meaning of this phrase could be that Esau has made peace with his own death because he knows that at least he had first killed you. Once he has accomplished 
  
  Verse 43
  
  ועתה..חרנה, she had heard that her brother had migrated from Ur Casdim to Charan.
  
  Verse 44
  
  וישבת...אחדים, a few; since the number אחד is the lowest of the numbers it is no more than natural to describe a small number in terms of a multiple of “one.”
  
  Verse 45
  
  עד שוב...גם שניכם, one to include the other. We find a similar construction of lumping two people together when they share a single common denominator [such as death in this verse. Ed.] in Genesis 43,8 גם אנחנו גם אתה, “both we and you,” where the wordגם  introduces two entities instead of merely adding one to another, and Yehudah tells his father that sending Binyamin with him will result in  both his father and the brothers and their families being spared death from famine. The rationale of אשכול שניכם יום אחד, is simply that the death of one of the brothers will inevitably be followed immediately by the death of the other.
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  ותאמר...מפני בנות חת, the ones referred to were only those whom Esau had married. Rivkah says that if Yaakov were to marry someone similar, it would be better that she would die now. She considered Yaakov as already single for too many years so that she asked Yitzchok to order him to go to her brother Lavan, thereby saving him both from the avenging sword of his brother and from the daughters of the Canaanites one of whom might want to marry him Once in the house of Lavan, Yaakov would either marry one of Lavan’s daughters or some other woman related to Rivkah.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויקרא ..ויברך אתו, the text of the blessing commences with the words: וא-ל שדי יברך אותך (verse 3).
  
  Verse 2
  
  קום לך, the word קום is not to be understood literally as “rise!,” but as an instruction to go about the task to be fulfilled with speed, without delay. פדנה ארם,  we explained this as meaning “to Charan.”
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  וא-ל שדי...ויתן לך את ברכת אברהם, which G’d pronounced concerning you and your descendants, for just as I was a special seed to my father, though he had other children beside me, you are my special seed and will be the bearer of this promise/prophecy.
  
  Verse 5
  
  וישלח, he sent him off to proceed in the direction he had instructed him. Yaakov complied with his father’s instruction, as the Torah continues וילך פדנה ארם, he took with him sufficient supplies of money and food to last him until he would arrive there. His parents knew that once he would be at his uncle Lavan he would not be short of any of his needs.
  אחי רבקה, Rivkah’s brother. He had ample reason to go there if he had to flee some place, seeing his uncle was a brother of his mother. In this phrase Yaakov is mentioned ahead of Esau, although he was the younger, because his relationship to Rivkah who was also his mother was much closer than that of Rivkah to Esau her older son. Everyone of her family in Padan Aram was aware of their sister Rivkah’s special fondness for Yaakov.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  וירא, seeing that the sense of sight is a more reliable sense of perception than any of the other 4 senses, the Torah describes Esau’s realisation of what had transpired as being visual.
  לקחת לו משם אשה, the fact that Yaakov was fleeing from Esau’s wrath had not become known, everyone thinking he had left to select a bride for himself.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  וישמע, Esau also heard that Yaakov had obediently followed his father’s instructions to get himself a wife from that far away He “saw” now that רעות בנות כנען, that the daughters of the Canaanite whom he had married were considered as evil in the eyes of his father Yitzchok. Even though he had been fully aware of this already previously, seeing that his father had already protested his marrying these girls at the time, he had not made it a major issue to forbid him to marry them as he knew that his major seed would not be Esau. Now Esau  realised how deeply his father resented these daughters-in-law seeing he had sent Yaakov such a long way to get himself a wife from Charan. This is why he went to Ishmael.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  וילך...אחות נביות. This Nevayot was an extremely well known personality, and so was his sister. (25,20) Compare also the formulation in Genesis 10,21 which shows that Yaphet was a well known personality.
  על נשיו, he married Machalat in addition not instead of his other wives. She was to represent a higher level of spirituality in Esau’s household. His other wives now occupied a socially inferior status.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  ויצא יעקב מבאר שבע וילך חרנה, it is the custom of Scriptures to first tell us the beginning and the end of something before elaborating on what occurred in the interval. Other examples of this literary style of the Scriptures are found in Genesis 24,10 ויקם וילך אל ארם נהרים, something that did not all occur on the same day. Similarly, we find the phrase צמח בלי יעשה קמח, “it grew without developing into flour,” without mentioning all the intermediary stages before relating the outcome. (Hoseah 8,7) The reason we have such formulations is because the author hastens to get to the point of the story.
  
  Verse 11
  
  יפגע במקום, while on his way Yaakov encountered one evening a site less than a day’s walk from Beer Sheva. Since it was already evening, the sun having set, he decided to spend the night there as he was too tired to walk any further. The reason why the letter ב in במקום is spelled with the vowel kametz, suggesting that the place was known, is that the location was known as a site where travelers from Beer Sheva would often spend the night.
  ויקח מאבני המקום, one of the stones of the place, for he had not entered the town to spend the night there but preferred to spend the night in the open field.. To that end he placed the stone under his head to serve him as a pillow and lay down there.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  ויחלום, והנה סלם, there are many different opinions among our sages how best to explain this dream, as well as among other readers of the Bible. Some say that this was a preview of the revelation at Mount Sinai and that the numerical value of the letters in the word סלם equals that of the word סיני (130)
  מוצב ארצה וראשו מגיע השמימה, at the revelation of Mount Sinai the angels and the Jewish people were of the same spiritual level, even though Moses and Aaron are described as ascending towards heaven, whereas the angels were descending towards earth. [the thought that Aaron too was ascending toward heaven is quoted in Shemot Rabbah 19,3. Ed.]
  
  Verse 13
  
  והנה ה' נצב עליו, this would be a reference to Exodus 19,20 where we read וירד ה' על הר סיני, “the Lord descended on Mount Sinai.” Others say that G’d showed Yaakov details of the sacrificial service in the Temple, the ladder serving as a model of the function of the altar.
  וראשו מגיע השמימה, an allusion to the smoke from the sacrifices rising from the altar in the Temple, especially that of the daily incense offering. These would be received with goodwill by the Lord.
  והנה מלאכי אלוקים עולים ויורדים בו, a reference to the priests  who offer the animal offerings and the incense. We also find among the explanations given by our sages for this dream (compare Rashi on verse 11 and 17) that Yaakov viewed himself during this dream as standing on Mount Moriah as he was familiar with the appearance of the location from both the description he had heard from his father and from his grandfather Avraham. This is why he said that this place would become the House of G’d in the future and the gateway to heaven (verses 22 and 17). The reason was that this place on earth is directly opposite the throne of G’d in the celestial regions. As to the reason he named the site בית א-ל, this was because he saw in a prophetic vision [seeing that he had been granted the vision there, Ed.] that the site itself was holy, not only the Temple that would be erected on it. This is why he immediately built an altar there. I have also found among the sayings of the sages on these verses that the ladder had 4 rungs. According to that Midrash the width of the ladder was such that 4 angels could simultaneously ascend and descend on it. When they would pass each other on their respective ascent and descent they would occupy the full width of the rung. Each angel symbolised one “governor” of the world as we know from Daniel 10,6 וגויתו כתרשיש. “its body” the size of Tarshish (another term for the “governor.”) These Rabbis have a tradition that Tarshish is one of three such “governors” of the universe. We have to understand what is so important in this interpretation. According to the superficial meaning the width of the ladder would have been wide enough to accommodate 4 such governors, something that seems hard to understand. Maimonides has shown us a window through which to understand what was meant by this statement of Daniel. [the author does not necessarily adopt the views expressed by Maimonides in Moreh Nevuchim section 2, chapters 9 and 10, but employs a similar concept, explaining what occurred on the ladder during Yaakov’s dream. Ed.] He explained that the universe consists basically of three phenomena, the third one being the angels (abstract disembodied intelligent creatures. Moreh Nevuchim 2,10) The four ”rungs” of the ladder would be understood as 4 כדורים described in Moreh Nevuchim second part chapter 9 as a condensation of the nine planets to merely four, some being absorbed to become part of the domain of others. In that scheme of things G’d assigned specific functions to specific planets such as the sun (in charge of fire, heat) and the moon (in charge of water, to wit its influence on the tides), various orbiting planets creating the motion resulting in rain or wind respectively. At any rate, the concept of G’d having assigned 4 distinct such “angels,” i.e. agents of His to run the physical “lower” universe would be what G’d showed Yaakov in the dream of “angels” ascending and descending. Whereas these forces are portrayed in constant motion, such motion by definition cannot be constantly in a single direction. They are therefore portrayed as “ascending” or “descending.” This naturally involves their passing each other at a certain point. Symbolically speaking, the “ladder” the framework within which they operate, must be wide enough to allow this. This is possibly what the Midrash quoted in Maimonides has in mind. [Our editions of the Midrash do not have this paragraph. Ed.] [Another way of looking at the ascending and descending “angels” is that they represent the quest of man for wisdom regarding G’d and His universe, i.e. ascending, and the agents of G’d meeting man halfway in providing him with such knowledge, i.e. “descending.” Alternatively, after man has ascended to receive divinely inspired insights he returns to earth “descends,” to incorporate the newly gained insights in his world view. Akeydat Yitzchok. Ed.] G’d being portrayed as “standing” on top of the ladder is a reminder that the knowledge obtained by man is not from independently powerful phenomena but that these apparently powerful forces are only carrying out His instructions.  
  והנה ה' נצב עליו, the meaning of the word עליו is not clear. It could refer to G’d on top of the ladder, but it could also refer to Yaakov, meaning G’d was providing Yaakov with new insights originating from the wisdom available in the celestial regions, i.e. the top of the ladder. If so, the reason this is described sequentially as an ascent followed by a descent is that the ascent describes man’s learning process, something concentrated in the head, the mind. Once he has absorbed the new knowledge he has to use it, transmit it to the lower parts of his body, which carries out the lessons learned. The reason why the words עולים and יורדים appear in the plural mode is that both the שכל and the פועל, [theoretical pure reason and the practical reason have to absorb these lessons. My wording. Ed.] The descending “angels” describe the two basic elements in G’d’s supervisory scheme of guiding the history of the universe, the direct and indirect supervision and intervention by G’d known as hashgachah peratit, and the general supervision by G’d’s agents the כדורים or גלגלים known in everyday language as mazzalot. Since Yaakov was fleeing from his home, and no doubt his mental and spiritual equilibrium had been traumatised somewhat by recent events, G’d showed him these insights to not only repair the damage, but to provide him with knowledge he had not yet possessed previously. He promised to give him the land that he was presently running away from, and reassured him that it was well within the Supreme Power, the Lord, to accomplish all this when the time would be ripe. He reassured him that he, Yaakov, indeed was Yitzchok’s real descendant and that all the promises made to Avraham would bear fruition through him and his descendants.
  אביך, although Avraham was not your biological father he was like your father to you and not to the other grandchildren he had from other sons. Avraham’s inheritance would devolve only on Yaakov.
  והנה...אשר אתה שוכב עליה, the meaning is not that Yaakov would be given only the tiny piece of earth he was lying on at that time, but G’d referred to the tiny sample of the land of Israel Yaakov was lying on at that type as being a symbol of the land of Israel of the future. We have a similar construction in Genesis 13,15 where G’d speaks of “all the land Avraham can see.” If He had meant that Avraham’s descendants would inherit only what was within Avraham’s range of vision at that moment, the promise would have been meaningless. G’d used the piece of land he stood on as a symbol of what He would give to his descendants in the future. Concerning the Midrash (mentioned by Rashi) that G’d had “folded” the whole of the land of Israel beneath the tiny piece of earth occupied by Yaakov at the time when He made this promise, surely the meaning of the Midrash is that G’d’s promise is to be understood “as if he had folded, etc.”
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  והיה...ופרצת, you and your descendants.
  ונברכו בך, on your account and on account of your descendants all the families of the earth will experience Divine blessings. The reason for this is that He who performs G’d’s commandments and thereby acknowledges His existence and power, deserves that the world exist on his account. Everyone else who is alive and well on earth therefore owes his well being to the Jews keeping the Torah.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  והנה, even though you are presently fleeing, do not be afraid for אנכי, I will be with you, ושמרתיך בכל אשר תלך, both on your way out and eventually, on your way home. 
  כי לא אעזבך עד אשר אם עשיתי, so that in effect I will never abandon you. This promise was to stand by him and his descendants during his entire life, as well as during that of his children.
  אשר אם, this apparently superfluous repetition is meant to reinforce the promise.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  'וייקץ..אכן יש ה, he concluded that this site was a site chosen for revelations, seeing that he had become the recipient of such great and wonderful visions in his dream with the ladder.
  ואנכי לא ידעתי, if I had known that this was a holy site I would not have chosen this site to sleep on. It is possible that this dream represented the beginning of Yaakov’s prophetic visions. This is why he had not been aware of the sanctity of the site until after his dream, seeing that this was the first time G’d had revealed Himself to him in any manner. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  ויירא ויאמר, he was concerned for himself fearing that he might have done something which one is not allowed to do in a holy place. Perhaps while he had been asleep and unable to control his movements, he had behaved in a manner unbefitting such a sacred location.
  ויאמר מה נורא המקום הזה, since he had seen an awe-inspiring vision here he concluded that the whole place may have been an awesome place, not to be approached except in a state of ritual purity.
  אין זה כי אם בית אלוקים, this place is suitable only for becoming a House of G’d, a temple of sorts. a place wherein to pray and to offer sacrifices to G’d. Another explanation of Yaakov’s exclamation could be that he concluded that the only reason he had been shown the vision was to stimulate him to erect a House of G’d there.
  וזה שער השמים, an expression analogous to Chronicles II 30,27 ותבא תפלתם למעון קדשו לשמים, “their prayer reached the residence of His Holiness, to heaven.”
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  וישכם יעקב....וישם מצבה, he erected the stone to its full height.
  ויצק שמן על ראשה, so that he would recognise this stone on his return from Charan. Oil stains on a stone remain for many years and do not disappear. He planned to erect an altar at this site when he would return from Charan. It is also possible that the pouring of oil on that stone was equivalent to pouring a libation of wine on the altar. In fact, when he did return to this site he is reported as doing exactly this (Genesis 35,14) All of this was to be a visible reminder that the Jewish people would take possession, inherit the land promised to them by G’d. Just as Avraham and Yitzchok during their time had treated the land as if it already belonged to them, Yaakov now did the same, albeit it in a miniscule, symbolical way. Once Yaakov had made a monument out of this stone no one had the right to use this stone for his private needs. The fact that some 34 years later he built an altar there using this stone as its foundation, shows that no one in the interval had disputed what this stone had represented. The Torah would not bother to mention that Yaakov had called this site Bet El unless the local people had been informed of this and had not objected to the name change. Clearly, just as the local population had to go along with the wells dug by Avraham and Yitzchok and the names given to these wells because G’d made them respect these patriarchs, so now G’d inspired the local residents to go along with what Yaakov had done there. The attitude G’d inspired in the local population is best described by David in Psalms 105 15 אל תגעו במשיחי ולנביאי אל תרעו, “do not dare touch My anointed, nor do harm to My prophets.”
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  וידר, the vow Yaakov made at this point was a conditional one. The conditional nature did not mean that Yaakov doubted the promise G’d had made to him and G’d’s ability to fulfill it; rather he was afraid that just as all of G’d’s promises presume that the recipient remains worthy of them, so Yaakov was also afraid that some errors he might commit in the future, sinful conduct, would invalidate G’d promises. This is the only reason that he prefaced the vow with the words: “if G’d will be with me, etc.” He was afraid that if he would commit a sin or sins he might never see his father’s house again so that he would be unable to fulfill the vow he was about to make.
  לחם לאכול ובגד ללבוש, he did not ask G’d for anything but the bare necessities of life. He did not need to ask for water as people find enough water to drink all over on earth.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  ושבתי בשלום, with his wife and children, for without them neither he, his father, or his mother would consider themselves at peace, seeing that he was forbidden to marry one of the Canaanite girls.
  והיה ה' לי לאלוקים, this was the gist of the vow, meaning that he would concentrate on the service of the Lord and minimise any mundane activities. Furthermore, he vowed that he would build an altar on the place where he had slept on the stone which he had just anointed. יהיה בית אלוקים, he would build a Temple and altar there so that anyone worshipping the Lord could come there and pray and offer his sacrifices on that altar. It would be a Temple for the G’d in heaven only. Another way of understanding these words could be that he would instruct his children to build a Temple there in the future when they would take possession of the land of Israel. A further vow Yaakov made at this time was: וכל אשר תתן לי עשר אעשרנו לך, I will give a tithe of all the acquisitions including the cattle which You will give me. I will distribute this tithe to needy people in order to encourage them to switch to monotheism. According to Bereshit Rabbah 70,7 the vow included tithing one of his future children to G’d, i.e. appointing him as a servant of the Lord representing the other sons. [As an interesting aside, the Midrash there claims that assigning only one of 12, respectively 14 sons, if we add Ephrayim and Menashe, Yaakov did not “tithe” i.e. give 10% of his children to the Lord, he is reported as having replied that seeing that each of his four wives had one firstborn, someone whose duty it was as a firstborn to devote himself to spiritual matters without his father “donating” him to G’d for such a task, he Yaakov had done well to additionally assign Levi as a “tithe” for the remaining 10 “children.” Ed.] As to the formulation: 
  עשר אעשרנו לך, as a grammatically unusual formulation, this is an accepted formulation as we find it also confirmed in Deuteronomy 11,13 with the same verb, or in Deuteronomy 14,22 שמור תשמרון with a different verb. There are many similar examples of this kind of repetition for emphasis. Our sages in Ketuvot 50 use the formulation used in this verse as teaching that even if one wants to be generous in his donations to charity and holy causes, one should not give away more than 20% of one’s wealth in order not to become an object of charity himself because of carelessly squandering wealth given to one by G’d. The wordsעשר אעשרנו are understood by the Talmud there as applying to two such tithes of 10% each. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  וישא יעקב רגליו, seeing that G’d had given him promises and found him worthy of such a far-reaching prophetic insight, he rejoiced and continued on his way with ease. Up until that night Yaakov had proceeded hesitantly, beset by doubts and anxieties. Although fleeing from the wrath of his brother, seeing that his danger had not been imminent while his father was still alive, he had not been traveling with speed, something typical of people fleeing for their lives.
  וילך ארצה בני קדם, that land lies to the east of the land of Israel, Charan being the first town after one crosses the border into that country. (compare what we have written on 25,6) The Torah does not mention the political name of the country but describes it as “the land of the people of Kedem,” in more general terms. Yaakov left the land of Canaan and crossed into this land, and while being close to Charan, he saw a well in the field.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  וירא והנה באר.. רבצים עליה, the word עליה means “near it,” just as in Numbers 2,20 when the positions of the various army groups of the Israelites are described and the Torah writes ועליו מטה מנשה. The meaning clearly cannot be that the tribe of Menashe was positioned on top of the tribe of the tribe of Ephrayim, but that the tribe of Menashe was positioned close to the tribe of Ephrayim. The term על in the sense of “near, close by,” occurs numerous times in Scripture.
  והאבן גדולה, seeing that there was no other source of water nearby to water the flocks of the people of Charan, the local people had placed an extremely large and heavy rock on top of it so that only in the presence of all the shepherds would the flocks be watered so as to ensure a fair distribution of the available water. This would also help to avoid wasting water remaining in the troughs when no other flock had already lined up at the troughs. Placing such a large stone on the well then was a device designed to help everyone entitled to this water to receive his fair share in the presence of all the shepherds.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  ונאספו שמה...וגללו, the subject of the verse are the various shepherds who have as yet not been mentioned.
  
  Verse 4
  
  ויאמר להם, to the shepherds of the flocks which were laying around in the vicinity of the well.
  אחי, an exclamation incorporating a kind of warning, such as אל נא אחי in Genesis 19,8 “please my brothers, do not, etc.!” It is not unusual for people to refer to people close to them or presumed to be close to them as “brothers,” although no biological family ties exist between them at all. Yaakov employed this preamble in order to at once establish a friendly bond between himself and the shepherds.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  ויאמר להם...בן נחור. He mentioned Lavan’s grandfather rather than his father seeing Nachor had been a well known personality whereas Betuel had not. This is also why we find in Genesis 31,53 the expressionאלוקי אברהם ואלוקי נחור, seeing that Nachor had been well known.
  
  Verse 6
  
  באה, with the stress on the last syllable seeing the word is in the present tense.
  
  Verse 7
  
  ויאמר, ויאמרו, it is clear who the subjects are without their names or vocations having to be restated.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  עטדנו...באה. the word באה this time is in the past tense so that this time its stress is on the first (last but one) syllable. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  ויהי...ויגל את האבן, either together with the other three shepherds on hand, or all by himself. In the event that he did it all by himself, G’d blessed him with extraordinary physical strength at that time.
  
  Verse 11
  
  וישק, since she had realised that Yaakov had done all this on her account, she accepted his kiss. Furthermore, he had told them כי אחי אביה הוא, i.e. a son of her father’s sister, a son of Rivkah, who was known to all the people of Charan to have become married to Yitzchok.
  ויבך, he wept for joy. When close relatives meet after not having seen each other for a while, their emotional cup runs over so that they find it hard to control their feelings and they give way to them by crying for joy.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  כי אחי אביה הוא, i.e. a son of her father’s sister, a son of Rivkah, who was known to all the people of Charan to have become married to Yitzchok.
  
  Verse 13
  
  ויהי כשמוע...ויספר ללבן את כל הדברים האלה, he revealed the reason why he had left his father’s home and that he had done so at the command of both his father and his mother.
  
  Verse 14
  
  ויאמר...אך עצמי, the word אך in this instance means “truly!” It appears in this meaning in several other passages in the Scriptures, as for instance, Psalms 73,1 אך טוב לישראל”G’d is truly good to Israel.” Or, Isaiah 63,8 אך עמי המה, “truly, they are My people!” Essentially, what Lavan said to Yaakov was that he should not worry about having left home seeing that all he needed would be provided for him by Lavan.
  
  Verse 15
  
  ויאמר...הכי אחי אתה, the meaning is: “seeing that you are my brother it is not good that you should work for me as if for nothing, in exchange only for food clothing and lodging. I want you to feel comfortable with me and to have a chance to grow economically also.
  
  Verse 16
  
  וללבן שתי בנות, the fact that Lavan had two daughters, etc., is mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph in order for us to understand what is reported later about Yaakov having fallen in love with Rachel and offering to serve Lavan for 7 years for her hand in marriage. The Torah wants us to understand that Yaakov would never have agreed to work for Leah’s hand in marriage for even a fraction of such a long period.
  
  Verse 17
  
  The eyes of Leah were soft: She was beautiful, but her eyes were soft and teary,
  But Rachel was of beautiful form and fair to look upon, without any blemish. And "form" refers to the shape of the face and the rest of the body, the posture, and skin color which was write and red (pink), and the hair was dark.
  
  Verse 18
  
  ויאהב...אעבדך, in response to the question: “what shall be your wages?,” he answered Lavan that his wages would be in addition to food lodging and clothes that Lavan would give him his daughter Rachel as a wife. Even though Yaakov had spelled out which daughter, namely Rachel, he added the word הקטנה, “the younger one,” so that Lavan could not deceive him by giving him a different girl called Rachel. Some people question that seeing that the righteous marry with a view to producing children, why would Rachel’s exterior appearance have been of interest to Yaakov at all? After all they did not want their wives to be women who would excite their libidos, and it is clear from the fact that Yaakov was willing to delay marriage by seven years was due to his choosing a beautiful bride. He appears to have been angry at Lavan for having given him Leah instead, seeing that Leah was not as attractive as her sister. We have to answer this by saying that in choosing a beautiful woman as their brides, the righteous people had good intentions. They wanted their libidos to be aroused by them in order to produce many children together. Furthermore, they also wanted their children to be handsome like their mothers. Looking at beautiful people helps a person to remain in a joyous frame of mind, something which is a requirement for man for we know that people who are not in a joyful frame of mind cannot serve G’d in the best possible fashion. Even prophets cannot function as such unless they are in a state of joy, and on occasion they require stimulants such as music in order to put them in a more joyful frame of mind (Kohelet 5,19,--compare also Kings II 3,14-15)
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  ויאמר...טוב תתי, Lavan admitted that marrying members of one’s family was a good thing.
  שבה עמדי, on the basis of the conditions which you yourself have suggested. After you have fulfilled these conditions I will give her to you.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  ויהי בערב, the Torah uses this opportunity to teach us that sexual intercourse even with artificial light, i.e. during the night is not appropriate, how much more so is it inappropriate during daylight hours. If it were appropriate to indulge in intercourse using artificial light Lavan could not have passed off Leah as Rachel without Yaakov becoming aware of this. It is clear from the text that Yaakov did not realise Leah as having been his partner in bed until the following morning. [the word הנה in verse 25 which we explained as always adding a new, up until then unknown, element is proof for this. Ed.]
  
  Verse 24
  
  ויתן לבן לה את זלפה שפחתו, when she was led under the wedding canopy Lavan gave her this handmaid to be her personal maid.
  
  Verse 25
  
  ויהי בבוקר והנה היא לאה, for he had not recognised her until morning as we explained. The aggadic explanation mentioned by Rashi that Rachel had given her sister Leah the codeword which she and Yaakov had agreed should serve to preclude such a swap is well known.
  
  Verse 26
  
  ויאמר...לא יעשה כן במקומנו, even though you asked for the hand of my younger daughter in marriage, seeing that apparently where you come from it does not matter if the younger sister gets married before the older one, in our place that is not a permissible procedure. I will therefore give you both of them with the proviso that the nuptials of the older one must precede those of the younger one.
  
  Verse 27
  
  מלא שבוע זאת, conclude the days of the wedding celebration with this one as your exclusive wife,
  ונתנה לך, it is possible to understand the word ונתנה as a passive construction in the feminine mode, or it could be understood as an active mode of the kal conjugation first person plural, meaning “we will give to you,” i.e. with the consent of the local inhabitants. Or, the letter נ represents what we know as the pluralis majestatis, the arrogant, pompous “we” employed by kings etc., people who consider their individual opinions as equivalent or superior to the collective wisdom of their subjects. In Scripture we find an example of this mode of speech in Song of Songs 1,4 משכני אחריך נרוצה, נגילה ונשמחה בך, “draw me after you! Let us run! Let us delight in your love.” There are a number of parallel examples in Scripture. After you will complete enjoying Leah for one week I will also give you Rachel and you may immediately celebrate another seven days of your nuptials with her. It is not proper to allow one celebration to interfere with another celebration at the same time.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  ויעש...ויתן, Lavan, in accordance with what he had said.
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  ויתן...ויבא גם אל רחל, just as he had slept with Leah previously, he now slept with Rachel.
  ויאהב גם את רחל, the Torah had to write this in order to inform us that Yaakov loved Leah also, even though originally he had not chosen her to become his wife. In the event, now that she had become his wife, he loved her just as most husbands love their wives. However, he loved Rachel better.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  וירא ה' כי שנואה לאה, Yaakov did not hate her; in fact he loved her. However, seeing that he loved Rachel better it appeared as if he hated Leah. We find a similar situation in Deuteronomy 21,15 where the Torah speaks about a husband “hating” one of his two wives. The meaning there is also relative to the wife he prefers. G’d, Who knew the true state of affairs, i.e. what Leah’s perception of her husband’s feelings toward were,
  ויפתח את רחמה, seeing that the Torah describes her womb as needing to be “opened,” it is clear that she had been barren before.
  ורחל עקרה, but Rachel remained barren, as she had been. We already explained on 25,20 why the matriarchs were basically all barren until G’d intervened visibly.
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  ותהר..יאהבני, just as much as he loves my sister. The vowel patach under the letter ב substitutes for the vowel tzeyreh.
  
  Verse 33
  
  'ותהר עוד  כי שמע ה, He heard my prayer and my plea.
  
  Verse 34
  
  ותהר...ילוה אישי אלי, he will be more inclined to respond to my love than to that of my sister. כי ילדתי שלשה בנים, seeing that what the righteous expect from their wives is that they bear sons for them.
  על כן קרא שמו, Yaakov gave the boy this name because, as Leah had predicted, that he was so overjoyed at Levi’s birth. It is also possible that Yaakov had seen with a prophetic eye that the sons of Levi would be outstanding servants of the Lord and teachers of His Torah, and that they would constantly keep company with G’d, i.e. strive to fulfill His will. He therefore named this son both because of what his wife had proclaimed when he had been born, and because of the prophetic insight he had received regarding the descendants of this son. If we needed proof for this approach it is the fact that he was the only one of Yaakov’s sons who had been named by his father. The naming of Binyamin, respectively, renaming him, was due to a different consideration altogether. We will discuss this in due course. 
  
  Verse 35
  
  'ותהר... אודה את ה, I can only continue to thank the Lord and to praise Him, Who has granted me more than I have requested from Him.
  ותעמוד מלדת, at this time she stopped conceiving. This was also due to intervention by G’d, Who wanted the servant maids to also have children for Yaakov.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ותרא..ותקנא רחל באחותה, she saw that during the period that Leah bore 4 sons for Yaakov she had not even born him a single one.
  
  Verse 2
  
  ויחר...אשר מנע ממך, G’d denied you children, not I. You have to pray to Him, not to berate me. As far as I am concerned, I have made my contribution already having slept with you far more often than with Leah. If you are genetically barren then you have to ask G’d to open your womb. Your sister did the same and her prayer has been answered. The word מנע, prevented, which Yaakov used meant that the sperm did not enter the area of the womb where fertilisation takes place. Yaakov’s anger was due to Rachel attributing her problem to Yaakov and something Yaakov had failed to do, and not to G’d, Who decrees who is barren and who is fertile. The demand to her husband הבה לי בנים, “get me children,” was entirely out of place. Had she asked Yaakov to plead with G’d to have mercy on her, she would have been perfectly in order. He would not then have become angry at her.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  ותאמר, she said that after Yaakov had explained to her that her failure to have children was G’d’s doing, she suggested what Sarah had suggested to Avraham, that she was willing to become a vicarious mother through her servant maid having a child by him. She therefore asked Yaakov to sleep with Bilhah.
  ותלד על ברכי, whomsoever she will give birth to shall be considered as having been born on my knees, my becoming his foster mother seeing he will be part of my family.
  ואבנה גם אנכי, so that I too will be built through her (Bilhah). The word גם here refers to Leah, Rachel saying that she too, as a foster mother, would consider herself as “built,” i.e. as leaving something of herself to posterity. We have explained the meaning of the word ואבנה in Genesis 16,2.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  ותתן לו...לאשה. she provided Yaakov to be Bilhah’s exclusive sexual partner.
  
  Verse 5
  
  ותהר, we find with each of the four sons born to Yaakov by the servant maids that the Torah adds the word ליעקב, that these were born for Yaakov, although this word is missing when Leah gave birth to her first 4 sons. The reason is to underline that these sons by servant maids had the same status in Yaakov’s eyes as the sons born by Leah and Rachel. When it came to the Israelites being divided into 12 tribes, twelve army groups, supplying a specific number of judges, they were all treated equally.
  
  Verse 6
  
  ותאמר...דנני אלוקים, He compared my legal status with that of my sister and found me also as deserving to have children, just as she is deserving. Seeing she spoke about the legal aspect of G’d’s judgment, as opposed to the favours granted by G’d’s attribute of Mercy, i.e. ה', she used His attribute of Justice when referring to Him, i.e. אלוקים.
  וגם שמע בקולי, to the prayer I offered to Him concerning this child. Even if I had not been worthy, He accepted my prayer. 
  ויתן לי בן, seeing that I intend to relate to him as if he were the fruit of my own womb. He is part of my family. [according to tradition both Zilpah and Bilhah were sisters to Rachel and Leah paternally, though they did not have the same mother. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  ותהר...ותאמר נפתולי אלוקים, “I have engaged in a difficult contest with my sister;” the root פתל means to twist or be twisted as in פתיל תכלת, a string made of blue wool, i.e. two strands of yarn combined to make a cord, twisted. By pulling the two strands together the whole string becomes stronger.  ותהר...ותאמר נפתולי אלוקים, “I have engaged in a difficult contest with my sister;” the root פתל means to twist or be twisted as in פתיל תכלת, a string made of blue wool, i.e. two strands of yarn combined to make a cord, twisted. By pulling the two strands together the whole string becomes stronger. 
  אלוהים. The use of the word אלוהים is symbolic of the fierceness of the sisters’ competition, When we want to emphasise something as being extraordinary, we sometimes use the word “elohim” to do this, as for instance in the description of the size of the city of Nineveh in Jonah 3,3 where it is described as עיר גדולה לאלוהים. A similar expression in Psalms 36,7 כהררי א-ל describes towering mountains by using the word elohim as the appropriate adjective to describe this. Psalms 80,11 Jeremiah 2,31, and Song of Songs 8,6 are some more examples of the use of the word el or elohim as such an adjective.
  
  Verse 9
  
  ותרא לאה, she thought that she was not going to have any more children herself, and gave her handmaid to Yaakov seeing that the matriarchs’ main concern was to increase the number of children that would be born for Yaakov.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  ותלד...ותאמר...בגד, the 2 words בא גד have been condensed into a single word, the letter א having been omitted. The meaning of the expression is “this one came or brought with him with good fortune.” It is read as if it had been written as two separate words, i.e. “good fortune has arrived.” The phrase העורכים לגד שלחן, in Isaiah 65,11 is also to be understood as “who set a table for luck?” Rabbi Moshe hacohen Gigatilia says that the word גד refers to a star so named in the language of Kedar. This is a star presumed to forecast good fortune. If we wanted to explain the word גד in terms of גדוד, we could still explain it as having a similar meaning, i.e. בא גודד הגדוד, “with the arrival of this one there is a full troop of sons.”
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  ותלד..ותאמר..באשרי, the root of the word is in the kal conjugation. She said that others will give me credit for building Yaakov’s future seeing that between her sons and her handmaids sons they had contributed 8 out of 12.
  
  Verse 14
  
  וילך ראובן, Reuven was about 6 or 7 years old at the time. He went out into the wheat fields, found these dudaim and brought them to his mother Leah. Dudaim are a kind of herb whose roots have a natural reddish appearance. Perhaps Reuven had heard some place that this herb is supposed to help women get pregnant, and that seeing his mother had not had any babies lately, he meant to help her in this regard. The popular belief in the efficacy of the dudaim in this respect is not based on fact. If it had been true, why did Rachel not get pregnant after eating them? Also Leah did not get pregnant as a result of eating dudaim, for the Torah says: וישמע אלוקים אל לאה, that G’d listened to Leah’s prayer. (verse 17)
  ותאמר רחל, she was under the impression that the popularly held belief about dudaim was correct.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  המעט קחתך את אישי, seeing that Rachel still did not have any children Yaakov slept with her far more often than he did with Leah in order to soothe her mind.
  את אישי, she meant that Yaakov was her husband no less than he was Rachel’s husband.
  ולקחת גם את דודאי בני, the word ולקחת is in an infinitive mode, as if she had said ותרצי לקחת, “you want to take.” If the meaning of the word would be as the translater (Onkelos) renders it as ותסבין, the letter ת in ולקחת should have had a dagesh as is customary, for instance in Kings I 14,3 ולקחת בידך.
  לכן, in exchange for this.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  ויבא יעקב, the reason why this whole paragraph has been preserved in the Torah for all times is to demonstrate that what motivated our matriarchs in their relations with their husbands was exclusively their task to produce as many children for them as possible. They were not concerned with indulging their libido. When Rachel, during those years, made a point of sleeping with Yaakov at every opportunity, it was because she hoped that on one of those occasions her prayers would be answered and that she would conceive. We find that in verse 22 this did indeed happen. It stands to reason then that when Leah requested that Yaakov sleep with her on a certain occasion, she too prayed that she would conceive as an answer to her prayers. She had resumed praying for additional children as soon as she had noticed that she no longer seemed to become pregnant easily. G’d did indeed listen to her prayer as we know from verse 17. As to Leah going out towards Yaakov while the latter was on his way home from work, she did this fully in accordance with accepted moral ethical rules, seeing that Yaakov had been unaware of the bargain Leah had made with Rachel. Had she not headed him off, Yaakov would have proceeded to Rachel’s tent, as was his custom. It would have been most inappropriate for Leah to ask Yaakov to leave Rachel’s tent after he had already arrived there.
  אלי תבא, to my tent, seeing that each of the matriarchs had her own tent.
  בלילה הוא the noun has the definitive article, i.e. the patach under the letter ב in the word בלילה, whereas the adjective, the word הוא, does not have the prefix ה which would signal such a definitive article, i.e. referring to a specific night we already know about. There are many such constructions in the Torah, one of the best known ones being in Numbers 28,4 את הכבש אחד, where we would have expected the word האחד instead of merely אחד. Samuel II 6,3 is another such example where we would have expected the word החדשה instead of חדשה.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  וישמע, when the Torah speaks of “the fifth son,” “the sixth son,” this is to remind us that this woman was deemed worthy to bear half of the 12 founding fathers of the Jewish nation.
  
  Verse 18
  
  ותאמר, seeing that she had stopped bearing children and had given her maidservant to Yaakov in her stead, she thought that she had been rewarded for this by G’d (for two reasons; 1) for helping her husband to father more children so that his indulging in sexual intercourse with a woman who could not provide him with children would not be accounted as mere physical gratification. 2) for having done her maidservant a great favour to become able to mother the children of such a righteous man as Yaakov. For both of these reasons she expressed the hope that G’d would reward her. When she subsequently indeed bore children for Yaakov again herself, she considered this as her reward from G’d and thanked Him for it. She made certain that her son’s name reflected her feeling of gratitude by naming him יששכר. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  ותהר...ותאמר זבדני אלוקים אותי זבד טוב, the meaning of the name corresponds to the circumstances surrounding the child’s birth. As to the apparent repetition, i.e. saying אותי, something already mentioned by the suffix ני in the word זבדני, this may have been to make her intention in naming the boy even more unmistakable. It is also possible that the letters את in this word mean “from,” as in Genesis 44,3 הם יצאו את העיר, “they had departed from the city,” so that the suffix י would make the word mean “from me.” She would then have emphasised that not only had she been built up through raising the children of her handmaid, but that G’d had even granted her additional children from her own womb. She was grateful that her husband’s semen when sleeping with her did not go to waste. She was grateful that the gift of this baby originated in her womb.
  הפעם יזבלני, my house will now become his permanent residence seeing that I have born six sons for him. She perpetuated this feeling of Yaakov making his home predominantly in her tent by naming the child Zevulun. 
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  ואחר ילדה בת, it would appear that originally Dinah was meant to become Zevulun’s twin (brother). This is why the Torah wrote ואחר ילדה בת, without making any mention of Leah again becoming pregnant. The Torah did not even write ותלד עוד. No mention is made of why she named the girl Dinah. There is a well known aggadic explanation that Leah did not want her sister to be shamed in having fewer sons than even the handmaids; her prayer to that effect was answered by this fetus becoming a girl.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  And God remembered: after it appeared as thought she was forgotten, since they had all given birth and she had not given birth. God saw the insults and remembered her.
  וישמע, now He heard all her prayers, i.e. the time had come for her prayers to be answered.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  ותהר..אסף אלוקים את חרפתי, the word אסף is to be understood like the same word in Joel 4,15 אספו נגהם, ”they have withdrawn their brightness.” Rachel’s shame, embarrassment was removed. Alternatively, the word could mean the destruction, termination of something as in Judges 18,25 ואספת נפשך, “you would lose your lives.” Rachel now lost her shame. The root אסף in the transitive sense also occurs in Samuel I 15,6 as פן אוסיפך עמו, “lest I destroy you with them.” Accordingly, the meaning of אסף here would be that it had terminated, ceased to exist.
  
  Verse 24
  
  ותקרא...בן אחר. Rachel meant that she hoped for at least one more son.
  
  Verse 25
  
  ויהי כאשר ילדה, Yaakov told Lavan that now that all his wives and handmaids had born children including Rachel who had been barren, there was no further reason for him to detain Yaakov. There is an aggadic commentary quoted by Rashi according to which now that Joseph had been born Yaakov was reassured about his fear of Esau being able to harm him. He considered Joseph the antidote to such a danger. He had been told in a prophetic vision that the descendants of Esau would fall victim to the descendants of Joseph, and this is why he was prepared to go back now to his father’s house
  שלחני, a polite form of asking permission, though in fact none was needed.
  
  Verse 26
  
  תנה, seeing that all my belongings are still in your house.
  אשר עבדתי אותך, for whom I have served you. Yaakov meant that Lavan had no legal right to detain them seeing Yaakov had served for them, i.e. had paid for them in full. He wanted to take them home with him.
  בהן, the word refers to the word נשי earlier in the verse.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  נחשתי, I have divined, i.e. I have gone to magicians, mediums, etc., to find confirmation that your stay with me was the cause of my good fortune during the last 14 years. As a result, I want that you stay with me some more time.
  
  Verse 28
  
  נקבה, as rendered by Onkelos, “spell out, determine!” We find this word in a similar sense in Isaiah 62,2 אשר פי ה' יקבנו, “which the Lord Himself will determine.” Lavan meant that he was amenable to any terms Yaakov would demand in order to retain his presence and his services.
  
  Verse 29
  
  ויאמר..ואת אשר היה, the meaning of the word מעט in verse 30 is that Lavan was well aware that when Yaakov had come to him he had possessed very little, and that his wealth now was due to Yaakov’s faithful labour on his behalf, and that G’d had increased the amount of livestock he owned now on account of Yaakov. 
  
  Verse 30
  
  כי מעט...לרגלי, from the time I walked into your house to work for you, you became blessed, along the lines of the proverb רגל טובה לפלוני, “this person has a blessed foot,” [as in English we speak about someone having “green fingers,” i.e. that plants grow successfully under his care. Ed.]
  ?גם אנכי לביתי. When will I start providing for the needs of my own family as I have been doing for your family for 14 years?Rabbeinu Shlomoh (Rashi) explains “thus far only my children have worked for me. When will I finally help them?” (This explains the word גם in the verse).
  
  Verse 31
  
  ויאמר, Lavan said that he wanted him, Yaakov, to stay with him, asking: ?מה אתן לך, as your wages?
  לא תתן לי מאומה, do not give me anything as fixed salary as my reward; my wages shall be in the nature of something that accrues to me coincidentally as an act of kindness by G’d, not as a sign of goodwill from you, diminishing what was yours. If you agree to these terms, אשובה ארעה צאנך שמור, I will once again tend your flocks as I used to do.
  
  Verse 32
  
  אעבור, I will check in passing together with you.
  הסר, the word is either in the infinitive, or an instruction by Yaakov to Lavan to remove these animals so that he would not be able to say at a later stage that they had been part of his flock which had been overlooked in their joint count of them, and that it was these mother sheep which had given birth to the lambs with the skin patterns Yaakov had chosen to be his wages.
  כל שה נקוד וטלוא , of the תישים, i.e. the males, whereas of the goats the female are meant. As the Torah says וטלוד ונקוד בעזים. The reason why the תישים have not been spelled out by name is that both had understood that they were meant without their having to spell this out. In the story narrative (verse 35) they have been mentioned specifically. The reason Yaakov used the term שה was that this term includes both the males and the females of the species. (compare Ezekiel 34,20 בין שה בריה ובין שה רזה) Another verse referring to the word שה as clearly both male and female is found in Leviticus 22,27 ושור או שה אותו ואת בנו.
  נקד, displaying white spots among the black or yellowish ones.
  וטלוא, a reference to larger patches, as per Joshua 9,5. We encounter this expression in this sense also in Shabbat 114, i.e. טלאי על גבי טלאי. 
  חום, black The word has this meaning in Arabic when one refers to the colour of the head and throat of the sheep.
  והיה שכרי, any animals born in the flock henceforth displaying these skin patterns will be my wages.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  וענתה בי צדקתי, this will prove that I dealt fairly with you, and will continue to deal fairly with you. My righteousness will be proved by the fact that animals with such skin patterns will be born though their mother animals or their fathers did not possess these skin patterns, so that I did not benefit by genetic factors contributed by your animals. Not only had Lavan removed all animals with traces of such skin patterns from the flocks entrusted to Yaakov for tending, but even animals which had displayed such skin patterns only on their legs had been removed by him, not to speak of animals which had displayed such spots on other parts of their bodies.
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  וישם, Lavan instructed his sons to make the spotted and speckled sheep in his flocks graze 3 days away from the animals Yaakov was tending. Yaakov let the remainder of the flock graze in the areas he had been used to. Lavan was so concerned that some of the striped and spotted animals under his sons’ care might wander back to the meadows in which they had grazed previously, and become mixed with the animals Yaakov was now tending. Yaakov might then claim that these animals were his.
  
  Verse 37
  
  ויקח, Yaakov did not do this in the first year, but only from the second year on. He did not place the sticks in front of the animals belonging to Lavan, but only in front of those animals which were now his as a result of the young ones born with the agreed upon skin patterns during that year. When he placed the sticks in front of those animals which were his, he did not intend for them to have young ones of a different skin pattern from the one they already had, but only to ensure that all his animals would give birth to young ones bearing the same skin patterns as did their mothers. In other words, he did not deprive Lavan of anything, either directly or indirectly. He acted in a manner which would not allow Lavan even to suspect him of stealing from him. This is the way my father of blessed memory explained these verses in light of the fact that numerous people, reading the story superficially, had expressed surprise that our patriarch Yaakov had been as devious as a superficial reading of the text makes it appear.
  לבנה, a tree (poplar) with a white trunk. (before peeling off its bark) He used such a tree in order to produce the desired colour contrasts after peeling the bark partially into the respective shapes to resemble עקוד ונקוד. This could be done only while the saplings were still moist. He also took branches, or sticks that were moist, fresh, as when peeled they would look more whitish. The trees called here לוז and ערמון respectively, are both well known, (plane-tree ad almond tree.)
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  ויצג את המקלות, he positioned them at the water troughs. This is the meaning of the words 
  אשר תבאן, meaning: “as they would come there.” In Exodus 14,13 the word אשר in the line אשר ראיתם את מצרים היום also means “when, as,” i.e. “as you have seen Egypt to day.” The word אשר in the line תאכל מצות אשר צויתיך in Exodus 34,18 also means “as,” i.e. “you shall eat unleavened bread as I commanded you.”
  לנכח הצאן, he had made them face the sheep.
  ויחמנה, it is in the nature of the sheep to become heated, excited, and to mount the females when they are about to drink from the troughs.
  ברהטים, Onkelos translates the word ותרץ in 29,12 as “she ran.” The word here means that this was a place where the water ran into pools which had been dug in the ground in order to facilitate the watering of the sheep. The word ויחמנה contains both masculine and feminine components, perhaps to hint at the mating of the two sexes. A similar construction occurs in Samuel I 6,12.
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  ויחמו, a reference to the males. However, as we learned earlier, the females would be in heat simultaneously.
  אל המקלות, toward the sticks.
  ותלדן הצאן, the sheep would give birth to young with the skin patterns Yaakov desired, as their imagination had been fired at a time when they were more than usually impressionable.
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  והכבשים הפריד יעקב, he separated the females from the goats whether male or female, not watering the two species at the same time, in order to prevent goats with undesirable skin patterns being born. None of the goats that were not black belonged to Yaakov [according to Joseph Kimichi’s commentary, there was nothing wrong in what Yaakov did or failed to do, since these goats never had displayed such skin patterns, so why should Yaakov encourage their being born with new skin patterns. Ed.] Yaakov watered the goats elsewhere where they did not observe any sticks or branches that could arouse their imagination. Yaakov did not have any black paint which would have enabled him to paint sticks black. Even if he had possessed such paint, his stratagem would have become public knowledge as naturally black sticks or branches did not exist in that region. He therefore had to content himself with increasing his share of the births of the sheep, foregoing any artificial measures to make the goats throw young ones that were black-skinned. [the interested reader will find that different commentators arrive at different conclusions regarding exactly what was agreed between Yaakov and Lavan, and they each explain his procedures according to their understanding of the agreement. Ed.]
  וישת לו עדרים לבדו, from the lambs that were born as his share, year after year, Yaakov formed separate flocks which he kept apart seeing that they amounted to a formidable number of animals. He did not let them graze anywhere near where Lavan’s flocks were grazing. Lavan had displayed envy of Yaakov, and therefore Yaakov did not want to inflame his envy by letting him see his flocks all the time, knowing that Yaakov’s share of the newly born sheep had outnumbered those born as his own share
  על צאן, as if the Torah had written עם צאן, “with the sheep.” A similar construction is found in Exodus 35,22 ויבאו האנשים על הנשים, “the men came together with the women.”
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  והיה בכל יחם, during all the periods when the animals were in heat, i.e. at the time when they mated; this is in accordance with Onkelos’ rendering of these words. This is the standard translation every time the word occurs.
  ויחם, the reason the infinitive mode is used for the word is in order for it to be connected to the preceding word בכל,  which is used in lieu of the word שם, “there, wherever.” When the word does not signify any specific time, i.e. either past, present of future, which would limit its application, then the word בכל is appropriate as it also is a totally inclusive word, not allowing for exceptions. The infinitive is therefore absolutely in place. The sheep give birth twice a year, and the Torah now tells us before which of the cycle of births Yaakov positioned the sticks by the troughs. Yaakov positioned the sticks before the first cycle of births which was numerically much smaller, because Lavan did not bother to check on what was going on during that period. Before the second birthing during that year Yaakov did not position the sticks in order to arouse the imagination of the animals because at that time Lavan would come to inspect his sheep and if he had discovered that Yaakov was using these sticks this would have resulted in a quarrel between them, and Lavan would have stolen from him whatever he thought should be his. Even though Yaakov had never positioned the sticks in front of any animals that were Lavan’s, as I explained on verse 37, in the name of my late father, Lavan would have argued that just as Yaakov placed this sticks before his own animals so he would presumably do also when watering Lavan’s flocks.
  The meaning of the words המקושרות, הקשורים  and העטופים, as well as the word ובהעטיף, is in accordance with the way Onkelos translates them, descriptions of the time cycle during which certain animals would give birth. My late father of blessed memory, explained that the agreement for the first year called for the result of the first birthing to be Yaakov’s, whereas the result of the second birthing would be Lavan’s. 
  ליחמנה במקלות, to bring them to heat through their viewing the sticks, as I already explained. The letter ה at the end of the word ליחמנה is appended just as we find this letter appended in such words as אותנה (Exodus 35,26), where we do not know any reason for this addition. The word really should have been ליחמן without the letter ה at the end but with a dagesh in the final ן. Still we do have a similar construction to ours here in Micah 7,7 עיני תיראנה בה as well as in Ezekiel 4,12 תעגנה לעיניהם where the letter נ in תעגנה is “weak,” i.e. without the dagesh we would have expected. Even though, as we explained, the places where these constructions occur are not quite analogous to one another, the fact remains that the entire story is told by the Torah in such detail in order to show the reader to what extent G’d’s providence intervened in order to make sure that Yaakov did not lose out to the crooked Lavan. This once again confirms what we read in Psalms 37,12 and 33 that זומם רשע לצדיק....ה' לא יעזבנו בידו, “when the wicked tries to set a trap the righteous G’d will not abandon the righteous to the devices of the wicked.”
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  ויפרץ, this refers to financial success, not to the number of offspring. This is also what G’d had promised Yaakov in 28,14 when He said: ופרצת ימה וקדמה וגו'. Yaakov’s wealth is symbolically described as bursting through its fences. There is not enough space to accommodate it. Clearly, this is one of the instances in which the Torah deliberately indulges in exaggeration in order to illustrate its point.
  מאד מאד, to emphasise further the quantitative element the Torah speaks of.
  ויהי לו צאן רבות, the feminine ending in רבות refers to the females of the sheep, the ones producing the lambs. One single ram would service many ewes. Cattle are not mentioned here at all as Yaakov’s work was restricted to raising sheep and goats. He did possess cattle, however.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  וישמע...לאמור. Lavan’s sons were saying all this to one another as well as to their father. This was the reason why Lavan’s attitude toward Yaakov had changed.
  
  Verse 2
  
  וירא את פני לבן, he could see it in his face, for he was not hiding his feelings While Yaakov was still debating with  himself about what he kept hearing and seeing, G’d addressed him in a dream.
  
  Verse 3
  
  'ויאמר ה, the angel is called by the name of his Master, i.e. G’d. The reason is that he delivers his message in the name of his Sender, i.e. in the name of G’d.
  
  Verse 4
  
  'וישלח יעקב וגו, he requested that his wives join him in the field where he was busy tending the flocks.
  
  Verse 5
  
  ואלוקי אבי היה עמדי, he, Lavan, hates me on account of my having become wealthier than he is. This is not because I aimed to be so wealthy but because the G’d of my father was with me and made me so successful in my endeavours.
  
  Verse 6
  
  ואתנה..., I have served him faithfully whereas he related to me with deceit.
  בכל כחי, as Yaakov tells Lavan to his face in verse 40 when he relates the harshness of the conditions he worked under.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  ואביכן התל בי, this is a variation of the root with the same letters but with the dagesh in the letter ת, as we find in Kings 1 18,27 where it describes the prophet Elijah ridiculing the god of the priests of the Baal. Here the root is not used transitively but intransitively in the conjugation kal, hence there is not dagesh.
  עשרת מונים, ten times. The reason the word עשרת is in the construct mode when we would have expected to read עשרה מונים, is because it is the final contact with the single digit numbers. It actually belongs to them, though in our language it is written as a 2 digit number. The fact is that the first 10 numbers are all part of one group, the number “ten” being the last one of that group. Hence it is treated here as if in the construct mode. To prove that this is correct, note that whenever the number ten appears, such as in ואפו עשר נשים, “ten women will bake” (Leviticus 26,26), where the number of women involved bears no relationship to the ninth or eighth woman preceding her, such a number is not in the construct mode. My late father of blessed memory explained the word עשרת as not being meant literally. It is not a figure of speech meaning “numerous times,” Yaakov had spent 6 years working for Lavan’ in order to amass his own flocks. The sheep give birth twice a year, i.e. 12 times in 6 years.  Lavan therefore had opportunity to change Yaakov’s wages 8 times in the intermediate 6 years, and once each in the first year and last year respectively.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  אם כה... כל הצאן, the word כל need not be understood literally as “all.” It means simply: “most.” We have many examples in Scripture when the word כל does not mean “all,” but “most.” A well known example is Genesis 41,55 וכל הארץ באו מצרימה, which cannot mean that everybody came to Egypt, but must mean that most people from the neighbouring countries sent representatives to Egypt to buy food there during the famine in their own land. Although in our verse onlyנקודים  and עקודים are mentioned specifically, the same applies to טלאים.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  ויצל, a form of removing something (in order to save it). מקנה אביכם, seeing that he was robbing me, G’d arranged it so that most of the sheep gave birth to young ones whose skin bore the markings which we had agreed should be mine. Not only this, but G’d showed me in a dream that my good fortune was due to His intervention on my behalf and was not due to a fortuitous natural event. G’d takes a personal interest in what happens to those who revere Him, and He saves them from those who unjustly oppress them. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  ויהי...העתודים, another word for he-goats, תישים.
  וברודים, a variant of the word טלואים; the reason why the Torah switched to this term is to tell us that the whiteness of the spots in questions is similar to that of hail stones, ברד.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  אנכי הא-ל בית א-ל, the noun to which the word בית א-ל is attached is absent, i.e. the line should have been:אנכי הא-ל א-ל בית א-ל. We have a similar construction in Joshua 3,14 הארון הברית, where the word ארון in the middle in the construct mode is also missing. In our verse the meaning of the whole line is: “I am the Lord that has revealed Himself to you as G’d at Beyt El.”
  אשר נדרת לי, we already explained that when the angel speaks as messenger of G’d he describes himself by the name applicable to his Master, i.e. to G’d.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  ותען רחל ולאה, here too the younger sister speaks first, just as in Exodus 10,3 ויאמר משב ואהרן, although Moses was the younger. Seeing that Rachel loved Yaakov as intensely as he loved her, she responded first.
  
  Verse 15
  
  גם אכול את כספנו, the money he had been supposed to give us to get married. As to the word גם in this verse, the sisters referred to more than one “eating.” Not only did he consume what he had been supposed to give us, but he even consumed the proceeds of your hard work which was intended for the benefit of our family.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  ויקם יעקב וישא, he lifted his wives on to the camels so that they could ride.
  
  Verse 18
  
  וינהג...מקנה קנינו, the first time the word מקנהו appears in our verse it refers to cattle Yaakov had acquired as a result of his activities as shepherd. The expression מקנה קנינו on the other hand, refers to livestock he had purchased. Whenever the word מקנה is spelled with the vowel tzeyreh under the letter נ this indicates that it is in the construct mode.
  
  Verse 19
  
  ולבן, the place where Lavan sheared his flocks was a distance of three days from where Yaakov tended his flocks as we know from 30,36. This is why Lavan did not hear about Yaakov’s having left until this third day after he had gone. Neither Lavan nor his sons had been home at the at time when Yaakov departed The sons of Lavan had been busy tending their father’s flocks. This is why Rachel took the Teraphim. There was no one at home to stop her from doing this.
  והתרפים, they are instruments made of copper used to tell time. It was also to consult them to divine future events, although the information forthcoming often proved false. Zecharyah 10,2 already remarks on the unreliability of Teraphim in this regard. The reason the word is in the plural mode, seeing that we speak about a single object, is because it consisted of multiple layers of tablets. According to Ibn Ezra each tablet had the face of a human being and was presumed to get inspiration from celestial regions. Rachel’s objective in stealing the Teraphim was to deny Lavan knowledge about the route Yaakov had taken when he left. Yaakov had no idea that Rachel had stolen the Teraphim as we have been told explicitly in verse 32. Had he known about it he would have prevented Rachel from carrying out such a theft. He would not even have allowed her to remove anything from her father’s house unless he had given his approval, much less the Teraphim.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  ויגנב יעקב את לב לבן, he misled him seeing that Lavan thought that Yaakov was in the city, whereas in fact he had left the city.
  על בלי הגיד לו, in that he had not told him his route. Not having told Lavan what route he was going to travel turned his leaving Lavan into a flight. Obviously, Yaakov was not expected by Lavan to announce: “I am fleeing;” the word בורח has to be linked to the word ויגנב. Deceiving Lavan as a sin of omission, i.e. not giving Lavan false information, but failing to give him relevant information, turned Yaakov’s sudden departure into what Lavan perceived to be a flight.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  ויברח...את הנהר,  the river Euphrates.
  
  Verse 22
  
  ויגד...ביום השלישי, we explained this construction  vayugad in 27,42.
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויקח את אחיו, his relatives.
  
  Verse 24
  
  ויבא, just as G’d had communicated with Avimelech in honour of Yitzchok, so He now communicated with Lavan in honour of Yaakov.
  פן תדבר, that you dare not speak. Do not start a quarrel with him planning to do harm to him as a result. Not only must you not harm him physically, but you must not even inflict verbal abuse on him. The correct meaning of the words פן תדבר is: “not to speak harshly.” Constructions with the prefix פן also occur in Genesis 3,3 as a warning, on pain of death, not to eat from the tree of knowledge, or in Genesis 24,6 פן תשיב את בני שמה not to bring Yitzchok back to Padan Aram.
  מטוב עד רע, though you may think that if you deprive Yaakov only of a small fraction of his wealth that from your vantage point you are doing him a favour by allowing him to retain most of it, or that you plan to rob him of most of it, something which even you realise as an evil thing to do, seeing you want to punish him for leaving you without having taken his leave from you. 
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  וישג...בהר, at the very mountain where Lavan was going to accuse Yaakov of having fled from him, תקע את אחיו, he encamped with his kinsmen. As a result, they were both encamped at the same mountain facing each other. Alternatively, the meaning may be (Onkelos)אשרי ית אחוהי, “erected his tent there with his brothers.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  ויאמר...כשבויות, like women taken captives by creditors that are kidnapped without their husbands being informed. This is how you treated my daughters.
  
  Verse 27
  
  למה נחבאת, why did you hide it from me, and,
  ותגנוב אותי, and you misled me,
  ואשלחך, had you informed me I would have let you go in joy.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  ולא נטשתני לנשק לבני, children and grandchildren are usually referred to as בנים.
  עשו. Spelled here with the letter ו, but meaning the same as if it had been written with the letter ה. The word is in the infinitive mode. The word עתה (at this juncture) means that “although, generally speaking you are very clever, now you acted foolishly.”
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  יש לאל ידי, as per Onkelos, i.e. “I possess the power.”
  אמש, last night.
  ואלוקי אביכם, a reference to the G’d of Avraham whose name Avraham had popularised throughout the region. The reason Lavan speaks of אביכם “your father,” is that he uses the term as a pronoun including Yaakov and his children.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  ועתה ...נכסף נכספתה, as per Onkelos, i.e. “even if you felt an overwhelming urge.” The word נכסוף with the vowel cholem is an infinitive mode in the passive conjugation, similar to Samuel I 20,21 נשאול נשאל.
  אלוהי, he called his Teraphim “my gods,” as he and his kind of people relied on them just as we rely on the true G’d. 
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  ויען...כי יראתי, concerning your question “what did you do by misleading me,” I did not inform you of my impending departure because I was afraid; I said to myself if I tell you, you would rob me of “your daughters,” i.e. my wives and children.
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
   ורחל...בכר הגמל, in the saddle of the camel.
  
  Verse 35
  
  ותאמר...כי דרך נשים לי, she referred to menstruation. The Torah elsewhere described this as אורח הנשים, when describing Sarah as no longer experiencing these cycles (Genesis 18,11).
  
  Verse 36
  
  ויחר ליעקב, Yaakov was angry at the fact that Lavan did not believe him and personally searched all his belongings, even though he himself had challenged him to do so by saying הכר נא, “please try and find!” If Lavan had possessed the slightest bit of common courtesy that should have been enough for him to desist from an insulting and degrading search.
  
  Verse 37
  
  !כי מששת...שים כה, “please list all your complaints against me in front of all my family and your family. The people whom Yaakov referred to as אחי, “my brothers,” in this verse were the shepherds in his employ who were his brothers vocationally speaking, being members of the same guild.
  
  Verse 38
  
  זה עשרים שנה...לא שכלת, because of G’d’s blessing for me.
  ואילי צאנך לא אכלתי. I did not eat from a single one of the male sheep. The letter מ in front of the word אילי is missing, just as it is missing in Samuel II 23,24 in the line אלחנן בן דודו בית לחם where we would have expected מבית לחם. Another example of such a missing prefix מ is found In Joshua 10,13 עד יקום גוי אויביו, where we would have expected עד יקום גוי מאויביו, “until a nation arises from its enemies.” There are more such examples throughout Scripture. The reason Yaakov made a point of saying that he had not eaten of any of the male sheep was that it was widely accepted that the shepherds who were far from home would eat the meat of such animals. Yaakov made the point that far from following accepted practice, he had only eaten things that had belonged to him outright. Male sheep are worth less in the marketplace than their female counterparts. Their meat is also less tasty.
  
  Verse 39
  
  טרפה לא, even if an animal had been attacked by wild beasts in a manner which could not have been the fault of the shepherd, I did not bring you the evidence to prove my innocence in such an accident but replaced it out of my own pocket. I did not want you to claim that I could have protected the animal against its attacker. I knew that it would have been futile to claim that I was not to blame as you would have illegally debited me with its worth.
  אנכי אחטנה, I would have been blamed even if I had not been at fault 
  גנבתי יום, if an animal had been stolen from the flock either by day or by night I was always blamed for it and held responsible. I paid you for it regardless of the circumstances.
  גנבתי, the letter י at the end has been added for reasons which are not clear. It is similar to another superfluous י which is found in Isaiah 1,21. If the function of the letter י had been that of a pronoun, i.e. “mine,” the letter ב would have had to be written with the vowel kametz.
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  הייתי, seeing that I did not want to entrust the flock to another shepherd, I was forced to endure the sun’s heat by day and the extreme cold at night. I denied myself sleep at night for fear something could happen to any of the animals.
  
  Verse 41
  
  זה לי...בשתי בנותיך, I served you not only for one woman but for two, although it is not accepted practice for a man to serve for a woman. My wives testified to this when they described their father as “selling us.” (31,15)
  
  Verse 42
  
  לולי אלוקי אבי, after having used this term, Yaakov amplifies whom he meant by it, i.e. אלוקי אברהם ופחד יצחק היה לי, as explained by Onkelos  פחד יצחק is the G’d Yitzchok was in awe of. Yitzchok had subjected himself to slaughter by his father as he had been in awe of his father’s G’d. One can explain the words פחד יצחק as referring to Yaakov who was afraid that if he did not go home now he would never see his father again while he was alive.
  היה לי, Yaakov explains his surviving of Lavan’s machinations as being due to two separate causes. 1) if the G’d of Avraham had not been on my side ריקם שלחתני, you would have sent me home as empty-handed as when I arrived at your home. 2) had it not been for my urgent longing to see my father Yitzchok before he died. I doubt that I would have still have found him alive on my return if I had stayed with you any longer. Out of these considerations I could not remain with you. When I left my father he was already worried about his death approaching. If I want to see him once more alive, I decided that I must return home before it is too late. I could not tell you of my intention as you might have prevented me from being present at his death and my burying him.
  ויוכח אמש. He rebuked (you) last night, when He told you not to dare to display a hostile attitude towards me. (verse 29) 
  
  Verse 43
  
  ויען לבן...לי הוא, for all of this originated from my possessions.
  ?מה אעשה לאלה; he said “to these,” after having previously said: “and to my daughters.” He meant that to daughters such as these what am I able to do? How can I allow myself to be separated from them?
  
  Verse 44
  
  ועתה לכה, we already explained the meaning of this expression on 19,32.
  והיה, the words of this covenant shall testify between me and you. The actual terms of the covenant are spelled out beginning with the words in verse 50 אם תענה וגו'.
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  ויקח...וירימה מצבה. He tilted the stone to be upright and placed it on an elevation in the neighbourhood so that it would be visible from a distance. This is the meaning of the word וירימה, as distinct from simply וישם, as for instance in Genesis 28,18. This is also why he called it מצפה, “a lookout point.”
  
  Verse 46
  
  ויאמר... לאחיו, to his companions. Although Yaakov used the expression “to his brothers,” in telling them to collect stones for the monument, Lavan and his men did likewise and between them they built them into a pile before sharing a meal together. Yaakov ate a meal with his men, Lavan with his, both near the heap of stones they had erected. It is also possible that the meaning of the word לאחיו  includes also the men traveling with Lavan, as they were all included in that term now that their war had been settled peacefully. The meal then would be similar to placing a seal on the newly concluded covenant between them.
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  ויקרא, each party named the monument using their own language.
  יגר שהדותא, the Hebrew approximation is found in Jeremiah 51,37 והיתה בבל לגלים, “Babylon will then become a heap of stones.”
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  ויאמר, he made the statement following in his own language. Alternatively, he said all this in Hebrew as it is quite possible that Lavan knew Hebrew and when speaking with Yaakov used to speak to him in Hebrew.
  על כן קרא שמו, Yaakov named the monument Galed, meaning that the heap of stones should be a witness between himself [and the Torah mentions that this had been his intention already before the thought was articulated. Paraphrased by me. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  והמצפה, this was the monument he had previously called מצפה, as he had erected it on an elevated spot to serve as a lookout point. Another reason why Yaakov had chosen this name was יצף ה' ביני וביניך, that he had invoked G’d’s benevolent intervention based on their truce. Lavan called it something corresponding in the Aramaic language.
  כי נסתר, when they would live apart and not see each other so that neither would be aware of the other keeping to the terms of the agreement, G’d would be the witness between the two.
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  אם תענה את בנותי, if you will deprive them of any of their needs, the ones stipulated as the obligation of a husband towards his wives, or even if you do not treat them with the respect due to them. According to our sages in Yuma 77 the words אם תענה refer to denial of marital relations, whereas the words אם תקח, refer to Yaaov marrying additional wives, competitors to the existing ones.
  אין איש עמנו, a peculiar statement seeing there were plenty of people present at the time. What Lavan meant was that there would be a time when none of the people who now witnessed the covenant would be available to testify if a dispute concerning whether its terms had been kept erupted. Now that Yaakov returned home there was no one to remind him or even to report on observance or non-observance of the terms of the covenant. This is why Lavan invoked G’d as being the witness if the terms of the covenant were broken. He was to be the guarantor. [It is interesting to observe that in spite of Lavan being an idolater he always accepted that the G’d of Avraham was the One to Whom Yaakov owed allegiance, and according to Whose rules Yaakov had to conduct himself. This was not hypocrisy on his part. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  ויאמר...אשר יריתי ביני וביניך, the words להיותם עד, “to serve as witness” are presumed to be part of this verse. It is also possible that the line as it is written means “shall be between me and you,” as a warning not to trespass, i.e. violate any of the conditions agreed to. Crossing the boundary established for aggressive purposes was outlawed by mutual agreement. Lavan added the words אשר יריתי, “which I have set up,” to emphasise that although Yaakov had in fact erected this pile of stones, this was a joint undertaking and obligated both of them to keep the peace. After all, he, Lavan had first broached the subject of entering into a covenant. This meant that when Yaakov had erected the pile and the monument he had done so at the initiative and suggestion of Lavan, making it a joint enterprise. We have already explained on verse 46 that in  fact Lavan’s sons and brothers had collected the rocks which later formed the גל, the heap. [I believe that seeing they had no mortar the monument was called a גל, suggesting that it was not as permanent as a wall with its stones held in place by mortar. Ed.] The meaning of the words אשר יריתי could be: “at my instruction.” We have such a meaning of the root in Job 27,11 אורה אתכם ביד א-ל,”I will teach you what is in G’d’s power.”
  
  Verse 52
  
  עד...אם אני, the expression אם אני and אם אתה in this verse must be understood as if the Torah had written שאני and שאתה, “that I,“ “that you.” We find the word אם used in that sense in Genesis 24,19 עד אם כלו לשתות, “until they have finished drinking,” as we pointed out there. 
  אני, the word is spelled with the vowel kametz although it does not signify a comma or other interruption of the subject matter under discussion. It is to be understood as in Psalms 89,28 in אף אני-בכור אתנהו, “I will even consider him as a firstborn.”  The long vowel kametz lends emphasis to the word. So it does in our verse, and so it does in Genesis 27,34 ברכני גן אני אבי, “bless me also father!” Esau pleaded: “I too need a blessing.”
  ואת המצבה הזאת, which you have erected as a witness and sign of the covenant between you and me. Yaakov had erected the monument, whereas both had he and Lavan had combined to set up the pile of stones described as גל. This is why he mentioned the מצבה when saying to Yaakov ואם אתה, we must wonder altogether that Lavan was now prepared to make his peace with Yaakov, having obtained nothing in return for his pursuit. The fact is that although he had boasted that he possessed the power to harm Yaakov, he had realised that Yaakov’s G’d not only had assisted him in the past, but had given him, Lavan personally, notice not even to harass Yaakov. This is why now he begged for a peace agreement, as had Avimelech when be asked for such an agreement from Yitzchok after first having expelled him from Gerar. Avimelech had also acknowledged in front of his general that they had convinced themselves that G’d was on the side of Yitzchok (26,28) 
  
  Verse 53
  
  אלוקי אברהם ואלהי נחור, the first word “elo-hey” is sacred, the second is profane and may therefore be erased, seeing that Nachor had been an idolater. Lavan himself also believed in the gods of his grandfather Nachor. Neither Yitzchok nor Betuel have been mentioned here, seeing they were well known, famous even.
  אלוהי אביהם, here too the word “elohey” is profane and may be erased from a Torah scroll if the occasion demands it. Whenever an expression denoting G’d includes idols, even if as something minor, the word is treated as profane. What was meant here are the respective gods of Yaakov’s father and Lavan’s father, each one in accordance with his religious convictions. Yaakov, when rendering his oath, swore by פחד יצחק, the G’d that Yitzchok had been in awe of when he was prepared to be slaughtered by his father. (as we explained on verse 42)
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  ויזבח, he prepared a festive meal so that they would eat together before taking leave of each other. This was in honour of the covenant just concluded.
  לאחיו, Lavan and the men with him. Now that they had concluded a peace treaty they considered themselves all as brothers.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  וישכם, the word has been explained elsewhere.
  
  Verse 2
  
  ויעקב...מלאכי אלוקים. G’d sent His angels to him to keep him safe while he was journeying.
  
  Verse 3
  
  ויאמר...כאשר ראם, Yaakov’s reaction to these angels (inhuman garb) was similar to that of Avraham, his grandfather, in Genesis 18,20, when the latter is described as running to welcome them as soon as he saw them.
  מחנים, two camps. One camp consisted of angels, the other of Yaakov and his entourage. This is why he named this location מחנים. The name stuck, as we find it mentioned at that location in Samuel II 2,8. We also find again in Joshua 13,30. The local people agreed to the name change by Yaakov. The same applies to all locations of which the Torah tells us that one of the patriarchs had name, as we pointed out in or commentary at the beginning of this portion. (28,18) 
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  וישלח יעקב מלאכים, even though G’d had assured him of His support twice, he was still afraid of his brother. The reason was that at the time Yaakov had left home Esau had been very angry at him. He was now afraid that due to some sin he might have committed and that he had remained unaware of, he might forfeit G’d’s support. We elaborated on this concept already. In order to find out how Esau felt about him now, he sent some of his mean as emissaries. They were supposed to soften him up if that was necessary.
  ארצה שעיר, he had heard that Esau was there at the time although he had not settled there with his family. At this time he still lived in the land of Canaan. We know from 36,6-9 that Esau migrated to the land of Seir only at that time, after the meeting with Yaakov.
  שדה אדום, a synonym for “the land of Edom.” We have the same synonym also being used for the land of Moav in Ruth 1,1 when Elimelech left the land of Israel to settle in שדה מואב, meaning in ארץ מואב.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  ויצו אותם לאמור. He commanded them to use precisely the words Yaakov instructed them to use in the following verse, i.e. כה תאמרו “you shall say precisely these words!” This is clear from the fact that Yaakov charged his messengers to say to Esau: “thus say to my lord Esau. He should have said only: “thus say to Esau when you meet him, etc.”
  
  Verse 6
  
  ויהי לי שור וחמור. All the types of possessions Yaakov mentioned are not to be understood as single items but as categories of possessions. We find similar constructions in Kings II 7,10 כי אם הסוס אסור, which does not mean that a single horse had been tethered, but that the horses belonging to the army of the Aramites were tethered, the soldiers having fled. Similarly, Samuel I 14,24 where the words ואיש ישראל נגש do not mean that a single Israelite was distressed, but that a contingent of Israelites was in a depressed state of mind.
  
  Verse 7
  
  וישובו...אל אחיך אל עשו, they mentioned the name Esau after having referred to him as אחיך, “your brother.” They meant that “Esau still holds the old grudge against you.”
  וגם הולך לקראתך, he also reveals his hatred of you by marching with 400 men against you now that he knows you are in the vicinity.
  וארבע מאות איש עמו, he does not walk toward you with peaceful intentions but he is on his way in order to fight you.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  ויירא ויצר, the reason why the Torah repeated the emotions Yaakov experienced twice but in different words was to underline how strongly he felt this fear. In Bereshit Rabbah 76,2 these two expressions are described as basically meaning the same thing, the only difference being that the former is intransitive, Yaakov being afraid of being killed, whereas the latter describes a similar fear, but that of having to kill one’s adversary.
  ויחץ, Rabbah Chiyah said that in this part of the verse the Torah teaches us prudence. A man must not place all his eggs in one basket.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  ויאמר, the meaning is clear, i.e. he said this to himself.
  המחנה, the word is both masculine and feminine, the adjective האחת being feminine, whereas the adjective הנשאר is in the masculine mode.
  
  Verse 10
  
  ויאמר יעקב אלוקי אבי אברהם ואלוקי אבי יצחק, “You are the One Who has assured me when I left my father’s house that due to the merit of my fathers You would assist and protect me. (28,13). Now I turn to You in prayer relying on their merit in hoping that You will keep Your promise. Secondly, it was You Who has told me while I was in Charan to go back to the land of my fathers since their country was my country.
  ואטיבה עמך, You also added that You would be good to me and would remain on my side. We have already explained that when the Torah repeats something we must relate to the message and not to the minor changes in the words chosen to express the same thought a second time. (compare our comments on 21,2 and 24,39).
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  קטנתי, I am not asking You G’d to help me in a manner commensurate with my merits, as I am perfectly aware that these are utterly inadequate. כל החסדים וכל האמת אשר עשית את עבדך, Yaakov described as חסד the acts of unearned love G’d had performed for him, whereas he described as אמת, “truth,” i.e. deserved compensation, that G’d would keep His promise to him. (“Here, I am going to be with you, etc.” 28,15) He feels entitled to expect G’d to keep His promises when these are of a positive nature. When G’d had said to him that He would protect him wherever he would go, this had not been a conditional promise, dependent on Yaakov being worthy of such protection. He is aware that he may have sinned, but expects the promise to be kept for the sake of his father and grandfather both of whom G’d Himself had invoked in association with this promise. He feels that he deserves such protection, having heard that Esau is an unreformed sinner, still relating to him with hostility.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  הצילני...אם על בנים. The word על in this line substitutes for the word עם, “with.” It is used in a similar sense in Hoseah 10,14 אם על בנים רטשה, “mothers and children were dashed to pieces.”
  
  Verse 13
  
  ואתה אמרת, Yaakov’s formulation is reminiscent of that of David in Psalms 119,49 “remember Your word to Your servant through which You have given me hope.”
  היטב אטיב עמך, it is the custom for Scripture to write the verb in the infinitive mode together with the appropriate mode of the verb in order to reinforce what the verb expresses. According to Bereshit Rabbah 76,7 the word היטב refers to G’d’s support for Yaakov based on his merits, whereas the word איטיב refers to G’d’s support for him based on the merit of his father and grandfather.
  כחול הים, an inaccuracy, as in the verse Yaakov referred to G’d had promised that his descendents would be as numerous as the “dust of the earth,” not like the sand on the beaches of the sea. (28,14) The change in syntax is irrelevant, as we explained repeatedly that when the Torah repeats the same theme with different words, the reason is not to alert the reader to an additional dimension of the message, but only to stress the message, to draw attention to its importance.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  וילן, he remained standing all night waiting for a response to his prayer. While waiting he prepared the gift he was going to send to Esau in the morning. The Torah describes this gift in detail a little later on in its narrative, commencing with the words עזים מאתים.
  בידו, which were his. The word occurs in this sense also in 39,4 where Potiphar transfers all his belongings to the care of Joseph. The angel with whom Yaakov wrestled, and who represented the answer to his prayer, did not arrive until after Yaakov had completed preparing his gift for Esau. The reason for this delay was in order to teach us that we must not entrust our affairs to the intervention of G’d on our behalf until after we have exhausted natural means of achieving our purpose  (legally, of course). Even the greatest tzaddik must not entrust his needs to G’d while attending to matters such as Torah study, for instance, instead of his duties to insure his own and his family’s needs. These include prayer, appeasement of adversaries by gifts or lip-service, and in the final analysis physical resistance, war. In all one’s endeavours one must, of course, put one’s trust in G’d, hoping that He will approve of one’s efforts and grant one success.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  עזים מאתים, Yaakov the shepherd knew precisely how many male animals were required to service a flock of female animals to achieve the best results. Sheep and goats have similar requirements in this respect.
  
  Verse 16
  
  גמלים מיניקות, we did not know why Yaakov sent along young camels that were so tender that they still depended on mothers’ milk. (according to the words of the author Yaakov also sent such young male calves and male donkeys with their mother animals.) ובניהם together with their young there were a total of 30 camels. The number of animals in each herd was proportionate to the respective size of Yaakov’s total herds of that category of animal. Seeing that he owned relatively few camels, his gift of camels represented a certain percentage of the total number of camels he owned. The reason why the Torah bothered to give us the details of the gift Yaakov sent to his brother was to show us that he sent a substantial gift, and to teach us that if we ever need to atone for having deeply hurt someone and to hope that he will forgive us, it is appropriate to demonstrate our contriteness not so much with words as with a gift of substantial proportions. Yaakov enhanced the impression his gift made upon Esau by leaving a good amount of space between each of the flocks, making Esau feel repeatedly that he had already seen the whole gift, only to find that more was to follow. Bereshit Rabbah 76,8 also addresses the question of the space between the herds which Yaakov insisted the messengers must allow for. According to the Midrash he wanted Esau to feast his eyes on the size of the gift. When one part of the gift had been received and he thought that he had seen it all, another messenger with another herd would appear and request that Esau accept his herd as a gift from Yaakov.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  ויתן, he set
  ורוח, according to Bereshit Rabbah the רוח mentioned here was Yaakov’s prayer to G’d that if and when his descendants would be punished by G’d for collective wrongdoing, such punishments would be meted out at intervals and not all at once, to give the people a chance to recover from the previous disaster’s impact.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  ויצו, for each species of animal formed a herd by itself supervised by a separate servant. Yaakov instructed the one walking with the first herd to reply to Esau’s enquiry in the manner a servant answers his master.
  יפגשך, the letter ג with the vowel kametz is a long drawn out vowel and is weak, does not have a dagesh.
  אלה לפניך, as if it said אלה אשר לפניך, “these which preceded you?”
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  ויצו...במצאכם, the letter מ has the vowel cholem, and the letter צ has the vowel patach in order to lengthen the letter א. If not for this consideration the letter מ would have required the vowel chataf kametz (short) and the letter צ would have required a semi vowel sheva, as in Joshua 8,8 בתפשכם את העיר, “when you seize the city.”
  
  Verse 21
  
  ואמרתם, even though this instruction had already been given both collectively and individually, he repeated it again until they would remember to add “your servant Yaakov is following behind us.” Esau was to have the impression that Yaakov followed these shepherds, his servants, on his way to Seir in order to present himself to him.
  אכפרה פניו, I want to remove his anger. Every time the word כפרה appears it means the removal of something. For instance, in Isaiah 28,18 וכפר בריתכם את מות, “your covenant with death will be removed, cancelled.” The expression כפרת עון means “the removal of sin.” Compare also Isaiah 46,11.
  פניו, a reference to anger, seeing that anger is visible in one’s face. The idea of אכפרה פניו is to accomplish that his face no longer reflect his feeling of anger. We find this expression with Chanah, Samuel’s mother, after she had poured out her angry heart to G’d, having been deliberately goaded by Peninah, Elkanah’s other wife. (Samuel I 1,18) We also find this usage in Job 9,26.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  ותעבור המנחה על פניו, the words על פניו are equivalent to לפניו, “ahead of him, past him.” We encounter this expression in Samuel II 15,18 עוברים על פני המלך, “marching past the king.” According to Bereshit Rabbah 76,8 the words על פניו mean “under pressure.” In other words, the entire stratagem reflected Yaakov’s dire straits at the time.
  והא לן בלילה ההוא במחנה. He spent the night with the people of his encampment as he was not walking behind the herds he had sent ahead.
  
  Verse 23
  
  ויקם בלילה הוא, the letter ה before the word הוא, indicating which night the verse speaks about, is missing here. The reason is that it was not a different night, but that Yaakov got up during the night already mentioned after having slept only briefly.
  ויקח, he made them ready at the banks of the river to cross, while he himself crossed to test the depth of the water. This is the meaning of the words: ויעבר את מעבר יבוק, he brought them across the fording in the river Yabbok. Most rivers have points at which they are shallow, allowing people and animals to cross on foot. These locations are generally well known.
  ואת אחד עשר ילדיו, Dinah was included in the words “and his two wives,” as she was always close to Leah, her mother. Bereshit Rabbah 76,9 raises the question of where Dinah was in all this, and answers that Yaakov had put her into a box that he had locked. His concern had been that if Esau would see her he would take her by force. Rabbi Hunna, quoting Rabbi Abba Cohen son of Bar Delah, said  that G’d reacted to this by quoting Job 6,14 למס מרעהו חסר, that he had thereby withheld an opportunity from Esau to become a penitent sinner. Moreover, if Esau had indeed married Dinah she would not have been raped by Shechem. Because Yaakov did not want her to become married to a circumcised person she wound up sleeping with an uncircumcised one. (compare 34,1)
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  ויקחם ויעברם, after he had first crossed by himself to test the depth of the water he returned to the original bank and led his people and flocks across. Those who needed to be carried on his shoulders he carried, the ones old enough to cross by themselves he took by the hand and led them across. According to Bereshit Rabbah 76,9 quoting Rav Hunna, Yaakov made himself into a bridge taking hold of the children on one side and depositing them on the other side of the river.
  ויעבר את אשר לו, after having transferred the children, wives, etc, he transferred his property, inert objects, the animals having swum across. After he had safely seen to it that everything had crossed he remained solitary on the far bank to check if anything had been left behind inadvertently. Our sages in Chulin 91 explain that the righteous who are so concerned with not laying claim to anything which is not absolutely theirs, are also careful not to waste any hard earned acquisitions, even if small. This is not a sign of being miserly.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  ויאבק איש עמו, he wrestled with him so intensely that a cloud of dust enveloped them while they were struggling.
  איש, the same type of איש as in Joshua 5,13, i.e. an angel. This was the angel Gavriel, described as איש par excellence in Daniel 9,21. The reason why these angels are called איש is because they appear to the people with whom they converse in human guise. The types of angels who speak with man are referred to as איש, as they appear either in a vision or while the person to whom they appear is fully awake. G’d had sent this angel to Yaakov to strengthen his courage, not to fear Esau. If Yaakov could prevail over an angel, surely he had no reason to be afraid of an encounter with someone like Esau! The fact that the struggle lasted until daybreak was an allusion to Yaakov that after a period of night, i.e. problems, adversity, there would come a period of light, peace and prosperity coupled with security..
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  וירא כי לא יוכל לו, that he could not force him to the ground.
  ויגע בכף ירכו, he hinted to him that whereas Esau would not be able to overpower him, danger lurked for him from another source, that someone of his own children would cause him grief. He referred to his daughter who would be raped by an uncircumcised gentile. This is why he injured his כף ירכו, the word כף being feminine. Yaakov understood all this from what the angel had done, but he may not have understood how this hint applied to his daughter until it happened. He may have thought that she would either take sick or die. The entire episode must be viewed as a dream he had, even though on the morrow he found himself limping. This was a sign from G’d, a reprisal of a kind, for the doubts he had expressed about the various promises G’d had made him. G’d now punished him by making him unable to rely on parts of his body that he was in the habit of relying on. True, Yaakov trusted G’d with all his heart, but he was in a constant state of worry that the promises he had received would not come true due to some sin he had committed. Considering that G’d’s promise had been repeated on different occasions, proving that in the interval Yaakov had not forfeited his claim to them, he should no longer have doubted that G’d would not keep His promise for whatever reason. His servile behaviour towards Esau, including the many times he called him adoni, “my lord,” implied a lack of trust in the validity of G’d’s promises to him. Neither should he have sent him such an elaborate gift, nor should he have prostrated himself before him repeatedly. By doing so he committed a sin and G’d punished him in this life by afflicting his body, retribution already for planning to do this. If you prefer, you may understand this story as something taking place while Yaakov was awake but that he day dreamed the event and that the man appeared to him in this dream but that was a figment of his imagination. Similar events occurred in Joshua 5,13 although the conversation between Joshua and the angel sounds very real. In Judges 6,11 a similar wakeful encounter with someone perceived as an angel in human guise happened to Gideon, and there are more such instances in the Scriptures. In fact, we could also understand the encounter between angels and Avraham, and between Lot and the angels in such terms. However, the difficulty with such an interpretation in our example is the physical contact not only described in the narrative, but the evidence of an injury sustained by Yaakov which could hardly have resulted from some hallucinatory encounter. It is difficult to reconcile the Torah’s historical note that in commemoration of Yaakov’s injury the Jewish people do not eat the organ of an animal that corresponds to the one which was injured in Yaakov’s body during that encounter.
  ותקע, we find the word used in a similar meaning in Jeremiah 6,8 פן תקע נפשי ממך, “lest My essence be removed from you.”
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  ויאמר שלחני, he meant that he had been sent by G’d to Yaakov to demonstrate to him by a factual illustration that he would not overcome him, and that a mere human being such as Esau would certainly not be able to harm him. Now that I have accomplished my mission, please let me go. In other words, “unless you have any other request from me, I am leaving.” Yaakov said that indeed he did want something else of him, and until that was granted he would not let him depart. He wanted to receive the angel’s blessing. The reason that the angel added the words
  כי עלה השחר, that it is already becoming morning, was that Yaakov had no reason to be afraid, as the night, the time for fear, had already passed. Being alone, without escort during daylight is no reason for concern.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  ?ויאמר ..מה שמך?, this question is only an opener for the dialogue that follows. We have several such examples, as in Genesis 3,9 where G’d asks Adam איכה?, “where are you?,” though He was perfectly aware of Adam’s whereabouts. Similarly, in Exodus 4,2 G’d asks Moses “what is this in your hand?,” knowing full well that Moses was holding a staff in his hand. Here too, Yaakov was well aware who the angel was seeing he had been sent to him specifically.
  
  Verse 29
  
  ויאמר, an angel is allowed to expand the parameters of his mission, as we know already from when Lot asked the angel to allow him not to climb the mountain but to spend the night in Tzoar (Genesis 19,21). The angel there describes himself as granting permission, although it is possible that he checked with G’d first and the Torah did not bother to mention this.
  לא יעקב יאמר, the meaning is “not only Yaakov will your name be in future.” We have examples of parallel meanings in Joshua 22,20 לא גוע בעונו, “he did not die due to his sin,” where the meaning is that “not only Achan died for his sin, but due to his sin many others died.“ [The Israelites who fell in the first battle of Ai. Ed.] Also in Kings II 6,10, the words לא אחת ולא שתים, “not one and not two,” is such a construction. The expression means: “not once but many times.” Knowing that the meaning of our verse is that Yaakov will henceforth not only be known as Yaakov, helps explain the many occasions later when this original name is applied to him, as distinct from the name change of Avram to Avraham.
  כי אם ישראל, the name Yisrael denotes the nation founded by “Yaakov.” Our sages are of two minds if the former name of the additional name is the principal name. Rabbi Zecharyah is of the opinion that the name Yaakov remained the principal name, whereas the majority opinion is that from this point on the name Yisrael became the principal name of Yaakov. (Bereshit Rabbah 78,3) The point of the angel telling him that he would henceforth not be called Yaakov but Yisrael was to tell him that G’d would change his name. This occurred when Yaakov came to Bet El. This is why we read in 35,10 ויקרא את שמו ישראל. The reason for the name change was revealed to Yaakov by the angel.
  כי שרית עם אלוקים, with the angel. He wrestled with you and could not overpower you to the extent of felling you.
  ועם אנשים. With Lavan and Esau who intended to harm you and were unable to do so. He meant that exactly what had happened to Yaakov in his encounter with Lavan who had pursued him with hostile intent, would happen in his forthcoming encounter with Esau and his soldiers.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  וישאל...הגידה נא שמך, for each angel has a name appropriate to his mission. This is what Isaiah meant when he said (Isaiah 40,26) לכולם בשם יקרא, “Who calls them each by name. ”We find names of angels spelled out in Daniel 9,21 והאיש גבריאל, as well as chapter 10,12 in Daniel כי אם מיכאל שרכם. Seeing that the angel had changed his name, Yaakov wanted to know the angel’s name in order to find out what this angel’s primary task was.
  ?למה זה תשאל לשמי; a polite way of saying: “you do not need to know my name.” The same happened to Manoach in Judges 13,18 when he wanted to know the name of the angel who had announced that his wife would give birth to Shimshon. However, the difference there was that at the time Manoach asked he was still unaware that he was addressing an angel, thinking that he was dealing with a prophet, a human being. We do not really know why the angels keep their names secret. According to Bereshit Rabbah 78,4 the angel’s question meant that seeing each angel has a name assigned to him for each specific assignment he carries out on earth, there was no point in knowing his name as it would change before he would be given a new assignment. Rabbi Ami, quoting Abba Yossi, draws attention to two verses, one in Psalms 147,4 saying לכולם שמות יקרא, “He will call all of them by names,” and Isaiah 2,26 לכולם בשם קרא, “He calls all of them by name.” This appears to state that whereas the stars do not undergo name changes, angels names do. He uses the angel’s question to Manoach as proof that this is so. The angel answered Manoach that he did not know what his name would be on his next mission.
  ויברך אותו שם, apart from the fact that he had told him about his impending name change to Yisrael, explaining the reason for this, he gave him an additional blessing. The reason the verse ends with the word שם is that it is a reference to Bet El where G’d would confirm the name change.
  
  Verse 31
  
  ויקרא יעקב....פניאל...פנים אל פנים. According to one of the commentaries which we quoted (verse 26) that the angel had assumed human form, this experience was something new for Yaakov. For the first time he had seen a divine being face to face while being awake. Adding to this the fact that this angel had twisted his hip joint out of shape and he had survived this he was amazed that he had survived such an encounter. This is why he used the expression פנים אל פנים. He added the words 
  ותנצל נפשי, this is a statement Yaakov never made on other occasions when he had other visions. Seeing that we explained that the entire episode with the angel was a prophetic vision, the reason why he used the expression “face to face,” must be that the vision was so real to him that in his vision he reacted physically to the angel that appeared to him. If you were to consider this interpretation as unlikely, consider that we have been told that Moses spoke to G’d “face to face.” (Exodus 33,11 and again in Deuteronomy 5,4) the description “face to face” merely tells us about the realism involved in such prophetic encounters Moses experienced, as well as what the entire people experienced at the revelation at Mount Sinai when the mountain quaked, there was lightning and thunder, etc. Having experienced such an intense vision Yaakov understandably marvels at having survived such an experience, one in which he was totally involved, body and soul. The recollection of such intense experiences though having occurred in the form of visions, was strong enough to carry over into the affected people’s waking hours.
  שם המקום פניאל, this name was retained for future generations. There is no difference between פניאל and פנואל. They are variations in the name of the same location. The letters י and ו are well known as interchangeable letters.
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  ויזרח לו השמש, an expression similar in principle to Samuel II 2,39 ויאור להם בחברון, “it became light for them in Chevron,” when Yaakov passed Penuel the sun had just risen. An aggadic explanation (Bereshit Rabbah 78,8) of the wording, based on the word לו, “for him,” is that the sun had a therapeutic effect on Yaakov’s limp. Rabbi Berechyah explains the wording to mean that whereas everyone in Yaakov’s retinue appreciated the sun for its light, Yaakov appreciated it for its therapeutic effect on his injury. Rabbi Hunna says whereas the heat of the sun’s rays had a therapeutic effect on Yaakov, it had a debilitating effect on Esau and his hordes. He quotes Maleachi 3 10-20  “For lo! The day is at hand, burning like an oven. The arrogant and all the doers of evil shall be straw, and the day that is coming-said the Lord of Hosts- shall burn them to ashes and leave of them neither stock nor boughs. But for you who revere My name a sun of victory shall rise, a healing” You shall go forth and stamp like stall-fed calves and you shall trample the wicked to a pulp for they shall be dust beneath your feet on the day I am preparing, said the Lord of Hosts.
  והוא צולע על ירכו. When he passed Peniel he felt the injury as more painful and found himself forced to limp.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל, the children of Yaakov adopted this prohibition for themselves in commemoration of their father whose thigh muscle had been injured. They in turn commanded their children to abstain from eating this part of any animal. This continued until the Torah was given and it became law. It reminds us of the descendants of Yonadav ben Rechev who faithfully adhered to the clan’s founding father’s injunction not to drink wine (Jeremiah 35,6) in honour of the oath they swore to their forefather. They are described as loyalists par excellence in the Book of Chronicles. Moses recorded the custom of the Israelites not to eat this organ as one of the 613 commandments. Although the Torah does not generally consider it necessary to justify G’d’s legislation with a reason, in this case, since this law had been observed as a Jewish tribal custom for so many hundreds of years prior to the giving of the Torah, we are told how the custom which became enshrined in Torah law originated. 
  את גיד הנשה, our sages in  Chulin 91 explain the name of this muscle or ligament (sciatic nerve) as due to the fact that it is apt to move from its original location, from the spoon shaped joint  to which it is attached.
  אשר על כף הירך, the only part of the sinew prohibited by Biblical injunction is the part directly attached to the hip joint.. What is above and below is forbidden by Rabbinic decree. Similarly, the exterior sinew is also only forbidden by Rabbinic decree (Chulin 91) The prohibition applies equally to domesticated beasts, free roaming beasts, as well as to the שליל, the as yet unborn embryo. The prohibition applies to both the right and the left hind leg of the animal, even though the sages are agreed that only one of Yaakov’s sciatic nerves was injured as seems clear from the words (singular) “he dislocated the sinew of the thigh-vein.” The halachic ruling follows the view of Rabbi Yossi that although only one sinew was injured they are both forbidden to be eaten. The fatty tissue on top of these sinews is also forbidden as a Rabbinic injunction.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  וישא יעקב...ויחץ, he divided them between their respective mothers. Each mother would naturally have stronger concern for her own children and if it came to interceding for her own children would do so with more heart-rending pleas than she would for the children of someone else.
  
  Verse 2
  
  וישם, the most beloved he placed last, hoping that Esau’s anger had been blunted by the time he met them.
  
  Verse 3
  
  והוא עבר לפניהם, as a father who has compassion on his children. He offered himself as the butt of Esau’s anger hoping thereby to save the lives of his children. Either Esau would agree not to harm the children or he would engage Esau in battle to try and save his children if Esau refused his offer of reconciliation.
  שבע פעמים. According to Bereshit Rabbah 78,8 the reason why he prostrated himself 7 times before Esau is based on Proverbs 24,16 שבע יפול צדיק, that the righteous fall down seven times before remaining upright after getting up.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  וירץ, when Esau saw that Yaakov had humbled himself so much before him, he forgave what he had done to him and his sense of compassion was stirred.
  וישקהו, the word has a dot on each of the letters. In Bereshit Rabbah 78,9 Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that everywhere where you find the dots do not cover each letter of the word underneath we give preference to the meaning of the text as is, without the dots. When there are more dots than letters, we give emphasis in our interpretation to the dots. In this instance, there are as many dots as there are letters in the word וישקהו, so that we understand that Esau kissed Esau sincerely with all his heart. To this Rabbi Yannai countered by asking that if this is indeed so, why bother to put any dots on the word if they do not affect the meaning?  We therefore must interpret that originally Esau had intended to bite Yaakov’s neck feigning an embrace. G’d made his teeth as soft as wax and Yaakov’s neck as hard as ivory. ויבכו, one on account of his neck, the other on account of his teeth.
  
  Verse 5
  
  וישא...מי אלה לך, these women and children whom I see, as well as all the numerous servants, who are they? Yaakov answered him concerning the children, and Esau deduced that the women next to them were their mothers.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  נגש יוסף ורחל. He made Joseph approach Esau before Rachel, seeing that Rachel was so protective of him (her only child) that she made him walk in front of her where she could constantly keep her eye on him, literally keeping him between her hands. There is an aggadic explanation (quoted by Rashi) that Joseph walked in front of his mother on his own initiative because she was so attractive that he wanted to shield her from inquisitive eyes using his tall physique to shield her from such glances. The source of the Midrash cites the wordבן פורת יוסף בן פורת עלי עין, “Joseph is a noble and prominent son, a noble and prominent son already at the source (well) (Genesis 49,22)
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  ?ויאמר מי לך, “to whom belong?” In other words, “to whom did you send this whole camp which is at your disposal, and to who did you send all these sheep and cattle?”
  למצוא חן בעיניך אדוני I have sent it to you my lord in the hope that by accepting it you would do me a favour.
  
  Verse 9
  
  ויאמר עשו, “I do not need your gift for יש לי רב, I possess a great deal.” In Bereshit Rabbah 78,11 the words יש לי רב are understood as meaning: “keep what is yours.” Rabbi Eleazar paraphrased that the validity of a decree of divorce can be attested to only by the people who have signed it. You should not say that if our patriarch Yaakov had not fooled his father he would not have received the blessings. [Yaakov wanted to show Esau that none of these blessings had been fulfilled for him, and that his wealth was totally independent of what his father had assured him of instead of Esau. Ed.] After all these years, Esau finally acknowledged that he had not suffered as a result of Yaakov’s being blessed, so that he said “keep what is yours!”
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  ויאמר יעקב...כי על כן ראיתי, this is precisely why it is appropriate that you accept my gift for I give it to you wholeheartedly. When I looked at your face I recognised that it bears the same features as the angel whom I have encountered and who has blessed me. Yaakov alluded to that nocturnal encounter in order to make Esau afraid to harm him. Yaakov had learned from the effect an encounter with angel- albeit it in a nocturnal vision- had had upon Lavan, who had not dared to attack him (29.31) Esau was well aware that Yaakov was a righteous man ever since his youth and he did not hesitate to believe him when told that Yaakov had encounters with angels. When Yaakov flattered Esau that the latter’s features reminded him of the features of the angel he had had a dialogue with, this was an exaggeration, of course. We find a similar exaggeration in Samuel II 14,20 where the woman from Tekoah says to King David that “my lord is wise as an angel of G’d and he knows all that goes on in the land.”
  ותרצני, it was a source of satisfaction for me. Alternatively, the word could mean: “after you have displayed your goodwill towards me.”
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  קח נא את ברכתי, the word ברכתי here means: “my gift.” It occurs in this sense in Kings II 5,15 קח נא ברכה מאת עבדך, “please accept a gift from your servant.”
  אשר הובאת לך, by the servants who have been walking ahead of me behind those herds. Besides, I have all the wealth and honour I could wish for.
  ויפצר בו, he pleaded with him insistently until he agreed to accept it.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  ויאמר נסעה, it is possible that Esau’s “suggestion” was in the nature of a command. He was conscious that Yaakov’s progress would be slow due to the animals as well as the children some of whom were of tender age.
  ואלכה לנגדך, I will go faster  but will remain close by, נגדך,. Alternately, the word נסעה is suggestion in the plural mode, Esau suggesting that they proceed side by side.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  ויאמר...עלות עלי, the word עלות is a term denoting mother animals that are still suckling their young. It is important for their well being that they not be hurried.
  עלי, it us to me to take care of them by leading them at a leisurely pace.
  ודפקום, if they were to be pushed (rushed), Yaakov explained that if his shepherds were to rush these animals even for a single day the sheep would all die from exhaustion. [the author understands Yaakov as telling Esau that “too much can be too little, sometimes.” This is why he quotes Isaiah 30,20. Ed.] In that verse the prophet explains that when G’d provides לחם צר ומים לחץ, “meager bread and scant water,” this is a promise and not a punishment. Too much of a good thing would be counterproductive, would ruin the health of recipient. Hence it is better for the sheep not to travel too fast.
  ומתו, the prefix ו in this word is analogous to similar prefixes in the words ורכב וסוס in Psalms76,7, and other similar examples. [the point is that the Torah did not write umeytu, but vameytu. Ed.]
  
  Verse 14
  
  יעבר נא ...לרגל המלאכה, the cattle is referred to as מלאכה, because cattle are the instruments by means of which most basic agricultural work is performed. We find a similar usage of the word מלאכה in Samuel I 15,9 וכל המלאכה נמבזה ונמס, “and all the inferior cattle (those they killed).”
  
  Verse 15
  
  ויאמר למה זה אמצא חן בעיני אדוני, this is Yaakov speaking, saying to Esau that he need not bother to honour him so excessively. We find a similar verse in Ruth 2,10 מדוע מצאתי חן בעיניך להכירני, where Ruth expresses her disbelief about the kindly interest taken in her the alien, the widowed stranger, by Boaz. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  ויעקב...ויבן לו בית, this teaches that it was during the rainy season. In Bereshit Rabbah 78,16 it is concluded from this detail that Yaakov stayed at Sukkot for several years. [other versions say that it was in Bet El where he stayed 18 months or longer. Ed.]
  
  Verse 18
  
  ויבא יעקב שלם, meaning that he had not incurred any damage or loss as a result of his encounter with Esau. He had not suffered any deterioration during his entire journey from Aram Naharayim. The matter is underlined to show that now that he had returned to the land of Canaan, his homeland, he suffered the indignity of his daughter Dinah being raped. Seeing that this happened at Shechem, the Torah mentions that town instead of telling us that he was 100% o.k. until he came to Sukkot and built himself a house. The Midrash understands the word שלם as a state of being, i.e. similar to when he had said יש לי כל,“I am blessed with everything,” in response to Esau having said יש לי רוב. “I have lots.”
  את פני העיר; in front of the town. The expression is parallel to Proverbs 17,24 את פני מבין חכמה, “wisdom is in front of (available) any discerning person.” Perhaps the town was small so that there was not enough room to accommodate Yaakov whose entourage consisted of two camps. His presence inside the town might have cramped their quarters. He therefore erected his tent outside the borders of the town on the piece of land he had bought. According to our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 79,6  the words ויחן את פני העיר mean that seeing he arrived on Friday evening shortly before the onset of the Sabbath, he made an Eiruv Techumim, delineating the area he could walk within freely on the Sabbath. We would learn from here that Yaakov observed the Sabbath legislation down to Rabbinic decrees before such a legislation was given to his descendants at Mount Sinai. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  ויקן ...מיד בני חמור, the Torah does not write “from Chamor,” but from “the sons of Chamor” who was the father of Shechem, as perhaps the land had belonged to the sons and not to him.
  אבי שכם, seeing that the son was so distinguished the father is identified by reference to his son.
  במאה קשיטה,  silver coins. According to our sages in Rosh Hashanah 26 Rabbi Akiva once reported that while he walked in a place called Arabia he heard that the local people called a certain coin equivalent to a מעה in the land of Israel a קשיטה. According to Onkelos the meaning of קשיטה may be חורפן, “young lambs.” He translated it as such also in 21,28
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  ויצב שם, considering that the Torah used the word ויצב instead of ויבן, he built, it is probable that this altar consisted of only one large lab of stone. He placed this stone in the appropriate position to serve as an altar upon which to offer his sacrifice.
  ויקרא לו א-ל אלו-הי ישראל, he named the altar thus in commemoration of the fact that G’d had saved him while he was en route, and had sent an angel to accomplish that, and had also changed his name to Yisrael. It is possible that he placed the stone at the site where he had the nocturnal encounter with the angel. We find a parallel to this in Exodus 17,15 where Moses called the altar he had built ה' נסי, “G’d is my miracle,” in commemoration of the miracle G’d had performed for the Israelites enabling them to defeat the Amalekites. Another similar example of the name of G’d being linked to the salvation He brings to the Jewish people, albeit in the future, is found in Jeremiah 23,6, זה שמו אשר יקראו ה' צדקנו. A similar verse occurs in Jeremiah 33,17, whereas in Ezekiel 48,35 we found a city (the new Jerusalem) being named after an event (the redemption), the new name meaning: “the Lord is there.”
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ותצא דינה בת לאה, she went forth from her mother’s tent, her father also not being at home, and she came into the town to get acquainted with other girls in the town. The reason why the Torah underscored that she was the daughter of Leah, a fact we are all familiar with, was to remind us “like mother like daughter.” Her mother had been described in 30,16 by the words ותצא לאה לקראתו, “Leah went forth to meet her husband,” suggesting that she took an initiative which was not common for her. The reason the Torah added another fact that we knew already, i.e. אשר ילדה ליעקב, “whom she had born for Yaakov,” is to alert us to the fact that what happened to her was a punishment for her father (as we explained in 32,23).
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  וירא, the reason why the Torah uses the word ויעניה when what Shechem had done was more in the nature of a seduction that a violent rape, is that this term is used in connection with a virgin having intercourse, something usually very painful for her. The term is also used on account of this reason in Deuteronomy 22,29.
  
  Verse 3
  
  ותדבק נפשו בדינה בת יעקב, his soul felt a strong attachment to her on account of her beauty as well as on account of the fact that she was the daughter of an outstanding personality, Yaakov.
  וידבר על לב הנערה, seeing that he had caused her pain, he now did his best to soothe her feelings as he was intent of marrying her and needed her consent. He hoped that his being the crown prince would help sway her opinion in his favour.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  ויעקב שמע כי טמא, Shechem, who had already been mentioned (hence his name does not need to be repeated here and a pronoun will do) and that as a result of what he did, Dinah had been defiled by an uncircumcised person who had been intimate with her.
  והחריש יעקב, he did not raise a fuss in the town but waited until his sons would come home from the field. Similarly, when Chamor came to speak to him, Yaakov waited with answering him by telling him that he preferred to wait until his sons were present.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  ובני יעקב...בישראל, the rape of Dinah was considered as a stain of the spiritual wholeness of all the family of Yisrael.
  וכן לא יעשה, it was totally unforgivable for something of this nature to be done. This is why they were so angry that it had been done to them (of all people).
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  וידבר חמור אתם, with Yaakov and his sons.
  בבתכם, not “your sister,” although she was the sister to 11 brothers, but “your daughter,” seeing her status as the daughter of Yaakov was the foremost consideration. Besides, each of Dinah’s brothers was concerned for her well being as if she had been his daughter, not just his sister.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  והתחתנו אותנו, the word אותנו here means the same as if the Torah had written either עמנו or בנו, “with us.”
  
  Verse 10
  
  ואתנו... וסחרוה, and trade within it.
  והאחזו בה, and buy yourselves freehold property there until you will be equal to the prominent people of the town.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  ויענו בני יעקב, Yaakov himself did not utter a single word of falsehood or deceit, even though seeing that he had been the injured party he could have excused such conduct. He left the matter in his sons’ care and if they used subterfuge he did not interfere. The brothers did not consider their conduct as reprehensible for people who had defiled their sister and were still holding her captive.
  
  Verse 14
  
  ויאמרו ...כי חרפה היא לנו, to be intermarried with the uncircumcised, seeing that our males are all circumcised.
  
  Verse 15
  
  אך...נאות, we would be willing.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ואם לא...בתנו, as we explained on 34,9
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  ולא...לעשות הדבר, to gather together the men of his town and to speak with them.
  והוא נכבד, seeing that he was highly esteemed. he was able to persuade the citizens of his town to circumcise themselves for his and their sake.
  
  Verse 20
  
  ויבא...אל שער עירם, this is where they would hold an assembly of the elders of the town together with the other influential citizens as was the custom pertaining to all matters of common concern. We find examples of such conduct both in Deuteronomy 25,7 and in Ruth 4,1. where the word השערה means that this is the place where assembles were held.
  
  Verse 21
  
  האנשים האלה שלמים הם אתנו, they are quite peaceful towards us even though I raped their sister; the reason is that they are anxious to live side by side with us and to become one people. They are asking for a very minor concession on our part, that all out males must circumcise themselves as they are all circumcised themselves. He argued that acceptance of such a demand would not deprive his townsfolk of anything of value. In return for complying with their demand his countrymen would become co-owners of the extensive property of Yaakov’s family רחבת ידים לפניהם. Even though they do possess extensive herds and flocks, the land is more than adequate to support these animals without our having to limit the grazing land allocated to our livestock.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  מקניהם, this is one of 3 instances where the letter י after the נ is missing in this word. As spelled, the word means “they are cattle.” [Ibn Ezra sees in this a hint that the people of Shechem saw in Yaakov’s family and belongings prospective property of theirs, placing man and beast on the same footing. Ed.]
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  ויהי ביום השלישי בהיותם כואבים, this was because the pains are strongest on the third day after the circumcision. In view of this the sages permitted bathing the child with hot water on the Sabbath after the circumcision, if it coincided with being the third day after the operation.(Shabbat 134). Even hot water boiled on the Sabbath itself is permissible to be used for this when there is no other, as the potential danger to the life of the infant overrides the Sabbath legislation not to boil anything on that day.
  ויקחו שני בני יעקב, in this instance, Shimon and Levi, although all the brothers were in complete agreement of what was being planned. We know this from verse 13 ויענו בני יעקב במרמה, “the sons of Yaakov responded, deceitfully.” When it came to carrying out their plan, the other brothers were afraid and did not risk their lives in that undertaking. Only Shimon and Levi considered the fate of their sister as paramount. אחי דינה; the Torah accords them full points for considering themselves as the brothers of Dinah par excellence, although at least four more of the brothers were Dinah’s brothers both from the father and from the mother.
  בטח, they were feeling as secure as if they were numerous and not 2 against a whole town.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  ויקחו את דינה; there is an aggadic commentary (Bereshit Rabbah 80,11) according to which Dinah felt so ashamed that she did not want to leave the house of Shechem until Shimon swore to her that he would marry her, and that this is the meaning of 46,10 where among the issue of Shimon one is described as being named “Sha-ul son of the Canaanite (woman). “Supposedly, the father of that child was Shechem, i.e. Dinah had conceived him at the time of the rape.
  
  Verse 27
  
  בני יעקב באו על החללים, to undress them and to take all their possessions 
  אשר טמאו אחותם, to demonstrate by means of this that the men of this city had defiled their sister. This became public knowledge in the region after the sons of Yaakov killed the people who had tolerated this crime, the townspeople had watched the violent rape and had not lifted a finger to stop it. The sons of Yaakov also took all the movable possessions of the city of Shechem both in the city and the fields belonging to that town.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  ואת כל חילם, silver, gold , and precious stones.
  ואת כל אשר בבית, chattels. The word בבית is a general term, a place where most chattels are kept.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  ויאמר...עכרתם, an expression meaning “destruction.” The word is used in this sense in Samuel I 14,29 עכר אבי את הארץ, “my father has destroyed the land.” [I do not see this meaning in the root עכר either here or in Samuel. I would translate it more appropriately as “confused, caused confusion. Ed.]
  להבאשני, to cause me shame. The Canaanites in the region will despise me and try to remove me from the district as one removes a person who exudes a putrid stench. Yaakov reacted in the time-honoured fashion of being afraid, almost a trademark of his, whereas his sons were stout-hearted men willing to avenge the shame inflicted upon their very personalities.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  ?ויאמרו הכזונה, is Shechem to be allowed to treat our sister as if she were a harlot, and we should not avenge the shame she was subjected to?
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויאמר אלוקים, an angel appeared to him while he was at Shechem and told him to proceed to Bet El, and to redeem his vow there. Regarding the words of the angel: ושב שם, “and settle down there!,” this did not mean that Yaakov was to settle there permanently, but that he was to remain there long enough to build the house of G’d which he had undertaken to do as part of his original vow. The angel on this occasion hinted that Yaakov’s “dream” with the ladder had in fact been more than a dream, it had been the first vision of the Divine he had experienced. The incident with Dinah’s rape and the subsequent upheaval had delayed Yaakov’s progress in the direction of his father’s home. Yaakov’s having built himself a house in Sukkot and his purchase of real estate had given the impression that he intended to settle in that vicinity permanently. His duty at that time had been to proceed to Bet El and to pay his vow of 34 years ago. He was supposed to proceed directly in the direction of his father’s home without allowing himself to be distracted on the way. Having failed to do this, G’d punished him with the incident involving Dinah. Even though we explained that Yaakov’s punishment was due to his having experienced fear in spite of repeated assurances by G’d that He would be with him, this delay he had allowed himself was an additional reason for his being punished.
  לא-ל הנראה אליך, a reference to what he saw in his dream when G’d appeared to him to be standing on top of the ladder (28,13). At this juncture, the angel addressing him told him to build there an altar to the attribute of G’d Who had appeared to him at that location. The reason for the angel adding: בברחך, “when you were fleeing, etc.,” was a reminder to him that at that time he had been all alone and that G’d had given him His assurance that He would look after him and would bring him back to the land of Canaan. Seeing that G’d had kept His promise, it was now Yaakov’s turn to keep his vow.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  אל ביתו, to his children.
  ואל כל אשר לו, to his men and maidservants.
  הסירו את אלוהי הנכר, the silver and gold the sons of Yaakov had looted from Shechem had idolatrous images engraved upon them, as had the various pieces of jewelry they had taken with them from there. Even though Yaakov’s sons had not taken these items in order to worship them but in order to melt them down and to put them to other uses, i.e. to use the melted down gold and silver, [something halachically acceptable as the idolatrous nature of these artifacts had been nullified through the melt down, Ed.] Yaakov did not want his children or household to benefit from anything which had once served idolatrous purposes although it was no longer recognisable as something that had once served such a purpose. Moses is on record as expressing similar sentiments when he said (Deuteronomy 7,25) “do not covet the silver or gold which was upon them.” (after the idols themselves had already been destroyed) He repeated this sentiment even more strongly in Deuteronomy 13,18 when he said “no part of the banned property may adhere to your hand, etc.” [these injunctions were especially called for after the Israelites had not only been allowed to loot the property of the former owners, but other Torah legislation such as even the eating of pig had been temporarily suspended during the years when the conquered the land of Canaan and had not yet settled there and received their tribal heritage. Ed.]
  והטהרו; they needed to purify themselves as contact with idolatrous objects confers ritual impurity on the person who had been in touch with it.
  והחליפו שמלותיכם, your garments too have become contaminated by the same ritual impurity so that you have to put on others. Alternatively, what is meant are the garments of the people of Shechem which were part of the loot.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  ויטמן, he did not leave them above ground so as not to become the indirect cause of someone retrieving the items and using them in an idolatrous fashion.
  אשר עם שכם, near Shechem; we have a similar construction involving the preposition עם in 25,11 וישב יצחק עם באר לחי רואי, “Yitzchok settled near the place named Beer Lachay Ro-i.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  לוזה אשר בארץ כנען, this teaches that there was a second place or town called “Luz.”
  הוא וכל העם, the Torah wants to inform us that Yaakov had not suffered a single casualty among his servants, even, as a negative fallout of the killing of all the males in Shechem, not even on the way. This was all due to the intense fear of retribution by the G’d of Yaakov which had gripped the Canaanites of the region. They did not even dare pursue the family, [which might have been perceived as retreating, seeing that they had not made an attempt to take over the city, Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  ויבן שם מזבח, this means that he built the altar in the house he had built there at the site of the original monument of which he had said in 28,22 “this will become a house of G’d.” We explained this on that verse. It does not matter that the house itself was not mentioned here separately.
  ויקרא למקום א-ל בית א-ל. He had already called it Bet El on a previous occasion, Now he only expanded the name. Compare our commentary on 33,20.
  כי שם נגלו אליו האלוקים, a reference to the angels ascending and descending the ladder whom he had seen in his dream. Alternatively, the meaning of the word ה-אלוקים is a reference to G’d, Himself, not an intermediary. The reason why he used the plural mode נגלו instead of נגלה when the subject is only G’d Himself, is that this is a form of great respect and honour for the subject [known as pluralis majestatis when a king refers to himself in the plural. Ed.] compare Psalms 149,2 ישמח ישראל בעושיו, “Let Israel rejoice in its Maker.” A similar construction is found in Job 35,10 איה אלו-ה עושי?, “Where is the Lord, My Maker?” There are more such examples in Scripture.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  ותמת דבורה, according to Rashi, Rivkah had sent word to Yaakov by means of Devorah in accordance with her promise at the time that as soon as Esau’s anger would subside she would recall him from his exile. (27,45) When Devorah delivered the message at Bet El she died forthwith.
  תחת האלון, beneath the oak. This category of tree also appears in Hoseah 4,13 and in Ezekiel 27,6. According to Onkelos the word is the same as ר\אלוני ממרא with the vowel tzeyreh, i.e. it describes a certain valley or a grove of trees. In Bereshit Rabbah 81,5 Rabbi Shemuel bar Nachman understands the meaning of the word alon as derived from the Greek, where it means “double, additional,” The Torah hints that before the mourning fro Deborah was over, news reached Yaakov that his mother Rivkah had died.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  וירא אלוקים, G’d appeared to Yaakov again; after the mourning. אל יעקב עוד, the reason why the Torah writes עוד, again, is so that we know that this was not an angel, but G’d Himself, Who had already previously appeared to Yaakov as such in 28,13. Just as He had appeared to him on his way to Padan Aram, He now appeared to him when Yaakov was returning from Padan Aram. [I wonder if the fact that on the two occasions when our author emphasises the appearance of G’d without intermediary, were chosen because both took place on the holy soil of the land of Israel, whereas in the Diaspora G’d at best reveals Himself through an intermediary. Ed.]
  וברך אותו, the blessing consisted of the verses 10-13. ויאמר...כי אם ישראל, the new name is to be used additionally, as we explained already.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  ויאמר...אני א-ל שדי; strong and self-sufficient, able to guide all of history, in charge of all developments. We explained this on 17,1. The three matriarchs had all been genetically barren, and G’d overcame their genetic handicaps so that each bore children. This was a display of the attribute א-ל שדי at work.
  פרה ורבה, (a promise) you will be fruitful and you will multiply. We explained this in connection with Genesis 1,22. G’d gave a similar promise to Avraham in 17,7 where the promise applied to Avraham’s offspring. Seeing that Yaakov did not have another child after this blessing was pronounced, it is clear that in his case just as in Avraham’s case the promise applied to the next generation, i.e. all of Yaakov’s children were included in this blessing.
  גוי וקהל גוים, they will all belong to one distinctive nation.  This is stated in Chronicles I 17,21 ומי כעמך ישראל גוי אחד בארץ, “and who is like Your people Israel, a unique nation on earth?” This nation will develop into a community of nations  i.e. 12 tribes including the son that is about to be born to you  now. ומלכים, as per its plain meaning, i.e. “kings.” Basically G’d blessed Yaakov with the same blessing as the one He had bestowed on Avraham, seeing Yaakov was Avraham’s special seed. [of Avraham’s 8 sons, only Yaakov carried on the tradition. Ed.] In Bereshit Rabbah 82,4 our verse is understood as referring specifically to Rachel’s sons. The word גוי is understood as referring to Binyamin, whereas the words קהל גוים are understood as referring to Menashe and Ephrayin, whereas the word מלכים is understood as referring to the two kings from the tribe of Binyamin, Sha-ul and Ish Boshet. Is it possible that Avner who was a righteous man should have rejected the Kingdom of David and appointed Ish Boshet instead? We must answer that he found this Midrash and based himself on that, appointing a king who was a descendant of Binyaim. [and who would be putty in his hands. Ed.] 
  
  Verse 12
  
  ואת...לך אתננה,  as of now.
  ולזרעך אחריך אתן את הארץ, for they will inherit it and settle it.
  
  Verse 13
  
  ויעל מעליו, just as we have been told in 17,22 when G’d departed from Avraham. The manifestation of His Presence revealed to the patriarchs in a vision came to an end. Yaakov had a visual impression of G’d as He was withdrawing His presence from him. In Bereshit Rabbah 82,6 Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish points out the appropriate nature of this expression for G’d “rising, as it confirms that the patriarchs were the “carriers” of G’d’s Presence on earth (merkavah).
  במקום אשר דבר אתו, to inform us that the site in question was especially suitable for receiving prophetic insights. G’d spoke to Yaakov at this site already for a second time, as pointed out to him by the angel. He would speak to prophets at that location also in the future as we know from Hoseah 12,5. The site under discussion here is the one where Yaakov at the time when he had the dream with the ladder had anointed the stone which had served as his pillow. The words ויעל מעליו, are a hint that the day would come-after the sin of the golden calf- when the Presence of G’d will withdraw from the Jewish people.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  ויצב, the reason why the Torah repeats once more “in the place where He had spoken to him,” is to tell us that Yaakov had come to realise that that place was singularly suitable for deserving people to receive prophetic insights. Even though Yaakov had already said on the original occasion that this place must be designated as a house of G’d, now that G’d’s promises to him had materialised, seeing that G’d had spoken to him in that very place this was even plainer.
  מצבת אבן, a different stone, not the one he had anointed at the time, 34 years ago. He added one more stone to the monument he had erected then. 
  ויסך עליה נסך, a libation consisting of wine.
  ויצוק עליה שמן, also intended as a gift offering.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  ויקרא יעקב, this has now been mentioned already a third time, all in order to make sure that we understand that the site at which Yaakov had built the house of G’d, the monument, and the altar he called Bet El, in addition to the fact that originally the name of the whole city had been Bet El. Now the name of the town reflected what had occurred nearby repeatedly.
  
  Verse 16
  
  ויסעו...כברת, the meaning of the word כברת הארץ is equivalent to approximately 1200 meters. I believe that the letter כ here is a preposition, the name of the word describing the distance being ברת. We find a similar construction in Samuel II 12,17 ולא ברה אתם לחם “he did not even eat a little amount with them. [I do not understand the relevance of this verse to the word כברת in our verse. Ed.]  The letter כ may be a כף הדמיון a letter introducing an estimate, such as כעשרים איש, about 20 men, or כאלפים אמה, approximately 2000 cubits.
  ותקש בלדתה, she endured great pain during her birthing. The word ותקש may be an intransitive mode of the verb in spite of the dagesh in the letter ת, or it may be in the transitive mode meaning that the pains caused her body to become rigid, interfering with the birthing process. At any rate, she suffered extreme pain.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  כי גם זה לך בן, “as you had said when you gave birth to Joseph, when you asked G’d to grant you another son. (30,24.) Now get hold of yourself.” 
  
  Verse 18
  
  ויהי בצאת נפשה, while her soul was about to depart from her body,
  כי מתה, ,for she was dying and there was no hope for her, she called him
  בן אוני, for I gave birth to him in great pain;
  ואביו קרא לו בנימין, meaning “the son of my right hand.” The name suggested that the child is especially beloved seeing that he was born when his father was already advanced in years. We find the word ימין used in the sense of being especially beloved in Psalms 80,18 וכן תהי ידך על איש ימינך, “grant Your help to the man at Your right hand, etc.” The end of the verse על בן אדם אמצת לך, “the one You have adopted as Your own,” spells out this meaning beyond any doubt.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  ויסע, on his way to his father’s house.
  
  Verse 22
  
  ויהי בשכון, Yaakov did not reside anywhere until he came to his father; however, seeing that he had so many animals and possessions that he moved extremely slowly, it appeared as if he was actually settling down.
  וילך ראובן, he went to Bilhah’s tent and slept with her.
  פלגש אביו, his father’s concubine. Actually, she was his father’s wife, but in Reuven’s view she was no better than a concubine. Reuven did not consider her as out of bounds to him as she had been a slave woman originally, and his father had subsequently taken her to be his concubine. The Torah clearly states that she had become Yaakov’s proper wife in all matters legal. (30,4) As such Bilhah was totally out of bounds to him. Even before the giving of the Torah, the laws of incest governing all of mankind (Noachide laws) included the prohibition of sleeping with one’s father’s wife. (compare our commentary on 20,24) If such legislation applied to all of mankind, how much more so did it apply to the sons of Yaakov. As a result of this trespass Reuven’s status as Yaakov’s legal firstborn was revoked on Yaakov’s deathbed when he publicly announced his unfitness for the title as we also know from Chronicles I 5,1, and his position was given to Joseph instead.
  וישמע ישראל, he stopped living with Bilhah as a result of this. The meaning of the line ויהיו בני יעקב שנים עשר, is that from that time on Yisrael had no further children. He no longer slept with any woman for the remainder of his life. In fact, he basically became a recluse, not attending to mundane activities but concentrating on serving G’d directly. This is what he had meant when he said in his vow, that once he would return safely to his father’s house, והיה ה' לי לאלוקים, “the Lord will be my G’d.” According to the Talmud Shabbat 55 Reuven had not actually slept with Bilhah at all, but had only made her bed look slept in, disturbed, to give the impression that intimacy had taken place there. This was a protest against his father not only having spent most of his married life with Rachel, but even now after her death spending his time with Rachel’s maidservant instead of with his mother, with Leah.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  בני לאה, seeing that Binyamin had by now been born, the Torah enumerates all the sons.
  בכור יעקב ראובן, even though he had sinned and Yaakov had deprived him of the birthright on account of his sin, the Torah still refers to him as “the firstborn.” We are told in Bereshit Rabbah 82,11 that Rabbi Shimon said that it is legally difficult for G’d to tamper with the chronological chain of ancestry. How do we know this? Because we find the following verse in Chronicles I 5,1 ובני ראובן בכור ישראל כי הוא הבכור ובחללו יצועי אביו נתנה בכורתו לבני יוסף, “and the sons of Reuven, Yisrael’s firstborn, for he (Reuven) was the firstborn even though because he had mounted the bedstead of his father his birthright had been given to the sons of Joseph.” This appears to mean that Reuven forfeited the material advantages associated with the birthright, i.e. double portion of an inheritance; but he was not deprived of his status as the biological firstborn, in fact he could not be deprived of it. Rabbi Yitzchok, on the same folio of the Midrash, adds that even in his hour of disgrace, the Bible refers to Reuven with the attribute “the firstborn.”
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  אשר ילד לו בפדן ארם, the word yulad (instead of yuldu) occurs generally in the singular mode though applying to a number of births. The Torah speaks of all of these children having been born in Padan Aram although we know that Binyamin was born in the land of Israel, quite close to Bethlehem. The reason is that the Torah was concerned with where most of the children had been born.
  
  Verse 27
  
  ויבא..קרית הארבע, we explained the meaning of this on 23,2. The reason for the definitive article in front of the word ארבע, i.e. הארבע, something strange seeing that it refers to the name of a human being, is justified as the name itself is symbolic, i.e. is in reality an attribute, describing the “foursome,” the father and his three sons, all of whom giants.
  אשר גר שם אברהם ויצחק, this is mentioned seeing that now Yaakov also sojourned there. It teaches that it is appropriate for a person to be buried in the town where his ancestors had lived as it is a sign of honour for his ancestors who were also buried there. Nechemyah speaks repeatedly of “the city where my fathers have been buried;” he attributed the significance to the fact that several generations of his ancestors had been buried in the same place. (Nechemyah 2,3 and 2,5)
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  ויגוע...עשו ויעקב, Esau is mentioned first, seeing that he was the firstborn although he had sold his birthright to Yaakov. Moreover, Yaakov had been in the habit of according the honour due to a firstborn to Esau, ever since the two had made peace between themselves. On the other hand, when describing the funreal of Avraham, the Torah names Yitzchok first, seeing that Yitzchok had been the son by the major wife of Avraham, Sarah, whereas Yishmael had only been the son of the servant maid (25,9)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ואלה...הוא אדום. Similar to על כן קרא שמו אדום, “this is why he called his name Edom in 25,30. This reference to Esau as Edom also occurs again in verse 8 of this chapter, i.e. עשו הוא אדום, “Esau is identical with Edom,” because the nation called after its founding father Esau is known as מלכות אדום, Kingdom of Edom. What the Torah means here is to alert us that the nation known today (whenever this portion is read) as Edom, was in reality descended from Esau. The Torah lists separately Esau’s descendants that were born to him while he still made his home in the land of Canaan, and those that were born after he had migrated to the land of Seir. The latter is the land G’d assigned to Esau as his inheritance.
  
  Verse 2
  
  עשו, these wives are not now described as having the names which had introduced them to the reader in 26,34 where they were called Yehudit and Bosmat. Each of these women was known by two names. This is a common occurrence throughout Scripture. Similarly, Tzivon had been introduced earlier as Beeri (26,34) and Bosmat in verse 3 of our chapter had previously been introduces as Machalat. (28,9)
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  ואת כל בהמתו, a generic term including all of his livestock.
  וילך אל ארץ, to a land where previously he had been living on an ad hoc basis before Yaakov had returned from Lavan. Now, after Yaakov’s return, he decided to move there permanently. כי היה רכושם רב, the reason that Esau moved now was 1) because the combined herds of Yaakov and Esau were extensive, and Esau feared he would ultimately be forced to leave the land of Canaan as G’d had promised it to Yaakov’s children as their inheritance. After all, his father Yitzchok had said to him in 27,39 that whereas his inheritance would be משמני הארץ, “of the fat places of the earth,” nothing had been said to him indicating that he would own part of the land of Canaan. Perhaps his father had even told him that Mount Seir would be his. The Torah refers to this land as being Esau’s by right in Deuteronomy 2,5 as well as in Joshua 24,4. His claim to this region was therefore not only that of a conqueror, but one which had Divine approval.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  ואלה תולדות, now the Torah lists the descendants that were born to him while he lived in Mount Seir.
  
  Verse 10
  
  אלה שמות, first the Torah lists the names of his sons, followed by the names of his grandsons. No grandchildren of Oholvamah are mentioned. This need not mean that she did not have grandchildren, but, since the Torah was concerned with listing the Alufim, men of positions of authority, it is likely that none of Oholivamah’s grandchildren rose to such positions whereas her sons did.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  ותמנע, it is possible that the Timna mentioned here was not a sister of Lotan as opined in the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 82,14) where we were told that this woman’s name and husband is mentioned in order to further illustrate the tremendous esteem in which Avraham had been held internationally at the time. This woman, who was the sister of an Aluf, i.e. a well known dignitary, a man of great prominence, said that seeing she did not have the good fortune to marry a direct descendant of Avraha, she was willing to settle for the lower rank of being a concubine to a son of Esau in order somehow to become a member of this outstanding family.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  אלוף קרח. Korach had not been mentioned earlier as a son of Eliphaz, but merely as a son of Oholovimah. Perhaps this Korach was another son of Eliphaz who had become an Aluf, and has now been mentioned with the other Aluphim who were sons of Eliphaz.
  בארץ אדום, who had been born in the land of Edom and who had risen to the positions of Aluphim there.
  אלה בני עדה, the sons of the son of Adah. Amalek was not a son of Adah, seeing he was the son of a concubine. The only reason why he is mentioned in this verse is because he too had risen to the position of an Aluph. The Torah, concentrating on the majority, simply lumps them all together as “sons of Adah.”
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  אלה בני עשו ואלה אלופיהם, the sons of Esau are the “patriarchs” all of whom have been mentioned as being Aluphim, heads of families, clans. Our sages in Sanhedrin 99 have said that every person named here as אלוף was in fact a king, except that he had not formally been “crowned.” The reason why the Torah bothered to list all these descendants of Esau was as a sign of respect for Yitzchok, just as the descendants of Yishmael had been listed at the end of Parshat Toldot as a sign of respect for Avraham. An additional reason for mentioning all these names is to teach us that it is important for any human being to know his antecedents, and after whom he himself has been named. In the case of Israelites this will help ensure that their legitimacy will not be challenged, that no one can call them mamzer, bastard, and get away with it. The Torah considers this so important that when referring to the Israelites entering lands which once belonged to the sons of Esau, it writes: “you are now crossing into territory of your brothers the sons of Esau.” (Deut. 2,4.)
  
  Verse 20
  
  אלה בני שעיר החרי ישבי הארץ, who used to dwell in that land before the sons of Esau and their offspring came to live there. This story has as its objective that the whole earth and all that is in it belongs to the one and only G’d Who has created it, and Who therefore may allocate it to whoever He wishes. He may deprive one nation of its homeland and give it to another. In this situation G’d expelled the nation which had lived in the region known as Mont Seir and allowed Esau and his clan to displace them. According to Bereshit Rabbah, or to Shabbat 85 and quoted by Rashi, the word חרי is derived from ריח, smell, fragrance. The people described as having lived in that land were such expert farmers that they could determine merely by their sense of small which piece of land was best suited to grow different crops. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  ואלה בני צבעון ואיה וענה, the letter ו in the word ואיה, is not part of the name of the person described. It is the kind of ו used in Scripture sometimes to introduce a new sequence, such as in 22,4 ויהי ביום השלישי וישא אברהם את עיניו, “on the third day Avraham raised his eyes.” For the previous 2 days he had been proceeding in the direction of the land of Moriah; now, on the third day, he thought it was time to look for a definitive place in that region. A similar use of the letter ו occurs in Psalms 67,7 נרדם ורכב וסוס, where the letter ו at the beginning of ורכב, introduces a new subject (of sorts). Other examples of a similar nature are Samuel II 13,20, etc. My grandfather of blessed memory wrote that none of these letters ו are additional, i.e. meant for considerations involving syntax, but they are an alert to the reader that a word prior to the word starting with the letter ו is missing in the sentence and has to be found in the text preceding it. Accordingly, the meaning of the words ואיה וענה is that Tzivon had other sons beside those listed here, senior to the ones listed here, but that the Torah had not considered it necessary to mention their names. Perhaps the reason is that those sons had not produced progeny. The ענה mentioned here is not the same as has been mentioned in verse 20. The one mentioned in verse 20 was a descendent of the בני שעיר and was not a son of Tzivon who was a brother of Tzivon. Our sages in Pessachim 54 believe that the two men called ענה are one and the same. To the possible question whether we are dealing with two men of the same name, the Torah answers: “this is the Anah who was well known previously for having located the Yeymim, etc.” Our sages concluded further that Tzivon had slept with his mother having begotten Anah from that intercourse. Not only had Anah himself been a bastard, but he had produced more bastards himself. According to the plain meaning of the text, the words הוא ענה, simply mean: “he is the well known Anah.”
  אשר מצא את הימים, our sages explain the word as meaning “mules,” i.e. just as he had been a bastard he now bread bastards, i.e. animals which resulted from crossbreeding horses and donkeys. This is the meaning of the words that  follow ברעותו את החמורים “while he was engaged in tending the donkeys.” It occurred to him that it might be a good idea to see what would happen if he allowed or persuaded a horse to mount an ass. He found to his astonishment that the ass gave birth to a mule as well as a female mule.  Our sages have said in Bereshit Rabbah 82,14 that any mule, i.e. an animal resembling it traces its ancestry by means of the size of its ears. If the ears are short it has been sired by a donkey and born by a horse, whereas if it has long ears it has been sired by a horse having been born by an ass. Tzivon had violated G’d’s law according to which the species are not to be crossbred, whether humans or animals or plants. As a reminder of this legislation the Torah subsequently forbade products of crossbreeding, a prohibition which extends to our having any beneficial use of the result of such crossbreeding. According to Bereshit Rabbah in the section just quoted, neither fire nor kilayim, i.e. the product of crossbreeding different species of animals, were created during the 6 days of creation. Mules, i.e. the result of crossbreeding was not created until the days of Anah (whose father had made the experiment). There is a discussion as to when fire was created. According to Levi the original light created on the first day served man for 36 hours, i.e. during the 12 hours before the onset of the first Sabbath, i.e. the first 12 hours after his creation, and the 24 hours of the Sabbath. When the world sank into darkness as a result of G’d withdrawing the original light, as part of Adam’s punishment for having violated His commandment not to eat from the tree of knowledge, Adam was disconsolate and exclaimed (Psalms 139,11) “is darkness to conceal me permanently?” G’d responded to his cry of anguish by replacing the original light with fire, sparks, by teaching him how to produce fire by striking two flints against each other. Having been successful in this, Adam blessed the fire. This corresponds to the view of Shemuel who taught us that the reason we pronounce a benediction over fire on the evening following the Sabbath is that this was the time that fire was created. Rabbi Avuhu added in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that we also bless fire on the evening after Yom Kippur because the fire had to observe “Sabbath” during that whole day, i.e. handling it was out of bounds to us. [Of course, fire is also prohibited for use (handling) on the Sabbath, but Yom Kippur is also called Sabbath even when it does not occur on the day we would normally observe the Sabbath. Ed.]
   Concerning the words in our verse here ברעותו את החמורים, he was also tending horses, but most of the animals he was looking after were donkeys. This is why the Torah mentioned only the donkeys. We do not know what Onkelos meant when he translated the word הימים as גבריא. The reason why the Torah mentioned all these Alufim of Seir is because of G’d’s love for Yitzchok. Had G’d not loved Yitzchok He would not have gone out of his way for Esau and his sons and have allowed his sons to become such “bigshots” in the land of Seir. 
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  ואלה המלכים, the kings of the nation Edom are mentioned at length in the Torah before any kings of the Jewish nation. According to what we read here eight kings and eleven Alufim ruled in Edom before the first Jewish king was crowned. The kings that ruled over Edom were not hereditary dynasties, i.e. father bequeathing his throne to his son, but the Edomites appointed outsiders as their kings. This was the basic difference between the power structure in Edom and that in the Jewish state afterwards. Even though the Edomites were politically organised, had experience in being ruled centrally by a king, this did not help them once the Jewish people began to be organised under the rule of kings. Already the very first of the Jewish kings, Sha-ul, fought a war against the Edomites, and the Edomites could not defeat him. King David, a few years later, totally subdued the Edomites, resulting in that nation being enslaved to Israel. This situation continued until the reign of Yehoram son of Yehoshaphat, (about 150 years later ) According to Bereshit Rabbah 83,1 this is the meaning of Proverbs 20,21 נחלה מבוהלת בראשונה ואחריתה לא תבורך, “an inheritance gained hastily at the outset, will not be blessed in the end.” The Midrash there also states that both the Edomites and the Israelites appointed eight Kings. The eight Edomite Kings were: Bela, Yovav, Chusham, Haddad, Simla, Sha-ul, Baal Chanan, and Hadar. The Jewish Kings were Sha-ul, Ish Boshet, David, Solomon, Rechavam, Aviah, Assa, Yehoshaphat, and during the reign of his son Yehoram the Edomites rebelled.
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  וימלוך תחתיו הדר...ושם אשתו וגו', we do not know why both his wife’s name and that of her father have been mentioned.
  
  Verse 40
  
  ואלה, now the Torah mentions eight Alufim who were in positions of leadership after the kingdom of Edom had ceased to exist as such. There were eleven such Alufim.
  
  Verse 41
  
  אלוף אהליבמה. This Oholivamah was a male. This is so in spite of the fact that his name ends with the letter ה suggesting that the person mentioned was a female. The same name occurs elsewhere for females in this very chapter  (verse 5). Other males whose names conclude with the letter ה are שמלה, מסרקה in verse 36. Timna was a concubine of Eliphaz, although the name of one of the Alufim of Esau was also Timna. (verse 40)
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען. We have already commented on the meaning of this on 35,27.
  
  Verse 2
  
  אלה תולדות יעקב, the meaning of the word תולדות in our context here is “happenings, developments.” It includes all kinds of traumas Yaakov would experience. Genesis 6,9 similarly introduced what happened to Noach with these words. The philological bridge to the word תולדות when it refers to biological progeny is Proverbs 27,1 כי לא תדע מה ילד היום, “for you do not know what the day will give birth to.”
  יוסף בן שבע עשרה שנה, when he was still only 17 years old.
  רועה את אחיו בצאן, mark the fact that the Torah wrote בצאן “with the flocks,” instead of הצאן, “the flocks,” for being relatively young he was only allowed to work together with his brothers instead of being allowed to tends flocks all by himself. He was still a trainee.
  והוא נער, he was always going with them when they were engaged in tending the flocks.
  נשי אביו, the term “wives of,“ emphasises that they were full fledged wives, as had been stated when each of these women became married to Yaakov, i.e. “לאשה.” (compare 30,9; 30,4) Joseph’s keeping company with the sons of these women was in no way something disparaging for him, as he was not only their half brother just as he was a half brother to the sons of Leah, but they were his social equals.
  ויבא יוסף את דבתם רעה, he told his father that his brothers hated him, i.e. both the sons of the former servant maids with whom he was being raised, as well as the sons of Leah to whom he felt superior because he enjoyed preferential treatment by his father. As a result, the brothers sought pretexts to treat him meanly. Yaakov was angry at the brothers on behalf of Joseph, interpreting the brothers’ hatred of Joseph as jealousy due to his loving Joseph excessively. (verses 3 and 4). In Bereshit Rabbah 84,7 we are told that according to Rabbi Meir Joseph told his fathers that the brothers were suspect of violating the commandment not to eat flesh from a still living animal, whereas Rabbi Yehudah is supposed to have said that Joseph accused them of treating the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah with disdain, referring to them as “slaves.” Rabbi Shimon is reported as saying that Joseph accused the brothers of casting lustful glances at the local Canaanite girls. Rabbi Yehudah bar Seymon claims that G’d repaid Joseph for all three accusations as we derive from Proverbs 16,11 פלס ומאזני משפט לה', “Honest scales and weights are the Lord’s.” G’d said to him: “you accused your brothers of violating the law of אבר מן החי, you will be a witness that even when they were engaged in a sinful enterprise such as dipping your cloak in blood before presenting it to your father, they first slaughtered the male goat ritually, as is required when they would eat it. You accused them of calling the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah slaves, that is why you yourself were sold into slavery (Psalms 105, 17) You accused your brothers of looking lecherously at the local girls, I will cause you to be tempted by this very phenomenon.” This is why the Torah described the wife of Potiphar attempting to seduce Joseph (39,7)
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  כי בן זקונים, what was so special about Joseph’s age, seeing all the eleven brothers had been born in the space of 7 years? How much older was Yaakov at the time Joseph was born than, say, at the time Yehudah was born?  We conclude therefore, that the meaning of the word זקונים has nothing to do with physical age, but that Joseph appeared to him as especially intelligent, wise, wise well beyond his years. The words of wisdom spoken by Joseph would normally be expected only from the mouth of men who had acquired such wisdom through having lived for many years. This is also the way Onkelos understood the term when he translates it as בר חכים, “a wise son.” Seeing that he considered him so wise he dressed him in especially attractive garments. In this way he gave tangible expression to his special love for him.
  ועשה לו כתונת פסים, the word פס is related to the same word in Daniel 5,5 פס ידא, palm of a hand. The cloth was made of differently coloured surfaces similar to garments made of soft wool which are made in a number of differently  coloured stripes or sections. The garment looked very impressive, arousing the hatred of the brothers in addition to the fact that they hated him for spreading tales about them to their father. Our sages in Shabbat 10 seize upon this detail to teach us that a father must ever be careful not to arouse inter-fraternal jealousies, seeing that the fortunes of the Jewish people have been so negatively affected on account of five silver coins worth of angora wool which Yaakov spent more on Joseph’s attire than he did on the garments worn by his other sons. The enslavement of the Jewish people in Egypt was brought about as a direct consequence of this jealousy.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  ולא יכלו דברו לשלום, any conversation with Joseph did not revolve around peacefully discussed matters of common interest, but concerned only matters of dispute between them.
  
  Verse 5
  
  ויחלום....ויאמר, he dreamed, and wanted to make them feel bad seeing that they had displayed jealousy of his father’s love for him, and had allowed that jealousy to deteriorate into hatred of him. Seeing that eventually, Joseph’s rise to power was due to his handling of the harvest in Egypt, the details of the dream were: והנה קמה אלומתי, the symbol of my success, i.e. my sheaf of grain remained erect, whereas your sheaves bowed down to me. It was a fact that in due course the grain harvest was the cause of the brothers prostrating themselves before Joseph.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  ויאמרו לו אחיו, are you planning to lord it over us? If you have dreams of this kind, this only reflects dreams of power you entertain during the day.
  על חלומותיו, the plural “dreams,” seeing that only one dream had been reported in detail, suggests there had been at least one more dream of which the Torah did not tell us its content. The other dream may not have directly aroused an intensification of the brothers’ hatred, or, the plural includes already the dream to come that has not been spelled out as yet. The Torah spelled out only two dreams as they were the ones fuelling the brothers’ jealousy of Joseph.
  ועל דבריו, and on account of his overbearing manner, and the fact that he spread slanderous remarks about them.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  ויחלום, in this dream the meaning is crystal clear. Sun and moon refer to Joseph’s parents, whereas the stars refer to his brothers, seeing there were 11 stars in the dream and Joseph had eleven brothers. All the dreams the content of which the Torah described are to be understood as posing a riddle, a challenge to translate the symbols described in the respective dreams into the matching reality in the “real” world. This is true not only of Joseph’s dreams, but equally of the dreams of the cup-bearer and of the Chief of the bakers whom Joseph met in jail. Also Pharaoh’s dream as related in the Torah, and the dream of Nevuchadnezzar as described in the Book of Daniel follow the same pattern. All of them became reality in accordance with the manner in which they had been interpreted.
  
  Verse 10
  
  ויספר אל אביו, the reason why he told only this dream to his father was because his father appeared in that dream, whereas neither his father nor his mother had been featured in his other dreams.
  אני ואמך, I and your mother? Just as the dream could not possibly relate to your mother who has died already, so it cannot very well relate to me either. Therefore, you would do well to dismiss this dream entirely. Our sages, on the other hand, learn from this dream that every dream no matter how accurately it foreshadows an event in the future, contains some element which is not going to come true. (Berachot 55)
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  הדבר, even though Yaakov had been angry at Joseph he was worried about what the dream might forecast and he remembered it.
  
  Verse 12
  
  וילכו אחיו לרעות צאן, there are dots above the letters of the word את. The sages in Bereshit Rabbah 84,13 suggest that the Torah meant that the brothers were tending themselves, i.e. they distanced themselves from their father in order to escape supervision and to follow their personal inclinations in matters of food and drink and to do in Shechem whatever they felt like doing. They were not afraid at all of the inhabitants of that city whose male population they had killed only a year or two earlier. They had complete confidence in G’d‘s protection. The Canaanite population in the region lived in awe of the sons of Yaakov. They had been afraid of them already at the time when they executed the male population of Schechem for being accessories to the rape of Dinah.
  
  Verse 13
  
  ויאמר...הלא אחיך, don’t you know that your brothers are in Shechem, tending flocks?
  הנני; he was not afraid of his brothers even though they hated him, for he thought that their awe of their father was greater than their desire to harm him. His father also did not think that the brothers posed a threat to his favourite son. Surely, if he had even entertained the slightest concern about the brothers harming Joseph, he would never have sent him on this mission. This entire matter was engineered by G’d Who knows the evil machinations of man in order that this would become the external cause of the patriarchs, i.e. their descendants to descend to Egypt and to fulfill the prophecy G’d had already told Avraham about in chapter 15.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  ויאמר...ואת שלום הצאן, in Bereshit Rabbah 84,13 the instruction by Yaakov to Joseph that he was to enquire not only about their personal well being, but also about the well being of their property, their flocks, teaches us that one must always display concern not only for the health, etc., of people one meets but also about their economic well being.
  מעמק חברון, since when is Chevron in a valley? We always associate it with being located on a mountain! The Torah alludes to a profound understanding between G’d and Avraham who had been interred in Chevron. The Torah now alludes to the prediction by G’d to Avraham, that his descendants would for a long time be strangers in a land not theirs (Genesis 15,13)
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  וימצאהו איש , after arriving in Shechem and not finding any trace of his brothers, Joseph went in all directions to see if he could find them, and in the process he lost his way.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  הגידה נא לי, if you know where they are tending their flocks.
  
  Verse 17
  
  מזה, from this area. We find the expression used in a similar meaning in 38,21 לא היתה בזה, “there was no (prostitute) in this location.”
  כי שמעתי אומרים, “that they were saying, etc.”
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  ויתנכלו אותו, the word אותו here means the same as the preposition בו, “against him.” We find other instances where this preposition is used in connection with this root, as in Psalms 105,25 להתנכל בעבדיו, “to plot against His servants.” The root also occurs in connection with the preposition ל, as in Numbers 25,18 אשר נכלו לכם, “which they conspired against you.” The word basically refers to scheming against someone in one’s heart.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  ועתה לכו, the word לכו in this context is an exhortation to act without delay, as we explained on 28,2. [there it referred to the word קום, Ed.]
  
  Verse 21
  
   וישמע...לא נכנו נפש, killing.
  
  Verse 22
  
  אל תשפכו דם, his blood is innocent, i.e. he is not guilty of a capital crime. But throw him into this pit if you are so angry about his dreams and the way he presents them. You may repay him by making him feel pain such as yours, but do not touch him in a way that will lead to his death. When Reuven said: “throw him into this pit,” he did so in order to know where to find him later and to bring him back safely to his father after rescuing him from the pit. He did not mean for Joseph to be harmed in any way.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  ויהי..את כתנת הפסים, the letter ה at the beginning of the word הפסים, referring to a specific garment, is justified seeing that we had previously been told את כתנתו, “his tunic,” i.e. the same tunic.
  
  Verse 24
  
  ויקחהו, there is a letter ו missing in this word, making it appear as if only one brother took him. According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,16 this is an allusion to who the brother was who seized Joseph and threw him into the pit. It was Shimon, which was the reason why later on Joseph locked up Shimon as a hostage (42,24 ויקח מאתם את שמעון, he took Shimon from them.)
  אין בו מים. If there had been water in the pit, Joseph would have drowned and throwing him into the pit would have been outright murder. The reason why the Torah mentions that there was no water in the pit, having already said that the pit was empty, והבור ריק, could be that there was sticky mud inside it, as for instance in Jeremiah 38,6 where the King’s servants threw the prophet into טיט, meaning a slime pit. That pit is also described as devoid of water, although Jeremiah is described as sinking into the mud. However, it did not cause his death. The allegorical explanation of the sequence of the words in our verse is well known, i.e. though water, one lethal ingredient, was not present in that pit, other potentially worse dangers such as scorpions, etc., were. If this explanation corresponds to the facts, throwing Joseph into such a pit was no better than killing him. The brothers had no way of knowing that G’d would save him by a miracle, i.e. that the scorpions and snakes would not attack him.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  נכאת, according to Bereshit Rabbah 91,11, wax.
  צרי, according to the view of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel the word refers to resin, sap found in the trunk of the balsam tree. The word לוט according to Bereshit Rabbah 91,11 is מצטכי, Lotus?.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  ?מה בצע, “what financial advantage,” as per Onkelos. 
  כי נהרוג את אחינו, what does this mean seeing Reuven had already prevented them from killing their brother outright? We must therefore understand Yehudah’s words as meaning: “what are we going to do with him? If we leave him in the pit this is just as bad as having killed him.”
  וכסינו את דמו, and cover his blood. He meant they had to conceal his death from their father.
  
  Verse 27
  
  לכו, we already explained this expression on verse 20.
  אל תהי בו, to be the indirect cause of his death. If we are going to sell him he will not die.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  ויעברו אנשים מדינים, these were the Ishmaelites mentioned previously, seeing that both Midianites and Medanites are descendants of Keturah. [Keturah is understood to be Hagar who had her name changed after Sarah’s death when Avraham took her as a wife. Seeing that she gave birth to both Medan and to Midian, (25,2) this made both these sons full brothers to her earlier son Ishmael by the same father. Ed.] Even assuming that Keturah and Hagar were not identical, the three were at least sons of Avraham and therefore half brothers. Their respective families had intermarried so that they could be considered as brothers in the real sense of the word. The close relationship between their respective descendants comes to the fore in Judges 8,24 where after Gideon’s campaign against the Midianites they are described as Ishmaelites, the kind of jewelry they wore identifying them as members of that tribe.
  וימשכו, Joseph’s brothers pulled him out of the pit prior to the sale to the Ishmaelites. All this occurred when Reuven was not present. Perhaps, in the interval he had returned to his father. [a distance of 120 km, hardly likely, as Reuven would have had to come back another 120 km. to retrieve Joseph who would have died from thirst in the interval if not from other causes. Ed.] It is more likely that Reuven had a flock of his own to look after in that general region.
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  וישב, he returned from wherever he had gone to his brothers, going back to the pit to see if he could rescue Joseph without his brothers finding out, and to return him to his father. There is a discussion in Bereshit Rabbah 84,19 as to where Reuven had been in the interval. According to some, it had been his turn to attend to the needs of his father, whereas according to Rabbi Eliezer he was engaged in doing penance, etc., for having slept with Bilhah, his father’s concubine.
  
  Verse 30
  
  וישב, he did not know that the brothers had sold him but thought that he had been stolen from the pit.
  
  Verse 31
  
  וישחטו שעיר עזים, they said that its blood resembled the colour of human blood.
  
  Verse 32
  
  וישלחו, some of the brothers were the messengers who delivered this tattered blood-spattered tunic. Some commentators believe that the word is derived from Job 36,12 בשלח יעברו, “they will die by the sword.” According to this, the brothers imitated the incisions made by the sharp teeth of wild beasts so that Yaakov would think that Joseph’s fate had been that he had been devoured or at least killed by such a marauding animal.
  הכר נא, According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,19 G’d repaid Yehudah for his use of the phrase הכר נא when tricking his father into making a false deduction, by Tamar challenging him with the very same expression הכר נא, which embarrassed him into admitting that he was the father of the fetus that Tamar his daughter-in-law was pregnant with (38,25)
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  ויקרע יעקב, he mourned him excessively because he had loved him so inordinately. Besides, he blamed himself partially for his fate for having sent him on what turned out to have been a dangerous mission.
  
  Verse 35
  
  ויקומו...וכל בנותיו, his daughter and daughters-in-law who were like daughters to him. In Bereshit Rabbah 84,21 Rabbi Yehudah is quoted as saying that a female twin had been born with each of Yaakov’s sons and they married their respective half-brothers. Rabbi Nechemyah, in commenting on the words וכל בנותיו, says that actually Yaakov had only one daughter, i.e. Dinah, but that he wished he had already buried her (as the fact that she had been raped was something he found it hard to live with) [Rashi on that Midrash. Ed] At any rate, we need not take the text so literally, as most people describe their sons-in-law as sons, and their daughters-in-law as daughters.
  שאלה, until the grave, i.e. “I will mourn him for the rest of my life.” The meaning of the words 
  על בנו, instead of the pronoun ending ויתאבלו, is to describe Yaakov’s attitude henceforth, i.e. “I will go join him in his grave.” Compare Samuel II 12,23 where David uses such language explaining that in order to be reunited with the baby son he had just lost he would have to join him in his grave, as the baby would not come back to him and be resurrected. Or, compare the standard expression used by the Torah when people die and they join their ancestors in the grave or hereafter, i.e. ויאסף אל עמיו “he was gathered in to his people” (Genesis 25,17 et al).
  ויבך אותו אביו, the reason why the Torah adds the unnecessary word אביו, “his father,” is to demonstrate the serious nature of losing a son who had been constantly the one at his father’s side. The remarkable thing about Joseph had been that although the Torah had described him as occupied tending sheep with his brothers, most of the time he had spent in attending to the needs of his widowed father, whose beloved wife Rachel, Joseph’s mother, had died when Joseph had only been about 6 years old. Whenever an occasion would arise which would have required the services normally rendered by his son Joseph, his absence would rekindle Yaakov’s grief over his fate. According to our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 84,21 the superfluous word אביו refers to Yaakov’s father Yitzchok, who was still alive at the time Joseph was sold, seeing that Yaakov had been born when Yitzchok was 60 years old, in other words Yitzchok only died when Yaakov was 120 years of age. At the time of Joseph’s sale Yitzchok was 168 years old seeing that the separation between Yaakov and Joseph lasted for 22 years, the same length of time as Yaakov had been separated from his father Yitzchok.
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  והמדנים, we already explained who they were and what they did on verse 28.
  שר הטבחים, as per Onkelos, Pharaoh’s chief executioner.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויהי בעת ההיא וירד יהודה, after Joseph had been sold. The fact that the Torah speaks of וירד, “he descended,” seems to imply that Dotan was situated at a much higher elevation than Adulam. According to a Midrash quoted by Rashi, the word וירד does not refer to a physical descent but to the brothers having demoted Yehudah from his role of their leader as they held him responsible for the debacle with Joseph. They had repented their part in the whole episode, and they accused Yehudah of not having been firm enough. Just as they had listened to him when he told them not to kill Joseph, they claimed that they would have listened to him if he had suggested that they should bring him back to their father. In Bereshit Rabbah 85,2 the whole paragraph commencing with וירד יהודה until the beginning of chapter 39 is considered as not relevant to the story, at least not at this point. Why then did the Torah insert this episode here thereby spoiling our concentration on what would happen to Joseph? According to Rabbi Eliezer the Torah wanted to create a conceptual link between one “descent,” and another “descent.” Rabbi Yochanan justifies the “interruption,” by linking one הכר נא “please identify!” to another הכר נא. Yehudah had deceived his father with these words, whereas Tamar reminded Yehudah that he had been deceived by her and that his assumption that she was a harlot who had become pregnant by her customer was totally unfounded.(compare 37,2 and 38,25 respectively)
  ויט עד איש עדולמי, he pitched his tent and let his flock graze in the proximity of this town Adulam; eventually he struck up a friendship with the man חירם described in our verse.
  
  Verse 2
  
  בת איש כנעני, we do not know why the woman’s name has not been mentioned although the Torah revealed the name of her father. Her father was a merchant, a resident stranger, an export-import merchant, not a member of one of the local tribes. The sons of Yaakov were very careful in avoiding intermarriage with the local population, and when one of them did so, Shimon, his son Sha-ul is mentioned in a derogatory fashion as the “son of Canaanite” in 46,10. This critical comment on Shimon’s wife sets him apart from all of his brothers.
  ויקחה, he first legally married her before having marital relations with her, i.e. ויבא אליה. 
  וירא, it appears that she was very attractive physically and therefore appeared to him as an appropriate mate.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  ותהר ותלד, Yehudah named the first son, whereas his wife named the second son. This appears to have been the custom at that time. The third son actually should have been named by Yehudah again, but seeing that Yehudah was in Keziv at the time of his birth, Yehudah’s wife named him. This is why the Torah explains the departure from the norm by writing of Yehudah that he was in Keziv.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  'רע בעיני ה, the addition of the words “in the eyes of G’d,” is needed, seeing that no one else was aware of Er’s sin, something committed in the privacy of the bedroom. Our sages in Yevamot 34 said that the reason why Er ejaculated outside his wife’s vagina was in order for her to retain her beauty and not become pregnant.
  
  Verse 8
  
  ויבם אותה, it appears that the practice of the levirate marriage, yibbum, was something accepted long before the Torah was given to the Jewish people.
  
  Verse 9
  
  וידע אונן, he realised this only when his father said to him that it was his task to see that his brother’s seed would be perpetuated.
  ושחת ארצה, he ejaculated outside her vagina, just as we explained in connection with Er.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  גם אותו, both brothers had been guilty of the same sin.
  
  Verse 11
  
  ויאמר... כי אמר פן ימות גם הוא כאחיו, in commenting on Yehudah’s reasoning, Bereshit Rabbah 85.5 quotes Rabbi Eleazar as saying [Rashi’s interpretation of his statement, Ed.] that although the Torah has enjoined us לא תנחשו, (Leviticus 19,26) not to be superstitious as for instance to allow a black cat crossing our path to determine our actions, there is such a thing as a סימן, a “hint from a higher domain,” to heed which is not idolatrous. Such a “hint” would be a catastrophe of the same kind three times repeated. This is what Yehudah was afraid of.
  
  Verse 12
  
  וירבו, according to Bereshit Rabbah 85,6 the time frame discussed was 12 months. 
  ויעל, here the trip to Timnatah is described as an ascent, whereas in Judges 14,5 Shimshon is described as descending to that town. It all depends on the location from which one sets out.
  על גוזזי, as if the Torah had written אל גוזזי, “to the shearers.” We find a similar construction involving the preposition על instead of אל in Samuel I 1,11 ותתפלל על ה' instead of ותתפלל אל ה', “she prayed to G’d.” There are numerous similar examples of such constructions in Scripture.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  ותכס בצעיף. She covered her face with the shawl in order for Yehudah not to be able to recognise her.
  ותתעלף, she donned beautiful garments instead of widow’s garb in order to attract Yehudah.
  ותשב בפתח עינים, at the crossroads. This was a very exposed location, visible to anyone traveling in that region.
  כי ראתה כי גדל שלה, she did all this because she realised now that Yehudah had no intention of letting her be married to his son. She therefore planned to be impregnated by him (seed of his family) without his being aware of it.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  ויראה....כי כסתה פניה, so that he did not recognise her. This is why he considered her a harlot, seeing that she had positioned herself so prominently at the crossroads. Had she not covered her face, he would have recognised her as his daughter-in-law and would not have slept with her. Our sages in Sotah 10 say that on the contrary, she used to keep her face covered in her father-in-law’s house and was extremely chaste. When he now saw a woman sitting at the crossroads, the last thing he would think of was that it was his daughter-in-law Tamar.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  ויט אליה, he detoured in her direction from the direction he had been walking. אל הדרך, to the beginning of the path where she was sitting, there being an opportunity nearby to enjoy privacy.
  הכר נא, an expression demanding an immediate response, similar to such expressions we had explained in connection with הבה נא in Genesis 11,4.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  חותמך, as per Onkelos, the signet ring.
  ופתילך, your outer garment, cloak, as per Onkelos, שושיפך. Or, what is meant is the turban, i.e. a status symbol. In Numbers 19,15 the expression צמיד פתיל, “a tightly fitting lid,” describes a vessel of contours similar to a turban. The expression also occurs in the Mishnah Shabbat 28, as well as in verse 25 in our chapter [because of the plural mode, Ed.] it appears to describe attire each composed of two different cloths and colour.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  ותסר צעיפה מעליה, from her head and face. 
  ותלבש, her conduct proves that she had no intention of becoming pregnant by anyone other than Yehudah. Many women of that period had an overpowering desire to somehow be impregnated by the sperm of Avraham the patriarch, even though it might have been diluted with other genes. Being biologically connected to Avraham was an important status symbol.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  וישאל..אנשי מקומה, in the alley where she lived. Yehudah must have asked her for her address; how else could he expect to redeem the items he had left with her? She had therefore named a certain alley as her address. When Chirom came there to seek her out at the address she had given Yehudah, and he did not see a harlot in that alley, he asked people of the alley if they knew where the harlot was who had been plying her trade at the road junction. The local residents told him: לא היתה בזה קדשה, that in that location there had not been any prostitute. Both the words בזה and מזה occur in the Torah as references to locations, as we know already from 37,17.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  תקח לה, “let her keep it for herself so that we will not look like fools chasing these trinkets and the fact that I slept with a prostitute will become public knowledge.” In Bereshit Rabbah 85,9 the Midrash quotes Proverbs 8,31 משחקת בתבל ארצו as the Torah rejoicing (making fun) of people. Yehudah who had deceived his father by inviting him to guess Joseph’s fate by showing him the bloody and tattered remains of his striped coat, now had in turn been deceived and would become publicly embarrassed through the incident with Tamar. It is remarkable that in both instances the male goat, שעיר עזים, is featured as part of the process of deception, i.e. as the sin. [perhaps this accounts for that animal being a prime species for sacrifices meant to atone for sin. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  ויהי כמשלש חדשים, after, or at the end of. The letter כ is used to describe a quantity, a measure, as in Samuel I 14,14 כעשרים איש, “approximately 20 people.” There are numerous similar examples in Scripture for the use of the prefix כ in that sense. In Bereshit Rabbah 85,10 Sumchus quotes Rabbi Meir as having said that this verse is the source of the statement that we cannot tell by looking at her that a woman is pregnant until 3 months after she conceived. Rabbi Hunna, quoting Rabbi Yosseph, added that what is meant is not that until the end of the third month of pregnancy no signs are visible. The pregnant woman herself can perceive signs after as little as 2 weeks, but outsiders cannot. [I amended the text of Rabbi Hunna’s comment in order to make it understandable. Ed.]
  הוציאוה, to the site reserved for such executions by fire.
  ותשרף, for in accordance with the local practice a widow awaiting to be wed to her brother-in-law was subject to the same rules of adultery as a regularly married woman, i.e. death by burning. At the same time, she was not out of bounds to her father-in-law if he wanted to marry her in order to have seed from his deceased son. Both other sons of the surviving father and the father himself were close relatives of the deceased, after all. The surviving brother of the deceased had the first claim on such a widow, but Tamar, under the circumstances had been forced to become the wife of Yehudah seeing that Shelah had been denied her.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  היא מוצאת, she did not make the matter public even when she was on the point of being executed. Therefore she only hinted at the owner of the trinkets she wanted Yehudah to recognise without accusing him outright as having given them to her after he had slept with her.
  לאיש אשר אלה לו, this prompted our ages in Sotah 10 to say that it is better for a person to throw himself into a burning furnace than to cause public embarrassment to a fellow human being. Tamar demonstrated this by the conduct the Torah attributes to her in our verse. The word לו, a reference to an unnamed third party left Yehudah the option to ignore her accusation, and for any future embarrassment on that score to be wiped out with her death.
  ותאמר, this she said to the messenger she sent to Yehudah with the pledges that he had given her.
  הכר נא, Bereshit Rabbah 85,11 notes how the Torah “plays” with people. She hinted to Yehudah that he had used the same words to deceive his father into believing that Joseph had been devoured by a wild animal. Now it was his turn to be deceived. The punishment matches the crime. (37,32) The Torah, knowing what was to happen in the future, smiled to itself thinking: “wait until you will be deceived by these same words.”
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  צדקה ממני; she is more righteous than I, for I had declared her guilty of being burned to death while she was innocent, seeing she is pregnant from me and has not acted like a harlot. Our sages in Makkot 23 as well as in Bereshit Rabbah 85,12 say that there are basically three locations where the Holy Spirit,רוח הקודש , was manifest [was needed to confirm a verdict. Ed.] One was the court of Shem, son of Noach. This is based on the word ממני in our verse not meaning “than me, Yehudah,” but “from Me, G’d.” [although Shem himself was no longer alive at the time Tamar’s trial came up, his grandson Ever, probably in conjunction with others maintained the court he had founded, which was administering the seven Noachide (universal laws for all of mankind) laws at the time. Ed.] The sages understand that when the verdict was passed on Tamar a heavenly voice was heard saying that Tamar’s pregnancy by Yehudah had been decreed by G.d, “from Me.” The second such instance was in the court conducted by the prophet Samuel. They base this on Samuel I 12,5 ויאמר עד, G’d confirming that the prophet had dealt fairly with the whole people during his being the supreme authority, before a King was appointed. Without this confirmation we only had his word for it. The third example was the court of King Solomon, during the famous trial of two women claiming a live baby as her own and the dead one as belonging to her adversary. (Kings I 3,27.) A heavenly voice confirmed Solomon’s verdict [which from a purely halachic point of view was quite unsubstantiated. Ed.] The words היא אמו, “she is his mother,” then were not said by Solomon but by G’d. G’d’s confirmation of Tamat’s innocence was needed as people could have argued that while it was true that she had slept with Yehudah, who was to say that other men had not also slept with her and that she was actually pregnant by someone else? The Talmud concludes by citing the heavenly voice as saying ממך יצאו כבושים, “secrets unknown to others are revealed by Me.” [according to Rashi on Makkot 23 the fact that in due course Tamar’s and Yehudah’s son became the forerunner of the Davidic dynasty proved that the seed she had carried was that of Yehudah, both Tamar and Yehudah being of Royal descent, -Tamar as the daughter of Malki Tzedek King of Shalem, and Yehudah by dint of the destiny predicted for him by his father on his deathbed.] There is a variant reading which says that as a result of Yehudah’s admission, G’d decided to appoint him as the founder of the future Davidic dynasties, and that the line ונכבשה הארץ לפניכם, “the land will become conquered before you,” in Numbers 32,29 is addressed to the leading tribe, Yehudah. This is based on the wordכבושים  in the Talmud being read as ממך יצאו כובשים, “that conquerors will emerge from your loins.”
  כי על כן לא נתתיה, as if the Torah had written כי על כן שלא נתתיה, “because I did not give her, etc., she has done this, i.e. pretended to be a harlot, because I did not give her to my son Shelah.” We find a similar construction in Exodus 13,8 בעבור זה עשה ה' לי, “on account of this (that I observe the commandment mentioned) G’d has done this for me” (taken me out of Egypt).”
  ולא יסף עוד לדעתה, he did not sleep with her again seeing that even this time the act had been unintentional and in a manner not appropriate to her status. It is demeaning for a socially highly placed individual to sleep with a harlot. For Yehudah to have done so again would have been demeaning for him [as she would always be aware that the first time he had done this was in order to merely gratify a biological urge. Ed.] In the Targum we find two different versions regarding the meaning of the words ולא יסף עוד לדעתה. The second version is that Yehudah never stopped sleeping with Tamar, i.e. he treated her as his wife in every respect from then on. The reason why the Torah told us about all these details and how the seed of Yehudah became mingled with that of Ruth the Moabite, as well as how King Solomon was the son of Bat Sheva whose marriage to David did not exactly come about in a normal manner, is to show that the hand of G’d had been at work in all of these situations. G’d’s design had been that the Kingdom of Israel should be David’s on a hereditary basis forever [whenever there would be independent kings, not appointed by conquerors of the Jewish people. Ed.] The somewhat flawed lineage in Jewish kings is G’d’s device to prevent such kings from becoming proud of their pure ancestry, and considering themselves ”ancestrally“ superior to their peers. [perhaps the advice of the Shulchan Aruch that when appointing public officials of high rank one should select someone with a “skeleton in his closet,” a קופת שרצים, is based on the flaws in the ancestry of the Davidic dynasty. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  ויהי בעת לדתה, it is clear from this wording that, in contrast to Rivkah, Tamar had not had any warning signs that she was carrying twins in her womb. There is an aggadic commentary according to which Rivkah’s problematic pregnancy was due to her carrying the seeds of two monarchs within her, whereas seeing that from Tamar only one potential king would emerge, the one being born first had “burst the boundaries,” excluding the other fetus from competition. (similar to Bereshit Rabbah 85,15.)  Micah 2,13 alludes to this.
  תאומים. This is the only instance when this word is spelled with both the letter א and the letter ו, i.e. pointing to the fact that these two were properly matched twins, i.e. both boys would grow up righteous.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  ויהי בלדתה ויתן יד, one of them stuck his hand out of his mother’s womb, signaling that he wanted out. Seeing that he did not succeed, he withdrew his hand.
  ותקח המילדת, she took hold of his hand before he could withdraw it. ותקשור על ידו שני, as a sign who had been first.
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  ויהי כמשיב ידו, at the time when he withdrew his hand his brother pushed ahead and emerged first. We have a similar construction to this in 40,10 והיא כפורחת, which also describes a process which was deceptive. [that which blossoms first does not always ripen first. Ed.]
  ותאמר, these words were addressed by the midwife to the newly born infant who had pushed to displace his brother. פרצת, why have you burst forth from the confines of the womb displacing your brother who had been in the process of emerging?
  עליך פרץ, you have acted precipitously, inappropriately, in claiming something which was not meant to be yours, the birthright.
  ויקרא, Yehudah called his name Peretz in agreement with the comments of the midwife.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  זרח, she named him in commemoration of the red string she had wound around his hand. This colour symbolises a warning. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויוסף הורד, although this had been mentioned already, it is mentioned again as the narrative continues now to concentrate on what happened to Joseph.
  
  Verse 2
  
  ויהי ה' את יוסף ויהי איש מצליח, he was successful in all things he undertook on his own behalf and also was successful in the house of his Egyptian master. Every task that was assigned to him he managed to carry out successfully.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  וימצא.יוסף חן...וישרת אותו, because Joseph had found so much favour in his eyes he appointed him as his exclusive personal valet. At the same time he appointed him in charge so that without Joseph’s approval nothing could be done within this household.
  וכל יש לו, all that he owned.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  ולא ידע אתו מאומה, he did not involve himself in anything concerning the affairs of his household. Everything rested on Joseph’s shoulders. Everything that needed to be done in the household other than matters relating to the food served in the house. The reason why Joseph was not charged with this relatively minor task was the fact that he was from a different people. We know already from 43,32 that the family of Yaakov, loosely known as העברים, “the Hebrews,” (from the sticks, i.e. a culture beyond the Euphrates river) had such different eating habits that the Egyptians could not eat at the same table with them. Joseph had not changed his eating habits. Other commentators interpret the line כי אם הלחם אשר הוא אוכל, as a euphemism applying to Potiphar’s wife.
  ויהי יוסף יפה תואר, the reason why the Torah mentions that Joseph was handsome is only to help us understand why a highly placed person such as Mrs Potiphar would try to get involved with a foreign-born slave. Joseph was so handsome in appearance. We already explained the nuances of the word יפה תואר and יפה מראה respectively in connection with Rachel (29,17).
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  ויהי אחר הדברים האלה, after Joseph had been in the house of his Egyptian master for some time and had occupied the highest position in that household, feeling very secure, the invitation of a romantic relationship with Mrs. Potiphar brought tension into his life again. He had, of course, no way of knowing at the time that these developments had as its purpose that he would in due course rise to far higher prominence and that he would become the direct instrument of bringing his family to Egypt where they would reside in comfort and found a nation. Also the sin of the Chief butler and Chief baker respectively, as well as their being held in the same jail as Joseph and his becoming their valet, were all part of G’d’s design to further His plans without interfering with anyone’s free choice.  We have to learn from this whole story that when a person suffers a setback in life, one that appears to him undeserved, he must remember how all these setbacks worked in Joseph’s favour at the time although he was not yet aware of it. We must therefore trust that G’d has our best interests at heart at all times, even though we cannot always appreciate this at the time when we are being tested. The incidents were narrated at this point to demonstrate Joseph’s righteousness when on his own without family support, after having in effect been cast out from his family.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  וימאן, the meaning is clear beyond mistake.
  
  Verse 9
  
  איננו גדול בבית הזה, there is no one in this house who is superior to me in rank except you who are out of bounds to me inasmuch as you are my master’s wife; how could I abuse the trust placed in me by my master?
  כי אם אותך באשר את אשתו; these words lend support to the words of the Midrash which saw in the words כי אם הלחם a euphemistic reference to Potiphar’s wife. It is also possible that Potiphar had warned Joseph specifically against getting involved with his wife because he was so handsome. There was no need for the Torah to spell out such a prohibition 
  ואיך אעשה הרעה הגדולה הזאת, to sleep with his wife and to betray his trust? Furthermore, this would not only be a grievous wrong against my master, but it would also be a sin against G’d Who commanded man certain rules of sexual behaviour. (we explained these rules in connection with Genesis 2,24 on ודבק באשתו)
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  לשכב אצלה להיות עמה, she lowered her demands, even to at least lie down on the same bed beside her, or merely keeping her company. Joseph refused all these suggestions. According to an aggadic interpretation, the apparent repetition of the line לשכב אצלה להיות עמה refers to intimacy in this world on earth, לשכב אצלה, and the spiritual equivalent in the world to come, i.e. להיות עמה. (Sotah 3)
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  ויהי כהיום הזה, a day, quite similar to this day, when she insistently urged him to sleep with her, occurred. Now a different day occurred when the house was empty of all its other occupants 
  לעשות מלאכתו, to perform specific chores which were part of his regular routine assigned to him, as explained by Onkelos.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  ותקרא לאנשי ביתה, how is that possible seeing that none of them were in the house at the time?ואקרא בקול גדול.ותאמר..לאמר, to tell her husband.
  הביא לנו, they said to him (accusingly) how he could have  brought such a man.
  בנו, a word denoting glory, i.e. how could he be “over us, in a superior position?” 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   לאדניהם, the stress is on the letter (syllable) א.
  
  Verse 2
  
  ויקצף, the Torah appears to have unnecessarily repeated the words על שר המשקים ועל שר האופים, seeing that they had both been mentioned already in the previous verse.  What the Torah wanted us to know was that Pharaoh was not angry at the actual people who had committed a misdemeanour, but at their supervisors who had allowed such a thing to happen. Joseph attended to the needs of these supervisors as he had been assigned to attend to only the highest ranking prisoners.
  
  Verse 3
  
  מקום אשר יוסף אסור שם, the Torah had to write this so that we understand how these prisoners came to tell Joseph their dreams, the dreams which became instrumental in Joseph being released from prison, eventually. The word מקום here is in a construct mode to the word אשר. Hence we have only a sheva under the letter מ instead of the full vowel kametz. Similar constructions are found in Job 18,21 מקום לא ידע א-ל, “a place for people who did not know G’d. (no kametz under the מ in the word מקום. The same applies to Isaiah 8,6 ומשוש את רצין, where the word משוש does not have the vowel kametz under the letter מ as it is in a construct mode to רצין בן רמליהו. 
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  ויפקוד, he appointed Joseph to be their constant companion and personal valet. We are told this so that we can understand why Joseph enjoyed their confidence and they told him their dreams.
  ימים, the Torah does not give further details about how many days. It is possible that the word ימים means “a year,” as it appears in that sense in Leviticus 25,29.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  איש כפתרון חלומו, each one would have his dream interpreted as an individual dream forecasting his particular fate. The interpretations were tailored to measure.
  המשקה והאופה, these words have been repeated although they have been written before, seeing that each one of them saw in his dream something related to his vocation. The Torah added the words אשר למלך מצרים, seeing that the dream had come about not just because of their vocation but because they had practiced their vocation as direct employees of the King of Egypt, they had risen to the top of their profession. The Torah further adds the word אשר אסורים בבית הסהר, seeing that they would leave the prison as a result of what they had dreamt.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  זעפים, each one of them was deeply upset about the dream he had had as they could not figure out its significance.
  
  Verse 7
  
  וישאל, the Torah now adds the words סריסי פרעה, Pharaoh’s highly placed officials, although at the time  אשר אתו, they were on a par with him, both in jail. When Joseph saw their pitiful state of mind, he felt he had to ask what caused such highly placed personages to be in such a depressed mood. After all, his superior, the warden had charged him with looking after the well being of these two special prisoners.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  ופתר אין אותו, they had already asked other people to explain their dreams to them but had not found anyone  who could interpret it.
  ?הלא לאלוקים פתרונים, he was reminded of his own dreams. He was still awaiting the correct interpretation of his own dreams, something known only to G’d. He knew however, that G’d lets you dream certain dreams in order to foreshadow coming events. Seeing that this is so, there must be people who can interpret such dreams, why else would the phenomenon of dreams exist? The reason why their dreams were so confused, i.e. that they perceived themselves to be merely bakers and cup-bearers respectively, was that at the time they themselves were imprisoned and it would not have reflected their psychological makeup to perceive of themselves as occupying positions of authority.
  ספרו נא לי, perhaps G’d will grant me the insight to interpret the dream.
  
  Verse 9
  
   בחלומי, “I saw in my dream.”
  
  Verse 10
  
  שלשה שריגים, branches of the grape vine are known as שריגים.
  והיא כפורחת, at the time when the vine was in bloom it produced leaves at the same time.
  עלתה נצה, the unripe grapes suddenly ripened until they were fully matured fruit. The fruit of the grape vine is not called ענבים until it has fully matured. We have already discussed the meaning of the preposition כ in the word כפרחת in 38,29.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  וכוס...ואשחט, the word שחט signals closing something off. It occurs also in this sense in Shabbat 143 אין שוחטים את הפירות, that it is forbidden to squeeze the juice out of fruit on the Sabbath.
  אל כוס, not “to the cup,” but “into the cup,” as for instance in Exodus 25,21 where the words ואל הארון תתן do not mean “you are to give it to the Ark,” but “you are to place it inside the Ark.” 
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  שלשת ימים, when reflecting on the meaning of the dream Joseph realised that whatever it presaged would occur very soon. He surmised this from the speed with which the blossom on the vine in the dream had turned into fully ripened grapes and wine. He therefore interpreted the number 3 which occurred in the dream as not referring to years or months but to days.
  
  Verse 13
  
  ישא פרעה את ראשך, he will elevate your head. The verb is appropriate as the head of the cup-bearer while in prison was held low, he dared not hold up his head.
  והשיבך, the letter ו has the vowel patach, as opposed to Deuteronomy 28,68 והשיבך ה' מצרים, “G’d will bring you back to Egypt.” [compare Rash’bam on verse 13 above where he explains the meaning of the difference. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  כי אם זכרתני, the same as כי אם תזכרני. אתך כאשר ייטב לך, when you will experience that you are being treated fairly, it is no more than fair that you should do me a favour, seeing that through my interpretation you had the good news of your approaching release and re-instatement. When my interpretation will have proven itself I expect you in turn to do a kindness for me namely to mention my case to Pharaoh so that he will release me also. I want you to do me a second favour, i.e. not merely mention me to him, but to lobby on my behalf. He will listen to you for two reasons. 1) You are an influential minister; 2) I have been jailed although I am totally innocent.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   כי גנב גנבתי, I have been abducted from my home in the land of the Hebrews. He could say this as the family of his father was very well known in the whole region seeing that already Yitzchok and Avraham the patriarchs had dwelled in the land of Canaan  (by that time for about 250 years) It is therefore in order to refer to the land of Canaan as the “land of the Hebrews,” [quite apart of any promise G’d had made to the patriarchs. Ed.]
  
  Verse 16
  
  וירא, he realised in his heart when he had heard the interpretation Joseph had given to the Chief cup bearer that this was both a true and a positive interpretation, and he was confident that Joseph would also have a similarly positive interpretation for his own dream. He based himself there on something which our sages have called: “most dreams follow the interpretation (by the interpreter).” (Berachot 55). Joseph interpreted the two dreams according to what his reason told him was the most likely interpretation. He was not concerned whether his interpretation would be considered favourable, i.e. as portending something good in store for the dreamer or if the reverse.
  סלי חרי, the word חרי is related to the same word in Kings II 12,10 ויקוב חור, “he bored hole.” The baskets are made of thin strips, peeled, with little holes so that they are elastic and look as if plaited. There is no difference between the meaning of the ending י in חרי, and the noun in the regular plural mode חרים. We find such an ending with the letter י in Samuel II 23,8 ראש השלישי, where the noun שליש means “a type of hero, warrior, leader of a contingent of troops.” Sometimes the author contents himself with a partial plural ending, i.e. י, whereas on other occasions he uses the full plural ending ים.  According to my teachers (Jerusalem Talmud Beytzah 2,7) the word חרי is derived from חררה, a type of cake baked on hot coals, and according to this interpretation the baskets the baker saw resembled these cakes in appearance. Whereas the lower two baskets contained these kinds of flat cakes, the topmost basket contained the kind of baked goods served to Pharaoh, i.e. superior goods, pastries, baked in an oven or in an oiled pan.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ובסל, the meaning is clear.
  
  Verse 18
  
  ויען יוסף, he said that also what was forecast for the baker would occur in three days. The goods in the baskets are also of the type which are prepared in a hurry and which taste well only as long as they are fresh, and would not be served to Pharaoh when stale. The principal difference between the two dreams was that the baker did not see himself serving these pastries to Pharaoh, as opposed to the cup-bearer who featured so prominently in his dream. This detail convinced Joseph that the baker would not be restored to his position. Seeing that the alternative to a pardon was only execution, he said to the baker:
  ישא פרעה את ראשך מעליך, i.e. he will separate your head from your body with a sword. Subsequently, he would be hung, and Joseph understood that he would not be given a burial from the fact that the baker had dreamt of the birds of prey. These birds feed on flesh which has not been buried.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  יום הולדת את פרעה, some commentators say that the day referred to was the anniversary of the day Pharaoh had been born, and that he had been in the habit of celebrating this day annually with a banquet. As to the meaning of the word את, which seems difficult to fit into this explanation, one could cite other examples where the word את appears without apparent need, such as Numbers 26,55 יחלק את הארץ, or in Ezekiel 16,4 ביום הולדת אותך “on the day you were born,” where הולדך would have been perfectly adequate.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  ולא זכר, he did not remember to do him a favour. 
  וישכחהו, not to mention him to Pharaoh.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויהי מקץ שנתים ימים, at the end of two years after the release of the cup bearer Pharaoh had given this banquet, following which he had the dream narrated here.
  ופרעה חלם. He was dreaming that he was standing by the river. The word על as meaning “besides, close to,” occurs for instance, also in Numbers 2,20 ועלי מטה מנשה, “and beside him (the army of the tribe Ephrayim) camped the army of the tribe Menashe.” The meaning certainly could not be that Menashe was “above, over,” the tribe of Ephrayim, a more common meaning for the word על. G’d directs all these various apparently unrelated little incidents in mysterious ways in order to promote the realisation of His overall plan in historical developments, both of His people, and of mankind generally. Pharaoh’s dream was inspired by G’d in order that the prophecy to Avraham that before his descendants would take possession of the land of the Canaanites which He had promised them could come true. He had spoken of a period of 400 years parts of which would be harsh treatment of Avraham’s descendants as slaves. In order for this to come about, Avraham’s descendants had to be in Egypt. In order for them to go there voluntarily G’d had to orchestrate the famine. In order for Egypt not to perish during the famine Joseph had to interpret Pharaoh’s dream correctly and make the Egyptians indebted to himself and his family, thus reducing the number of years the Jews would do slave labour there. David details these steps of G’d’s השגחה in Psalms 105. When we look at Pharaoh’s dream with hindsight, we cannot fail to wonder why this dream was so difficult to interpret, and why the collective wisdom of all of Pharaoh’s wise men failed them. The answer is that G’d withheld their normal sagacity in order to bring Joseph into the picture. This concept of G’d interfering sometimes with the thought processes of human beings [not with their will which is inviolate they having been created in the image of G’d, i.e. with free will. Ed.] is described by the prophet Isaiah with the words משיב חכמים אחור ודעתם יסכל, “He turns sages back and makes nonsense of their knowledge.” (Isaiah 44,25)
  
  Verse 2
  
  והנה מן היאור עולות שבע פרות, this was part of the interpretation, as in Egypt the river Nile rises annually above its embankment irrigating the farmland surrounding it. The cows both pull the ploughs and thresh the grain after it has been harvested. [thus far the dream reflected a well known reality in Egypt and it is difficult to see how the Egyptian wise men could have missed something so simple unless their eyes had been blinded by G’d. Ed.]
  ותרעינה באחו, as they found plenty of grass near at hand.
  
  Verse 3
  
  ותעמדנה, this is the first unusual thing in the dream, that the hungry, lean cows instead of grazing as did the fat, satiated cows, were simply standing around, inactive, as if helpless. Joseph, of course, draws attention to the meaning of this phenomenon in his interpretation.
  
  Verse 4
  
  ותאכלנה, this is the explanation of the strange behaviour of the seven lean cows, i.e. that during the seven years of famine the seven good years of plenty would be absorbed as if they had never existed. No trace would remain of the seven good years.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  ויקץ פרעה, he awoke briefly between the first dream and the second dream. Had the dreams been one continuous experience without Pharaoh waking up in between, he himself would have understood immediately that the scenario he saw in the second dream was closely related to the scenario he had seen in the first dream. Seeing that there were two separate dreams, this indicated to Joseph that the events foreshadowed would come to pass without delay.
  והנה חלום, the dream was complete. He did not dream any more during that night.
  
  Verse 8
  
  ויהי בבוקר ותפעם רוחו, his spirit was broken due to his profound worry about the meaning of this dream. Although he had dreamt in two stages having awoken in between the two sections, he was convinced that the message conveyed by what he had been shown was a single message, that the dream was a single dream containing two parts.
  וישלח ויקרא, he summoned them by means of messengers.
  ואין פותר אותם, none of the them could interpret. The word אותם does not refer to the dreams but is used as in 44,4 הם יצאו את העיר. “they had departed from the city.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  את חטאי, even though it is not good manners for a person to mention the sins he had committed against his sovereign in his presence after the time had passed for forgiveness, in this instance the cup bearer excuses his mentioning these sins as he does so in the king’s interest.
  
  Verse 10
  
  אותי ואת שר האופים, even though he already mentioned אותי, I, etc., he repeated this again in the next verse when he spoke about אני והוא, “I and He.” The reason was because of the words he had spoken in the interval. We find a parallel example in Judges 9.19 ואם באמת ובתמים, where these words have been repeated even though the same speaker had used the identical words already in verse 16 in the same speech, on account of what he had been saying in the interval between then and now. Yet another parallel example to the syntax in our verse is found in Nechemyah 4,17 ואין אני ואחי ונערי, “neither I, my brothers, or servants, etc.,” and is repeated verbatim by the same speaker in chapter 5 verse 10 on account of all that he had said in the interval, though it was all part of the same assembly.
  
  Verse 11
  
   כפתרון חלומו, we already explained the meaning of this expression on 40,5.
  
  Verse 12
  
  נער, seeing that he performed personal valet duties for them in the prison he referred to him as a נער, [describing his function. Ed.] He added that Joseph was also עבד לשר הטבחים, he had been informed about Joseph’s immediate past before he was thrown into jail. He gave this information so that anyone enquiring about him would know  the name of the person they were trying to locate.
  איש כחלומו, the prefix ל is missing here in front of the word איש. The word איש has to be understood as if the cup-bearer had said: לאיש, meaning that each of the two received an interpretation tailored to his particular dream. One dream had been appropriate for a cup-bearer, the other for a baker. One dream dealt with a drink, the other with food, baked goods.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  ויריצוהו מן הבור, they removed him from jail in haste seeing that Royal commands are always carried out promptly and as a matter of priority.
  ויגלח ויחלף שמלותיו, admission to the presence of the king is conditional on both body and attire being in first class condition.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  ויאמר..לאמר; people say that you understand the meanings of a dream and are able to interpret it correctly.
  תשמע, this means the same here as “you will understand.” The root שמע appears meaning the same in Deuteronomy 28,49 גוי אשר לא תשמע לשונו, “a people whose language you do not understand.”
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  בלעדי, “I cannot do this based on my intelligence.
  אלוקים יענה, G’d will provide the answer and thereby put Pharaoh’s mind at rest.” The meaning of the word יענה here is similar to Kohelet 5,19 מענה בשמחת לבו, “G’d provides him with the joy of his heart.” He will display goodwill and His concern with Pharaoh’s peace of mind. Or, Joseph may have meant that G’d will put in my mouth words which will provide Pharaoh with peace of mind. This would be analogous to Proverbs 16,1 ומה' מענה לשון, “but the answer of the tongue comes from G’d.”
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  וידבר, we have already written that when someone repeats something he has said previously he is apt to either add something to the previous version, or he is apt to omit something he had mentioned in the previous version. The speaker, generally, is concerned only with conveying the same meaning as he had conveyed the first time he said the same thing. The same is thing is true of someone relating a dream he had more than once.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  ורקות בשר, with the letter ר instead of the letter ד the meaning is derived from רקק, as in רקיקי מצות, in Exodus 29,2 where it means “unleavened wafers.” [the author refers to the thinness of wafers describing the thinness of the flesh on these cows. Ed.]
  
  Verse 20
  
  הרקות , the ones mentioned as possessing only a thin layer of flesh as in verse 19.
  
  Verse 21
  
  ולא נודע, concerning this comment of Pharaoh’s narrative Joseph said in verse 31 that ולא יודע השבע that during the years of famine the abundance of food during the preceding 7 years will not even be something people could remember.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  צנמות, a word which is understood based on our sages (Rashi, Ram’ban) quoting the expressionפת צנומה בקערה (Berachot 39, “dried bread placed in a dish to soak it in water.”) The interpretation of the dream is now perfectly clear.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  ושבע הפרות הרקות, the word הרקות is again derived from רקיק, wafer, as on the previous occasions it was mentioned. 
  השבלים הרקות, here the word הרקות is derived from the word ריק, empty, as in והבור רק אין בו מים, “the pit was empty, it did not contain water.” (Genesis 37,24)
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  הקדים as if the Torah had written קדמאה, “the one previously mentioned in verse 25.” הגיד, “He showed Pharaoh in his dream,” instead of spelling it out to him.
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  ועל השנות, Joseph added the word פעמים, in order to make this more plain after he had used  the expression השנות.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  וחמש, he should confiscate one fifth of the harvest.
  
  Verse 35
  
  ויקבצו את כל אוכל השנים, concerning this tax of twenty percent of the harvest, Joseph suggested that the appointed officials should collect the food thus set aside by Pharaoh during the seven years of plenty and store it near various cities under Pharaoh’s direct supervision so that it would be at hand when the years of famine would commence. This would be independent of what private individuals would put in storage on their own account. If this advice were followed, each city would have a substantial hoard of grain near at hand when the famine would break out and there would not be any panic or undue profiteering.
  
  Verse 36
  
  לפקדון, as an insurance to have handy in time of need. Even though the people who had turned in that part of their harvest would in due course be forced to buy it back, this arrangement would be good for them as at least they would insure that when needed it would be available.
  
  Verse 37
  
  וייטב הדבר, Pharaoh approved of Joseph’s suggestion as did his ministers as they all understood that it was a wise and practical plan. They realised that it was very likely that Joseph’s interpretation of the dream was correct. They were furthermore very impressed by the chief of the cup-bearers who had told them how Joseph’s interpretation of both his and the chief baker’s dreams had come true. Moreover, Joseph had not claimed that the realisation of the dream would be in the distant future, but by seizing on the word והנה twice at the very beginning of Pharaoh’s dream and again in verse 29, he had made it plain that these predictions would come true in short order.
  
  Verse 38
  
  הנמצא כזה, the letter נ in the word הנמצא was directed at the people who were talking about the whole subject. Pharaoh said to the assembled advisers: “Joseph has made certain suggestions. Can we possibly find someone better qualified to put these suggestions into practice? He is clearly superior in wisdom and acumen to all our local experts, and this can only be due to the fact that he enjoys Divine inspiration.”
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  ישק, a word derived from נשק, arms, as per Onkelos.
  רק הכסא אגדל ממך, in matters relating to the throne I will rank as superior to you.
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  ראה נתתי אותך, take note of the fact that I have empowered you as effective ruler over Egypt. [the author  tells us that the word or root ראה does not need to be translated as “to see, either with the physical eye or even with the mental eye. Ed.] Pharaoh gave Joseph latitude to conduct the affairs of state according to whatever his wisdom dictated to him 
  
  Verse 42
  
  ויסר, the ring which was the symbol of the supreme authority in Egypt and which was used to sign and thereby confirm any Royal decree in the country.
  
  Verse 43
  
  במרכבת המשנה, in the carriage reserved for the second highest official of the land.
  אברך. The letter א in this word appears here in lieu of the letter ה and is part of the infinitive as in ונתון אותו, in other words: it is appropriate to bend one’s knee before this person and to raise him to be ruler over the land of Egypt. Alternatively, the meaning could be that the letter א refers to the respective person (anyone) announcing at the approach of Joseph’s coach that those who were still a distance away before he passed them should get down on their knees to pay their respects anticipating his passing.
  ונתון אותו, and everyone agreed that this person deserved to be given control of the whole land of Egypt.
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  אני פרעה, even though I am nominally king, without your permission לא ירים איש את ידו ואת רגלו, in all respects. [Joseph was appointed as absolute dictator, benevolent, of course. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  צפנת פענח, an Egyptian expression, similar to Nevuchadnezzar giving Daniel and his companions Chaldaic names when he appointed them to high office. (Daniel 1,7) Other commentators (Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ram’ban)  explain the name צפנת פענח as being Hebrew.
  ויצא יוסף, he now proceeded to take the reins of government into his hands
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  ויצא יוסף מלפני פרעה, instead of remaining standing at Pharaoh’s side, like the other ministers, he left to set about doing his job.
  ויעבר בכל ארץ מצרים, he did not travel for pleasure but in the course of his new duties he had to traverse the whole country. His task consisted primarily of supervising that his instructions were being carried out.
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  ותעש הארץ, the earth produced harvests לקמצים, even a single kernel produced many handfuls. [possibly by “kernel” the author refers to a kernel of seed. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  ויקבוץ את כל אוכל, we already explained this on verse 35.
  ויתן אכל בערים, he built all the storage silos in the towns and not in the villages. The twenty percent of the harvest the farmers in the villages had to turn in, Joseph stored in the cities.
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  כחול הים, an exaggerated way of describing the abundance of grain.
  
  Verse 50
  
  וליוסף יולד, the singular mode used by the Torah in describing the birth of these two sons of Joseph suggests that they were twins. At least they were presumably born during the same night.
  שנת הרעב, the first year of the famine; the Torah adds: בטרם תבא, for they were born during the last year of the 7 years of plenty. Joseph was 37 years old when they were born. They were therefore 19 years old when Yaakov died. My teachers (Taanit 11) explained that the wording “before the onset of the famine,” is meant to teach that a person must not engage in marital intercourse during years of famine.
  אשר ילדה לו אסנת, this is to teach that Joseph did not have any additional wives, i.e. both of his sons were born by the same mother.
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  כי נשני, G’d granted me so much wealth and power that He enabled me to forget את כל עמלי, all the problems and setbacks I had experienced, and He has even made me forget all the members of my father’s household. [not including his father, of course. Ed.]
  נשני, the vowel patach under the letter נ substitutes for the  vowel chirik which we would normally expect in the transitive conjugation from the root נשה, as then it would have been nishani as in tzivani from the root  צוה, “to command.” Some commentators do not accept that this vowel is a variant but claim that it is justified as the root of the word nashani in our verse is נשש. [compare Rash’bam’s comment. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  בארץ עניי, in the land which for me was first a land of poverty, oppression, mental anguish, and has now become the land in which my potential has come to fruition where G’d has granted me children, wealth and great honour.
  
  Verse 53
  
  אשר היה, a collective term, hence in the singular היה instead of the plural היו.
  
  Verse 54
  
  ובכל ארץ מצרים היה לחם, in all the countries bordering on the land of Egypt there was food seeing that everyone had amassed a private hoard. [the author may mean that the individual farmers sold their private hoards to foreigners, knowing that when they would run out they would qualify for the accumulated supply of the state, while in the meantime overcharging the people from the neighbouring countries. Ed.]
  
  Verse 55
  
  ותרעב, each one had used up his private hoard either by eating it or selling it. Besides, they could not store a great deal, having had to surrender twenty per cent of their annual harvests to Joseph’s officials.
  ויצעק העם, they knew that Joseph had stored up their twenty percent contributions each year. They appealed to Pharaoh knowing that the food which had been stored was intended to be sold back to the people during the famine.
  
  
  Verse 56
  
  והרעב...ויפתח יוסף את כל אשר בהם, he now opened all the silos in which grain had been stored.
  וישבר למצרים, first he sold grain only to the Egyptians until word had spread that there was food for sale in Egypt. Then he also sold to foreigners. The expression וישבר, vayishbor, is from the conjugation kal, and is used both as applicable to the seller and the buyer. Actually, the word shever means “breaking,” i.e. the grain, the harvest, is what “breaks” one’s hunger. Compare Psalms 104,11 ישברו פראים צמאם, “the wild asses slake their thirst, the word for “slaking,” being the word שבר. When it comes to the transaction, i.e. trading in victuals, especially grain, the seller gives something which will still the buyer’s hunger, i.e. break it, whereas the buyer at the same time is receiving something which breaks his hunger. Hence it is understandable why the same root is used to describe either buying or selling food, seeing both parties are concerned in dealing with someone’s hunger, putting an end to it, as it were. One party hands over the price, the other party receives payment, thus both seller and buyer are active in the transaction. The conjugation הפעיל however, is applicable only to the seller of food, not to the buyer, as in most instances this conjugation is used transitively. The word mashbir, or hamashbir, therefore refers to the seller, not to the buyer.
  ויחזק הרעב, as foreign buyers appeared and the quantities sold to each had to be rationed in order to ensure that the supply would last, the famine was felt more strongly also by the local population, seeing the famine had been predicted to last for many years.
  
  Verse 57
  
  לשבור אל יוסף, the words have been inverted and mean the same as if the Torah had written באו אל יוסף לשבור, “they came to Joseph to trade in grain.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  וירא יעקב, he saw local inhabitants arriving with grain and fodder. He asked these people where they had bought it, and they told him that they had brought it all the way from Egypt. As a result, he told his sons what he had heard and wanted to know why they acted as if they did not need additional supplies.
  ?למה תתראו, “Why do you give the impression that you have adequate supplies of grain? Everybody else is going on a buying trip and you sit at home!”
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  וירדו אחי יוסף. The reason why the Torah describes them all of a sudden as “Joseph’s brothers” instead of as Yaakov’s sons, is that they went down to Egypt because of what had happened with Joseph so many years ago. The time had come for Joseph’s dream to be realised, and the Torah wants to alert the reader to this. In Bereshit Rabbah 91,2 the question is raised why there is a dividing tone sign, etnachta, under the word עשרה, as if the verse ended there. The answer given is that nine of the brothers only were concerned with finding Joseph and being good brothers, whereas the tenth, Shimon, joined them only in order to buy grain. [the basis of the Midrash is the number “ten” being mentioned. We all knew that only ten brothers went to Egypt, Yaakov not allowing Binyamin to join them.  Hence, the Midrash reads additional meaning into the word “ten,” as well as into the tone sign under that word. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  ואת בנימין... אחי יוסף, he is mentioned once more as “Joseph’s brother” as he was the only full brother Joseph had, being a brother both from the same father and the same mother.
  אסון, a mishap brought about either by man or by direct heavenly intervention, a natural disaster, for instance. Yaakov’s fear was based on a mishap having befallen Joseph at the time (as he had been led to believe). The Talmud in Ketuvot 30 describes mishaps caused by “man” as thorns and thistles, and the like. [based on Proverbs 22,5. The assumption appears to be that such “mishaps” are preventable by man being careful.] We may well ask why Yaakov was afraid of a mishap that might befall Binyamin while he was on the way more than he was afraid of a mishap which might befall him at home? The answer is that mishaps which befall people on a journey are statistically far more frequent than those that befall a person while he is at home. Wild animals, bandits, etc., are usually roaming on much traveled routes. Due to the likelihood of encountering such hazards while traveling, even righteous people who have no reason to fear G’d’s retribution for any wrongs they may have committed, need to be especially careful in any situation which is known to be especially hazardous, and they must not ignore such dangers by relying on G’d to keep them safe. Even if they would be saved from some danger through a miracle G’d would perform for them, their accumulated merits would be diminished thereby. Our sages have found an allusion to all this in Deuteronomy 6,15 לא תנסו את ה' אלוקיכם, “do not cause the Lord your G’d to have to perform a miracle for you.” We find proof that even an outstanding man such as the prophet Samuel when sent to anoint a successor to King Sha-ul and setting out on the way to Chevron to anoint one of Yishai’s sons, was afraid and said so to G’d. G’d Himself told him what precautions to take. (Samuel I 16,2) In view of the above it is not surprising therefore that Yaakov was especially concerned about Binyamin’s safety during the journey.
  
  Verse 5
  
  בתוך הבאים, they did not appear different although they were Hebrews. Seeing that it was a time of danger, i.e. famine, they mingled freely with all the other people traveling to Egypt for the same purpose.
  
  Verse 6
  
  ויוסף הוא השליט, the brothers had to appear before him personally as he was the seller, i.e. he authorised who could buy and how much. הוא המשביר. The term is only used transitively, someone who sells somebody else’s property to a third party. He gave instructions to his agents to sell. Initially, all potential purchasers had to be examined by Joseph personally. Although, no doubt this was a tedious procedure, Joseph had issued these instructions to make sure he would spot his brothers when they would arrive, as he was sure they must. As a result he would be able to confront his brothers. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  וירא יוסף...ויכירם, our sages explain that the fact that Joseph had left home when he did not have a beard yet, whereas his brothers already had beards accounts for the fact that whereas they did not recognise him, he recognised them. (quoted by Rashi) It is possible that they would have recognised him in spite of his having grown a beard if they had not seen the man confronting them dressed in the uniform of the highest ranking nobles of the land. They could not imagine that this man could be Joseph even if there had been points of resemblance. The idea that someone who had been sold into slavery had risen to such power was too mind-boggling for them.
  ויתנכר, Joseph moreover deliberately misrepresented himself to prevent their suspecting that it might be him.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  ויכר יוסף, as we already explained on verse 7. The reason the Torah has repeated this is that the Torah wished to emphasise that he showed them brotherly love by not harming them or killing them, whereas they, at the time had not shown him any brotherly feelings in their treatment of him, first planning to kill him, then stripping him, throwing him into the pit, and subsequently selling him into slavery.
  
  Verse 9
  
  אשר חלם להם, for the dreams had really concerned the brothers, primarily. He realised now that they had hated him on account of his dreams; this is why when he remembered all that they had done to him instead of repaying them in kind, he only made them extremely uncomfortable for a while. [perhaps what the author means is that originally, Joseph had thought that the brothers resented his becoming a big shot in his dreams, whereas only now did he realise that what they really resented was the fact that they, the brothers, appeared as socially low ranking, slave like, in Joseph’s dreams. Ed.]
  
  Verse 10
  
  ועבדיך, the letter ו at the beginning of this word substitutes for the word אבל, “but”. In other words: “no my lord, not as you have said; but your servants simply came here to buy food.” The use of the letter ו instead of the word אבל is not unique, as it also occurs in Psalms 7,5  ואחלצה צוררי ריקם, “but I have rescued my foe without reward.”
  
  Verse 11
  
  כלנו בני איש אחד, if you claimed that the fact that we stick together is proof that we are spies, consider that the reason why we stick together is because we are all sons of the same father. This is why we always ask our questions in unison. We belong to the same family, and are honest upright people.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  ויאמרו...בני איש אחד, they now felt the need to assert further that they were in fact honest and forthcoming by revealing that actually there were twelve of them, all sons of the same father, etc.
  את אבינו, they had left one brother to attend to the needs of their father during their absence
  איננו; the reason why they chose this ambiguous way of referring to the fate of their missing brother was to avoid being trapped. If they had said that their missing bother was dead, Joseph could have accused them of lying –in the event Joseph was alive and this ruler had knowledge of the fact.-  They knew that Joseph had been sold to Egypt but had no knowledge beyond this. They had reason to fear that while a slave in Egypt and wanting to obtain his freedom he might have revealed his origins, implicating the brothers in having sold him. The fact that this slave, like they themselves was of Hebrew origin, may well have become known as he had been bought from Hebrews. Even the wife of Potiphar, when thwarted in her advances too him, suddenly refers to him in a derogatory fashion as “the Hebrew man her husband had brought into the house to belittle them, etc.” (39,14) The Chief of the cup-bearers had also referred to him as Hebrew slave. (41,12) However, while Joseph may have revealed or may not have been able to conceal that he was a Hebrew, it was by no means certain that he had also revealed details about his family, his father, etc. Neither would he have had reason to reveal how many brothers he had\, etc. Therefore, when referring to him, they decided to use the non committal ואיננו, meaning that they had no knowledge of where he was if he was still alive.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  הוא אשר דברתי, if you really spoke the truth that ten of you came as brothers, why did the eleventh not come also? As far as your claiming that he stayed home in order to attend to the needs of your father, what about your father’s wives and your own wives? Are they not able to cope with these chores during your absence?
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  if you indeed speak the truth, as you claimed when you said that you are כנים, truthful, above board.
  
  Verse 17
  
  ויאסוף, he caused them mental pain without touching their bodies or causing them financial loss.
  
  Verse 18
  
  את האלוקים אני ירא, therefore I will not detain all of you seeing that your families are starving and I would be to blame for this. I will only detain one of you in order to put your claim to the test.
  
  Verse 19
  
  שבר רעבון בתיכם, what will break the hunger, i.e. the harvest; this is why the harvest, תבואה is also called שבר, as we have already explained on 41,56.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  ויאמרו, after Joseph had finished speaking with them and had left, the interpreter who had acted to preserve the impression that Joseph did not understand Hebrew also left the room where the encounter between Joseph and his brothers had taken place. In the absence of the interpreter the brothers acknowledged their sin against Joseph, seeing in their incarceration and in their position as accused, G’d’s punishment for their conduct against Joseph. They knew that they had been discriminated against by Joseph, knowing that they had been subjected to a far more intense questioning than other travelers who had come to Egypt to buy food. This is why they connected their present predicament to their behaviour against Joseph. However, they saw the nature of their sin not in their basic attitude to Joseph but
  בהתחננו אלינו¸ their turning a deaf ear to Joseph’s pleas for mercy after he had been thrown into the pit. Joseph had started pleading already when they stripped him of the coloured coat his father had had made for him especially. The entire episode is described in detail by the Torah to teach the reader that if and when apparently undeserved troubles befall him, that he is to examine his past deeds to find out what sin, intentional or unintentional, could have caused G’d to bring this to his attention in such a manner so that he would repent his error. He is to exploit his troubles to ask G’d for forgiveness for his wrongdoing. [even if the major act of penitence has to be performed toward the person against whom he had sinned and from whom he must ask  for a pardon. Ed.] 
  
  Verse 22
  
  וגם דמו הנה נדרש, seeing that they believed that Joseph had died after he had been sold, they felt that G’d was also holding them responsible now for having shed his blood.
  
  Verse 23
  
  כי המליץ, we already explained the function of the interpreter.
  
  Verse 24
  
   ויבך. Overhearing the brothers confess their sin against him caused Joseph to weep.
  את שמעון, he shackled him for it had been Shimon who had thrown him into the pit.
  ויאסור, he brought him back to jail in front of their eyes. In Bereshit Rabbah 91,8 Rabbi Chani points out that the restrictive addition of the word לעיניהם, “in their presence,” means that Shimon remained tied up only while the brothers could see him. As soon as the brothers started their home-bound journey Shimon was released by Joseph. He fed him, bathed him, anointed him, in other words treated him like a V.I.P not like a suspected criminal.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  ויצו יוסף, he instructed his servants, the ones who were selling the grain (completing the transaction once it had been approved) to fill the brothers’ containers with grain, which they did. וימלאו; this is one of many verses in the Torah which has been written in an abbreviated manner.
  ולהשיב, he also instructed his servants at the same time to replace the purchase money the brothers had paid.
  ויעש להם כן, these words refer to the restoration of the money and the brothers being given enough provisions for themselves for their journey. We had heard already that their containers had been filled with grain. 
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  ויפתח האחד, one of them. According to a homiletic comment quoted by Rashi, the definitive article at the beginning of the word האחד is a hint that this was Levi, who, through his buddy Shimon having been detained by Joseph, was now “the one,” i.e. left alone without his closest companion.
  בפי אמתחתו, Joseph had instructed that the money of one of them should be not just placed back in his sack, but should be placed near the top so that he would find it immediately he opened the sack. The money of the other brothers had been placed somewhere in the middle section of their respective containers, or even at the very bottom. If the money of all of them had been placed near the top of their bags they would see it as soon as they started giving fodder to their beasts, and they would turn around to Egypt pointing out that someone had made a mistake. They would be anxious to clear themselves of the danger of being accused of an additional crime, of being thieves. Joseph had therefore taken precautions that only one of them should find his money before they would get home. He had arranged matters in a way to cause them maximum worry.
  
  Verse 28
  
  ויצא לבם, as Joseph expected, discovery of the money was a major shock for them. The expression used by the Torah for this emotion is also found in Song of Songs 5,6 נפשי יצאה בדברו, “I fainted because of what he said.”
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  ויבאו, the words they told their father are quite clear, although there are minor variations, additions, omissions; changes; the basic subject was reported faithfully
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  ואת רעבון, the words are once more inverted and mean ואת שבר רעבון, “the food for the starving, etc.”
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  בשקו, in the actual text it does not say בפי שקו, as we already mentioned on verse 27.
  וייראו; they now worried if the sellers of the grain had not deliberately replaced their money in order to set a trap for them when they would return when they would be accused of being thieves.
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  שכלתם, “you have bereaved;” a transitive mode, referring to a third person. The same construction appears when the prophet Samuel tells King Agag why he is about to kill him, saying שכלה נשים חרבך, “your sword has bereaved women” (Samuel I 15,33) Yaakov meant that “you my sons have caused me this problem with three of my sons.”
  כלנה, all these problems.
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  את שני בני תמית, two of my sons. [he had four. Ed.] Reuven said something foolish in even suggesting that his father might kill his own grandsons. Yaakov responded: (not in text) “you are a foolish firstborn what makes you think that your sons are not also my sons?” Seeing that Reuven’s suggestion was so foolish, Yaakov did not even bother to formally reply to it. It did not deserve to be dignified with a serious answer. He just told him that he would not send Binyamin with him and the other brothers.
  
  Verse 38
  
  כי אחיו מת, not a statement of fact but an assumption. Yaakov reasoned that if Joseph were alive he would have heard from him at some time during the over twenty years that he had been missing.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  והרעב, Yehudah said to his brothers not to argue with their aged father until there would be no more bread in the house at which time he would agree to send his son Binyamin with the brothers.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  העד העיד, when a caution is issued to people in the presence of witnesses, the caution is not called התראה, “warning,” but עדות, “testimony.” 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  גם אנחנו גן אתה גם טפנו, each one in addition to the one already mentioned. What Yehudah meant was it was better that one Binyamin should come along with them although his safe return was subject to some doubt, than they should all die, something which would be a certainty.
  
  Verse 9
  
  וחטאתי לך, Yehudah did not really man that if he did not bring Binyamin back this would automatically  be a sin in the objective meaning of the word. He meant that he would consider himself as a sinner against his father forever in the unlikely event that this would happen. He would guarantee his brother’s return under such conditions. These considerations prompted our sages in Makkot 11 to characterise Yehudah as placing himself in the position of a conditional outcast, מנודה, they derive the halachah that someone who places himself in such a state requires the court to annul his conditional vow, status. Needless to say that ostracising oneself from the Jewish community even conditionally is forbidden, and we have a tradition that the bones inside Yehudah’s coffin were rattling for the entire 40 years the Jewish people carried the coffins of the 12 founding leaders of the tribes with them through the desert. This stopped only at the request of Moses who asked mercy for Yehudah in his final blessing in Deuteronomy 33,7, וזאת 'ליהודה וגו
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  אם כן אפוא, if the situation is such that I cannot detain Binyamin here,
  זאת עשו, in order to curry favour with the ruler of the land;
  מזמרת הארץ, of the produce which this land is especially famous for;
  מעט צרי ומעט דבש, both of these products were known as exports from the land of Canaan. as is spelled out specifically in Ezekiel 27,17 יהודה וארץ ישראל המה רוכליך בחטי מנית ופגג ודבש ושמן וצרי, Yehudah and the Land of Israel, they were your peddlers. With wheat from Minis, balsam oil, honey, oil and balm, etc.” צרי is known as “balsam” nowadays.
  נכאת, according to Bereshit Rabbah 91,11 this is wax. In the same paragraph there דבש is understood as “hard as stone.” Rabbi Saadyah Gaon explains the word צרי, as Triaki, and נכאת as some kind of cabbage (cauliflower), and לוט as lotononis, something better known today as armon, chestnut.
  בטנים, which are known in Arabic as piniulash. Apparently this nut was known in Spain  as tzenuvar.
  ושקדים, almonds, something familiar to all  of  us. In Bereshit Rabbah 91,11 both the words בטנים and שקדים are understood as referring to an ointment based on the oil of these nuts. [why would Yaakov send something as common as peanuts and almonds? Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  וכסף משנה, and a second amount of money. The word משנה occurs in the same sense as here in Jeremiah 17,18 ומשנה שברון, “and shatter them with double destruction.” The vowel segol instead of tzeyreh in שני, indicates that the word is not in a construct mode.
  אולי משגה הוא, perhaps one of the people selling the grain and filling the sacks of the buyers had mistakenly and temporarily put a bag of coins in the bag of the brothers forgetting about it and had not retrieved it. At the time when they counted the money to tally it with the quantity of grain sold, it had already been mixed up in the grain and there was no knowing where it had disappeared to. When you now bring it back, you will establish your reputation as being trustworthy by doing this.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  ושלח, he will release Shimon to you from his imprisonment. 
  כאשר שכלתי שכלתי, seeing the subject matter is being repeated, Yaakov changed the wording he used, something that is standard procedure in Scriptures, as we pointed out previously. (21,1) The first word shakolti is from a passive mode, whereas the second word shakalti is an active mode. What he meant was: “what can I do if some mishap will befall one of you, just as I have already had to endure the bereavement of Joseph having been lost. I may have to make peace with the idea of losing anyone of you due to whatever mishap will befall him. [The first word refers to the past, when it had never occurred to Yaakov that something might happen to Joseph; hence it is described as something in which Yaakov views himself as having been totally passive. If something were to happen now, he could not view himself as a totally passive bystander, seeing he had agonised about the very fact that it might happen. Therefore, according to the author, the active mode is justified here. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  ויעמדו לפני יוסף, they encountered Joseph in the public square while on their way to the hotel. When Joseph saw them he did not offer any kind of greeting in public until they would be in his house. However, as soon as he saw them he instructed his servant, the one in charge of his household, to bring them to his private residence.
  
  Verse 16
  
  בצהרים. At midday, the hour of day at which princes, judges, the nobility, all people who look after public affairs consume their main meal, as we know from Kohelet 10,17 ושריך בעת יאכלו, “and your ministers eat at a proper time.” Joseph belonged to this category of people, seeing that all public affairs were under his control.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  להתגולל עלינו, the reason he brought us to his private palace was in order to subject us to accusations concerning the money we were supposed to have stolen, something which he will use as a pretext להתנפל עלנו, to attack us seeing that he had been ill disposed against us from the beginning, when he had treated us as suspected spies. Now he will use the trumped up charges in order to keep us as slaves, a traditional punishment for thieves. He probably also wants to confiscate our donkeys What other reason could possibly account for his taking us to his private residence!
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  פתח הבית, in order that the people of Joseph’s household should not overhear them. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  ויאמרו בי אדוני, we have a request; they then proceeded to explain to him what they had experienced with the money, and why they had brought this extra amount with them now.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  מטמון, if you found this money in your sacks it was a gift from heaven, comparable to if a human being had given you a treasure. But as far as the money you owed for your purchases is concerned, כספכם בא אלי, “I did receive your money.”
   Immediately after saying this, ויוצא, he gave instructions to have Shimon brought out to join them. He did this so promptly in order to allay their fears and suspicions and to comfort them.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  ויבא, he escorted them inside from the entrance where they had been having the conversation.
  
  Verse 25
  
  ויכינו, they arranged the gifts they had brought in a manner that would look appropriately impressive by the time Joseph would come home.
  כי שמעו, from the official in charge of Joseph’s palace that they were preparing the meal.
  לחם, a term which is inclusive, meaning the entire meal.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  ויבא...ויביאו, the letter א in the word ויביאו has a dagesh. 
  הביתה, to the house where they were being dined, for although they were also in the same “house,” they were not in the same compound. In the house or palace of an important personage there are many smaller separate buildings. The brothers at this time had been in one of the outer buildings, whereas Joseph occupied the inner palace, so that the line “they brought the gift they carried with them to the inner palace to him,” is quite justified.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  ויקדו וישתחוו, when they prostrated themselves this was with the intention of making an obeisance to their father after whom Joseph had inquired (although outwardly, this was not noticeable).
  
  Verse 29
  
  וישא עיניו, seeing that they all surrounded him without any specific order of seniority, Joseph looked up in order to recognise his brother Binyamin, [who had only been about 10 years old at the time he had last seen him. Ed.]
  יחנך בני; the word יחנך has the same meaning as if the Torah had written yechancha with a dagesh in the letter נ avoiding the doubling of the letter נ. The word has been written in the conjugation kal, something that occurs quite frequently when the root contains a dual consonant, i.e. חנן. We find exactly the same construction with our root in Isaiah 30,19 חנון יחנך.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  נכמרו, as translated by Onkelos “his feelings of mercy had been aroused.”
  
  Verse 31
  
  וירחץ...ויתאפק; he managed to gain control of himself and to stop himself from weeping anymore.
  
  Verse 32
  
  וישימו לו לבדו, they served him separately as a symbol of his exalted position.
  ולהם לבדם, ולמצרים לבדם, and the brothers separately, and the Egyptians separately again, כי לא יוכלון, for the Hebrews were eating meat, as we know from the instructions to slaughter meat which had been issued in verse 15. Egyptians did not eat sheep or goats, and the only reason they raised these animals was for their wool and their milk. [According to Rashi and evidence cited in Torah Shleymah 92,5, the reason why the Egyptians did not eat sheep was that they considered sheep a deity, and it was inconceivable for them to consume their deities.] 
  
  Verse 33
  
  וישבו לפניו, in the order in which Joseph had given instructions to seat them.
  הבכור כבכורתו ויתמהו, the oldest in accordance with his seniority etc. They were amazed. They could not explain to themselves how Joseph had known their respective ages seeing that only seven years separated all of them from the oldest except for Binyamin, whom they had described as the youngest so that Joseph knew about him. According to Bereshit Rabbah 92,5 Joseph had made a great pretense of consulting the goblet he used to drink from to determine the seating arrangement to correspond with their importance. He would claim that seeing that Yehudah was destined to become a king, he should sit at the head of the brothers. Reuven who was the biological senior of the brothers should sit next to Yehudah. He would continue in this fashion, explaining the reason why he had chosen to seat the brothers in the sequence he assigned to them. When he came to Binyamin, he said: “seeing that I have no mother and he has no mother let him sit closest to me.” No wonder that the brothers were utterly confused by this.
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  וישא, the person who handed out the gifts. We find a similar construction where the subject is presumed without being named or being specifically referred to in 48,2 when Yaakov is informed that Joseph is about to visit him. The Torah there also uses the impersonal ויגד, “someone told,” without bothering to inform the reader who it was that informed Yaakov. All this friendliness which Joseph displayed during the meal was intended to contrast with the manner in which they, the brothers would do everything in their power to cause him anguish and discomfort prior to the time when they had sold him. He displayed especial fondness for Binyamin because he had been forced to come to Egypt on account of what must have seemed like his caprice, and to compensate him for having been separated from his father for no apparent reason. At least, these were some of the thoughts which the brothers thought of to explain Joseph’s strange behaviour.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויצו, all the matters described are quite clear to the reader. Joseph arranged this whole charade in order to discomfort the brothers and to make them feel afraid without actually causing them any harm, and not hurting them physically or even economically. He displayed great wisdom in what he did.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  הבקר אור, the word אור here is a verb in the active mode of the passive conjugation We encounter a similar construction in Samuel I 14,29, כי אורו עיני, “for my eyes have lit up.”
  וחמוריהם, they were given a sendoff together with their fully loaded donkeys.
  
  Verse 4
  
  הם יצאו את העיר, the word את in this verse means “from.” A similar construction is found in Exodus 9,29 כצאתי את העיר, “when I leave the boundaries of the city.”
  הרחיקו, a verb in the intransitive mode. A similar construction of the same verb occurs in Judges 18,22 המה הרחיקו מבית מיכה, “they had traveled a certain distance from the house of Micah.”
  והשגתם, hurry in order that you catch up with them.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  נחש ינחש, some commentators understand this expression to mean “is in the habit of consulting oracles, or people who are expert at doing this.” It is also possible that the expression means that the loss of the goblet represents a bad omen for Joseph as it deprives him of the instrument by which he could foretell the future. The entire sequence from here to verse 10 is quite clear.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  ויאמר, גם עתה כדבריכם כן הוא, he meant that although legally speaking the law is as you say, I will be more lenient with you, etc.
  אשר ימצא, the one in whose possession, etc. Other commentators interpret the words כדבריכם כן הוא to mean that your argument that you are honest as proven by your bringing back the money you found is acceptable, [but it does not apply to either Shimon or Binyamin, neither of whom have brought back any money.] but if the goblet is found in someone’s sack, that individual will have to be my master’s slave. I will however, not hold you responsible by association.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  ויחפש, בגדול החל, in order that they should not suspect him of having planted the goblet in Binyamin’s sack, he made a show of starting to search the oldest, etc. He knew their respective rank in seniority from the way Joseph had seated them at the meal.
  
  Verse 13
  
   ויעמס, each one of them reloaded his ass.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  ומה נצעק, what good would it do if we loudly proclaim our innocence. In the matter of the goblet we cannot argue that we have already previously proved our honesty, as we could in respect of the money we had brought back.
  האלוקים מצא, G’d found our guilt and has now devised a way to trap us and to punish us. This corresponds to how the prophet Ezekiel 3,20 describes G’d’s modus operandi, saying ונתתי מכשול לפניו, “I shall place a stumbling block before him” (a penitent who slides back into sin).
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  אל אביכם. Who is waiting for you to bring back food.
  
  Verse 18
  
  כי כמוך כפרעה, the repeated use of the prefix כ is meant to draw a comparison between the two subjects mentioned. We find a parallel construction in Isaiah 24,2 כעבד כאדוניו, “like master like servant.” [that verse contains a string of these comparisons. Ed.] What Yehudah meant was “on the one hand you rule like Pharaoh, and Pharaoh is like you in many respects.” I am therefore as afraid to speak up in front of you as I would be afraid to speak up in front of Pharaoh. However, due to the extreme difficulty we are finding ourselves in I cannot remain silent. I can only ask that in all that I am going to say אל יחר אפך בעבדך, “do not become angry at your servant.” You have already accused us of crimes when we first came here, as distinct from other people who came to buy grain whom you did not subject to such treatment.”
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  אדוני שאל, he proceeded to tell Joseph the sequence of events in a manner calculated to arouse Joseph’s sympathy for the plight of his aged father.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  ונפשו קשורה בנפשו; due to the intense love he has for this son. If he will not return with us, my father will die and both we and you will be guilty of having brought about his death. If you claim that he has sinned against you, consider against this the fact that you had claimed you merely wanted to see him, i.e. to convince yourself of his existence, not of his being a righteous individual. We fulfilled this request by bringing him with us. We are faced with the dilemma that he says he has not taken the goblet, whereas you claim he has sinned against you seeing the goblet has been found in his bag, which may be circumstantial evidence hard to refute, but it is still his word against yours. If you were now to forgive his presumed guilt this would constitute the תשומת עין, “setting your eye on him,” which is what you requested in the first place. If you were to ask why I of all my brothers have chosen to be the spokesman,
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  כי עבדך ערב את הנער, I have guaranteed him; if you now do not want to forgive his presumed guilt, take me in his stead because I am more useful to you as a slave than he is. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ולא יכול, the repeated references by Yehudah to the mental anguish experienced by his aged father proved too much for Joseph to maintain his composure. It kindled his sense of compassion also towards his brothers so that he could not restrain himself from weeping. In order not to make a public spectacle of himself in front of people whom it did not directly concern, he ordered הוציאו כל איש מעלי, “remove everybody from my presence! The ones present not only left themselves but mad sure that no one entered until invited. Joseph had said after all, כל איש, “everybody!”
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  וישמעו מצרים, the Egyptians who had left the house heard the sound of weeping, and the matter spread like a wildfire until it came to the attention of Pharaoh’s servants that Joseph was crying.
  
  Verse 3
  
  ויאמר, After Joseph had finished weeping he told his brothers אני יוסף. 
  They were dumbfounded, remembering that they had sold him and now being utterly ashamed, unable to face him. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  גשו נא אלי, seeing his brothers in a state of shock, Joseph called to them and encouraged them to come closer and to stop being afraid of him. According to Bereshit Rabbah 93,8 he showed them that he was circumcised in order that they should believe him when he claimed to be their brother. Everything else he told them is quite clear and does not require further explanation.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  והנה עיניכם, you can recognise my features with your own eyes. You can also identify me by my speaking Hebrew.
  כי פי המדבר אליכם, for I am speaking to you without the services of an interpreter. I used his services only in order to conceal my true identity from you.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  ויפול, seeing that Joseph and Binyamin were full brothers the bond between them was stronger. They cried one after another.
  
  Verse 15
  
  ויבך עליהם, but the brothers did not cry being too ashamed to do so ואחרי כן דברו אחיו אתו, seeing that he had wept and kissed them they knew that he did not harbour a grudge against them and they now asked him about what had happened to him during all the years since he had left his father’s house. 
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  וייטב, the Egyptians were very relieved to see that Joseph was the member of a distinguished family. Avraham’s family was an internationally known family.
  
  Verse 17
  
  טענו את בעירכם, the word טען is an expression for “loading;” we find it used in this sense in Sanhedrin 32 אחת טעונה ואחת שאינה טעונה, “one which was loaded whereas the other was not loaded.” My grandfather of blessed memory explained the word טען as related to Isaiah 14,19 מטועני חרב, meaning that something had been stabbed, pierced. Accordingly, Joseph urged his brothers to spur on their beasts of burden by means of the דרבן, a spur or goad in order that the good news of his survival should reach his father sooner. Rabbi Saadyah gaon also translated the word in this fashion into Arabic.
  בעירכם, a collective term [seeing that surely each brother had an animal of his own to ride on and to carry the grain. Ed.] Other examples of the collective term being used where a plural seemed indicated are Samuel II 10,5 עד יצמח זקנכם “until your beard (sing.) grows back.” [David had addressed several people, each of whose beard had been shaved off on one side of his face. Ed.] Joshua 1,3 is another such construction where we read כף רגלכם, “the sole of your feet,” instead of “the soles of your feet.” There are many other similar examples in Scripture.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  ואתה צויתה you have been commanded by me to tell them: זאת עשו, this is what you are to do, etc. My grandfather of blessed memory explained that Joseph commanded that that no carriages loaded with grain should depart from his house so as not to make Egypt short of food in the future. Upon hearing this, Pharaoh said that the standing orders prohibiting the export of grain in carriages notwithstanding, tell your brothers to commandeer carriages and load them with grain so that after arrival at your homes these same carriages can serve to carry their wives and children on their journey to Egypt.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  ועינכם אל תחוס, it is the custom of the Holy Tongue to use the verb חוס, to take pity, in connection with the eyes, although we would expect that it should be used in connection with the heart, seeing it describes an emotion of the heart.
  
  Verse 21
  
  ויעשו כן. They did in accordance with what Joseph had told them to do. They loaded their beasts and they were quick about it in order to get started on the way home to Canaan.
  על פי פרעה, these words prove what my father wrote that without Pharaoh’s express permission it was not possible for these carriages to be removed beyond Egypt’s borders.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   לאיש, to each of them separately, individually.
  
  Verse 23
  
  ולאביו שלח כזאת, changes of clothes, similar to what he had already given to the brothers. In addition he sent עשרה חמורים 
  בר, ten donkeys loaded with grain, fodder for the animals. ולחם, not literally bread, but the kind of grain for human consumption used to make into flour and bake into bread. The word לחם applies to food generally, not only food made from cereals. It includes even delicacies such as dates, etc. 
  
  Verse 24
  
  אל תרגזו בדרך, do not quarrel with one another on the journey concerning your having sold me, blaming each other for the decision taken at the time.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  וכי הוא,  and in addition to this he is מושל, the first word עוד in our verse performs a dual function, also applying to the portion relating to Joseph being a ruler.
  ויפג לבו, it became weak. The very mention of Joseph provoked such a reaction from Yaakov.
  כי לא האמין להם, he did not believe them as he could not fathom why they would make such a statement. Presumably, the brothers rushed in with the information, not having shown Yaakov any supporting evidence yet, such as the ten donkeys’ loads of food, the carriages etc. Once when the brothers elaborated and showed Yaakov what they had brought with them from Egypt, especially the carriages, he did believe them.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  ותחי רוח, his spirit which had been as dead from shock, now revived. Our sages (compare Rashi) have said that the “spirit” mentioned in our verse which was revived in Yaakov was the spirit of prophetic insights which had departed from him 22 years ago when Joseph had been sold. We have an ancient tradition, amply documented in history, that in the absence of joy in one’s life a person cannot enjoy such a spirit of prophecy. On the way to Egypt, at Beer Sheva, the prophetic spirit of Yaakov (Yisrael) did indeed become manifest again (46,2)
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  רב, I enjoy much goodness seeing that my son Joseph is alive.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  לאלוקי אביו יצחק. The reason why Yitzchok is mentioned here is because he too was about to escape from a famine by traveling to Egypt, whereas in his case, G’d stopped him from going there. (26,2) Yaakov, as opposed to his father, offered meat offerings at Beer Sheva. This town was at the border of the land of Canaan, and he wanted to enquire from G’d if he had His approval in his undertaking to leave the Holy Land a second time in his life. The sacrifices he offered were intended to restore the Holy Spirit to him which had departed when Joseph had departed from him.
  
  Verse 2
  
  !ויאמר: יעקב! יעקב; the reason this call to Yaakov is repeated is to illustrate that for how many years Yaakov had not been favoured with a communication from G’d. By repeating his name at this point, Yaakov was alerted to the fact that he would receive a prophetic insight.
  
  Verse 3
  
  אלוקי אביך, the very G’d Who prevented your father from descending to Egypt is now telling you not to be afraid to undertake this journey together with your family, as כי לגוי גדול, the redeeming feature of this journey will be that I will cause you to develop into a great nation there. The promise was fulfilled in Exodus 1,7 where we read that the Israelites multiplied and became a very powerful people in Egypt.
  אשימך, i.e. “I will make your children.” What G’d is reported as saying to Yaakov here in verse 4, i.e. אעלך, “I will lead you up” (back to the land of Canaan) is also to be understood as referring to Yaakov’s descendants, the purpose being to inherit the land of Canaan, not to G’d accompanying Yaakov’s his bodily remains.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  אנכי ארד עמך, the meaning of these words is that you will not suffer a mishap on the way to Egypt.
  ואנכי אעלך, as we explained already on the preceding verse. Another possible explanation: the words refer to the person of Yaakov himself, G’d promising that He would be with him on his way to burial in the land of Canaan. The reason G’d added the words:  גם עלה would then be a reference to his children who would carry him from Egypt to Canaan to be buried there.
  ויוסף ישית ידו על עיניך, we see that this promise was fulfilled in 50,1 when the Torah reports ויפול יוסף על פני אביו, “that Joseph fell on the face of his father.” The promise mentioned here included the fact that after Yaakov’s death Joseph would look after the economic requirements of the brothers and their families. [presumably based on Yaakov’s knowledge that the famine would start again after his death. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  בנותיו, his daughter Dinah and his daughters-in-law.
  ובנות בניו, His daughters-in-law and Serach the daughter of Asher
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  ושאול בם הכנענית, it appears that all of Yaakov’s sons abided by his aversion to intermarry with Canaanites. Even Shimon also honoured this tradition. However, after he had married a woman who was not a Canaanite and had had children by her, he married an additional wife who was a Canaanite. Shaul was a son of that second wife of his. Seeing that this had been a breach of the tradition, the Torah alludes to it in considering this son as the “son of the Canaanite woman.” Our sages on 34,26 took the view that Shimon had taken pity on his sister Dinah who had been raped by a Canaanite, and married her and the son from the rape was the one named Shaul. (based on Bereshit Rabbah 80,11)
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  כל נפש בניו ובנותיו שלושים ושלוש. If we count the names mentioned we find only 32 names. This prompted the sages to say that Yocheved, daughter of Levi, was born on the way to Egypt when Levi’s wife had just arrived at the border so that on arrival the requisite number of Israelites entered Egypt. (Baba Batra 123) She could not have been enumerated at departure, not having born and named as yet. This is also why we find the word  בנותיו, “his daughters, (pl.) “as an obscure reference to Yocheved [daughter and granddaughter being lumped together as “daughter.” Serach, being a daughter of Asher who was a son of Zilpah, is mentioned separately as a “sister” in verse 17. Ed.] Both Ibn Ezra and my father wrote that the number 33 is made up by the addition of Yaakov to the total [although he was not anyone’s descendant, so that it is difficult to see him as included in the words בני ישראל in verse 8. Ed.] According to the commentary of these two scholars the words ובנותיו would have to be understood as similar to “ובני דן,” and the sons of Dan, seeing that he is reported as having had only one son by the name of Chushim (verse 23)
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  ובני דן חושים. At the time he moved to Egypt he had only this one son. The reason the Torah commences our verse with the word ובני, “and the sons of, etc.,” is as if the Torah had meant to say “and all the sons of Dan were only one, i.e. Chushim.” Similar formulations are found in Chronicles I 2,8 ובני איתן עזריה, where Azaryah, though the only son of Eytan, is described as part of Eytan’s children, i.e. בני.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  כל הנפש הבאה, we are told about number of the members of Yaakov’s household appearing with the masculine ending twice, such as the number fourteen in verse 22, and the number seven in verse 25. On the other hand, in verse 15 the Torah uses the feminine ending for the number 33 (שלושים ושלוש) and in verse 18 it uses the feminine ending for the number 16 (שש עשרה). The reason for this apparent anomaly is that the noun נפש mentioned in verse 26, for instance is feminine, hence the number associated with that noun has to be in the feminine mode also. The word בני being in the masculine mode, however, determines that the adjective or attribute accompanying it be in the same mode, i.e. masculine.
  הבאה, the stress is on the second syllable, seeing that the verb is in the past tense. The meaning of the word is the same as if the Torah had written אשר באה, “who had arrived,”
  מצרימה, an inaccuracy, as the family did not arrive in Egypt, but in Goshen, a border province. The word is used as an “umbrella,” i.e. a description of the entire state.
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  ואת יהודה, Yaakov sent him ahead to Joseph in order for him to be given details about Goshen, the part of the country Joseph had said his brothers would be settled in (45,10) Alternatively, the meaning of our verse may be that the word להורות, refers to Yehudah providing information to Yaakov, to make sure the family would proceed on the best route and the best location in Goshen.
  
  Verse 29
  
  וירא אליו, my grandfather explained this somewhat strange formulation saying that Joseph appeared to Yaakov from a distance, someone having pointed him out to Yaakov, (he did not know what Joseph looked like at this time). This gave Yaakov an opportunity to adopt the appropriate posture before coming face to face with such a mighty ruler and not to be disoriented due to a sudden encounter.
  ויפול על צואריו, when Joseph had come close enough to his father he fell around his neck weeping for joy for a considerable period of time. The meaning of the word.
  עוד, is that this went on for a time. We find the word used in this sense in Exodus 4,6 where G’d is persisting in His efforts to convince Moses to accept the position of Israel’s leader by showing him miracles he could perform to legitimise himself before his people. The word describes something that happened repeatedly, at intervals. Yaakov wept only once, whereas Joseph wept repeatedly. Some commentators claim that Yaakov did not weep at all but was preoccupied with reciting the שמע ישראל, an affirmation of G’d and His uniqueness which he formulated on that occasion for the first time. (compare Rashi)
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  אמותה הפעם, I am not longer dissatisfied if I were to die now, having been granted my wish to see you with my own eyes once more before my death.
  
  Verse 31
  
  ויאמר יוסף אל אחיו, there can be no question that he did not say what follows before first having secured his father’s consent. [What was under discussion was a matter of major importance, i.e. how to preserve the integrity of Yaakov’s family as a clan, and how to minimize assimilation with the local population through voluntary ghettoisation. Pharaoh’s offer of the brothers participating in the political life of Egypt, something Joseph anticipated, had to be declined without giving offence to him. Ed.] The reason the Torah only mentions Joseph speaking to the brothers was that it was the brothers to whom the above-mentioned offer would be made.
  אעלה. The word poses a problem, Joseph having been described previously as “ascending” when going to meet his father. How could he now again be ”ascending” on the return journey to his capital? We must therefore understand the word as not referring to the return journey but to Joseph climbing back into his carriage.
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  בעבור תשבו בארץ גשן, seeing it was a land in which cattle were being raised. Furthermore, Joseph did what he did in order to prevent Pharaoh from enlisting his brothers in Pharaoh’s political and military echelon.
  כי תועבת מצרים כל רועה צאן, seeing that they did not eat the flesh of sheep, they detested anyone raising these animals. They only raised the number of such animals needed for their wool and milk. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  ומקצה אחיו, after Jospeh had told Pharaoh about his family’s arrival he selected the five least impressive looking of them or the five most impressive looking ones among them. Our sages disagree about the meaning of the ambiguously worded text.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   אנשי חיל, capable cattle (livestock) breeders.
  
  Verse 7
  
  ויברך יעקב את פרעה. He greeted him (bestowed a blessing) as is customary when one is introduced to the king. The custom is highlighted in Kings II 4,29 where Elisha told Gechazi not to respond to anyone’s greeting. Yaakov blessed Pharaoh again upon leaving after the audience. I have not found a satisfactory explanation why the Torah had to report something so ordinary.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  ימי שני מגורי, the days and years which I have lived so far amount to 130 years. They are few and have been earmarked by many negative experiences. The latter is what he meant by the word רעים. However, how did Yaakov know that his (total) years would be few? He must have assumed that due to the troubles he had already experienced and the effect on his general well being he could not look forward to live to the same age as had his father and grandfather before him.
  ולא השיגו, they did not match in either length of time or quality of life.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  ויושב, Joseph made his family settle in Goshen and gave them parcels of land as permanent ancestral property.
  במיטב הארץ, in the most fertile part of the country, which is around Raamses and near the province of Goshen, כאשר צוה פרעה, in accordance with what Pharaoh had commanded (verse 6). Unless Pharaoh himself had authorised this Joseph would not have done this on his own authority, even though he had the power to shift around the entire population of Egypt, as we know from verse 21. His powers were those of an absolute ruler but he did not become guilty of abusing it in order to favour members of his own family.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  ויכלכל..לחם לפי הטף, the reason children are mentioned is that children eat all day long and waste food, leaving crumbs behind all over the place. Our sages in Pessachim 10 state that it is in the nature of children to break food up into crumbs and to leave them all over the place. There is a well known proverb which states that children are responsible for decay of food.
  
  Verse 13
  
  ותלה, a word describing mental disturbance, Famine has that impact on people. The dagesh in the first root letter also indicates that meaning, compare Proverbs 26,18 כמתלהלה היורה זקים, “like a madman who throws firebrands.”
  
  Verse 14
  
  וילקט יוסף, he did this at the end of the first two years of the famine and during the remaining years of the famine At the beginning of the famine people were mostly eating from private stores they had accumulated during the years of plenty. Subsequently, they used their money to purchase food until their money ran out. Yaakov came to Egypt during the second year as Joseph had said to him: כי זה שנתים הרעב, “for these two years have been famine.” (45,6)
  ויבא יוסף, in order to demonstrate his integrity. He did not need to do this and could have stored it in the granaries. Pharaoh had never demanded an accounting from Joseph, knowing that he was absolutely trustworthy. Nonetheless, Joseph was concerned not to allow anyone to suspect him of pocketing anything for his own private purposes.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  ויבאו כל מצרים, the people living in the land of Canaan went elsewhere to secure their food supplies. By now the Torah speaks of conditions during the sixth year of the famine. During that year Joseph distributed food and accepted livestock as payment. In the seventh year he handed over food in return for the local land owners renouncing their title to their land in favour of Pharaoh. He distributed seed so that there would be a harvest during the eight’s year when the famine was supposed to have ended. Our sages, quoted by Rashi, claim that the famine ceased with the arrival of Yaakov in Egypt and his blessing to Pharaoh which resulted in the Nile once again overflowing its banks and providing irrigation for the fields. One can raise serious reservations about this approach. If the famine did indeed stop already in the second year or at the end thereof, when did all the measures Joseph is described as taking in verses 14-22 take place?
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  ?למה נמות, the reason why the verse speaks also about the death of the land, i.e. גם אדמתנו, is that earth which is desolate is as if “dead.” This is also why the farmers used the expression ולא תשם, “and it would become desolate.”
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  ואת העם העביר אותו לערים. He did not want the people to get too attached to the land they would be working on, not as the attachment they had felt for their land in the past which they had owned outright. He did give them the land as something they could transfer by inheritance to their children, but he made sure that they would remain aware that they had received it by the largesse of Pharaoh who had been the true owner and who could therefore claim a tax of 20% of their harvests.
  
  Verse 22
  
  הכהנים, the officials in charge of the myriad of altars in the country.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  ולאשר בבתיכם, a reference to male and female servants as well as to horses and donkeys. [which had not been included in the מקנה, livestock, which Joseph had taken in payment for food on behalf of Pharaoh. Ed.]
  ולאכול לטפכם, and for your children to eat. Joseph made sure that the people would have enough food from the 80% of harvests of their parents even though he was aware that the children would require more food than their elders, it being well known that they were being wasteful. The land of Egypt, normally, has a surplus of food due to the irrigation method based on the overflow of the Nile, so that by being allowed to keep four fifths of their crops the farmers would not suffer hardship.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  וישב ישראל, the term is used to describe the entire family of Yaakov, as if the Torah had written בני ישראל. 
  ויאחזו בה, they bought land in it, additional to that which Joseph had allocated to them.
  ויפרו וירבו מאד, both in children and in property.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  ויחי יעקב בארץ מצרים שבע עשרה שנה, the commentators point out that just as Joseph was under the protection of his father for the first 17 years of his life, so his father was under Joseph’s protection for the last 17 tears of his life.
  
  Verse 29
  
  ויקרבו, Yaakov felt himself that he was approaching death, as his physical weakness kept increasing, and he began to be afraid that his death would occur without adequate warning signs, suddenly. This is why he commanded Joseph that when the time came he should carry him to his final resting place in the land of Canaan where he wished to lie next to his fathers.
  שים נא ידך תחת ירכי, we explained the meaning of this phrase in Parshat Chayey Sarah (24,2).
  חסד ואמת, the word אמת, a truth, i.e. a requirement he can insist on, referred to Joseph’s duty to bring his father to burial. The word חסד, an act of love, not required by law, was that he should take the trouble to transport his remains from Egypt and have them buried in the land of Canaan.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  !ויאמר: השבעה לי, normally, unless mentioned to the contrary, an oath is always rendered by using the name of G’d.
  וישתחו, he prostrated himself thanking G’d that his son had promised him this favour.
  על ראש המטה. The bed on which he had been sitting or lying. He gave thanks to the Lord for having a son who was alive and well after he had for so long given him up as lost, and that this son was even willing to bury him all the way in the land of Canaan so that he could lie with his fathers. The reason why the Torah bothered to tell us, the readers, that Yaakov thanked the Lord “at the head of the bed,” is to tell us that he turned to the “head,” in honour of G’d Who is presumed to watch over the sick at that point. Our sages (quoted by Rashi) use this incident to teach us that the presence of G’d is located at the top of one’s bed. [for those of us worthy of the presence of the Shechinah. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויאמר, whoever it was who said it. It is reasonable to assume that it was one of the brothers who traveled to the capital to inform Joseph that his father had taken ill.
  
  Verse 2
  
  ויגד, the one who had carried the news to Joseph now returned to tell Yaakov that his son Joseph was about to visit him.
  
  Verse 3
  
  א-ל שדי נראה אלי בלוז, that was the location where G’d had introduced Himself to Yaakov with His attribute of Shaddai. He had blessed him saying: “be fruitful and multiply. (35,10-11)
  
  Verse 4
  
  הנני מפרך, we have explained this term on 35,11 as having been a necessary introduction leading up to taking possession of the land of Canaan in due course. Yaakov explains that in view of the fact that his sons will be the ones according to whom the keys in the distribution of that land will be determined, he wanted now already to establish that both of Joseph’s sons will rank equally with Joseph’s brothers in this respect.
  
  Verse 5
  
  עד בואי, I am not saying that all your sons will be treated as if they were literally my own sons; only Menashe and Ephrayim will enjoy this status.
  
  Verse 6
  
  ומולדתך אשר הולדת, perhaps Joseph had sired other sons during the years that Yaakov had resided in Egypt even though the Torah did not see fit to mention this explicitly. The reason that Joseph did not bring them with him to his father’s bedside may have been that they were too young to travel.Even if you were to understand the word ומולדתך as does Onkelos, and other commentators, i.e. תוליד, as if Yaakov had meant: “whom you will sire,” we also do not find any mention of children born to Joseph after Menashe and Ephrayim.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  ואני, this entire paragraph was inserted to describe Yaakov’s apology or justification to Joseph why he, who was so insistent on where he wanted to be buried and who was putting Joseph to so much trouble in this connection, had himself not acted in a similar manner when it came to burying Joseph’s mother, his own favourite wife, seeing that he had buried Leah in the cave of Machpelah. He explained that he had in no way been at fault, that it was not negligence on his part, but that fate had intervened, Rachel dying suddenly on route to the land of Canaan. The fact that he was moving extremely slowly at the time on account of all his livestock, something that the Torah had reported Yaakov as explaining already to Esau at the time, (33,13) made it impossible for him to carry Rachel’s body with him seeing he had no means to embalm it and keep it from decaying and becoming putrid until he would reach Chevron. Presumably, the season was summer when it is even harder to keep a body from decaying quickly. He therefore chose to bury her without delay, in the most dignified manner which the prevailing conditions had permitted.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  וירא, he saw them from a distance and was unable to make out who they were due to his failing eyesight. This is why, even when they were already quite close to him, he had to ask: “who are these lads?”
  
  Verse 9
  
  בזה. As if the Torah had written במקום הזה, “in this place.” The brief בזה, also appears in the same sense already in 38,21 לא היתה בזה קדשה, “no harlot has been in this place, the word for “place,” מקום, being omitted.
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויגש אותם אליו, not in this order.
  
  Verse 11
  
  לא פללתי, related to the word ונתן בפלילים (Exodus 21,22) meaning here “I have not judged the situation and responsibility by myself but have left it to independent judges who are without prejudice.” As far as Joseph’s fate was concerned, Yaakov said that he had not arrived at definitive conclusions but had not dared hope that he would ever see him again. Some commentators relate the word פללתי to the word תפלה, prayer, in which case Yaakov was saying to Joseph that he had not prayed to G’d concerning being reunited with Joseph in this life as he had considered it a forbidden, vain prayer, i.e. uttering the Lord’s name in vain, seeing that all the evidence he had at his disposal indicated that Joseph was already dead. (compare Midrash Lekach Tov on this paragraph)
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  ויוצא, after he had kissed and embraced them before he had blessed them, Joseph took them away from Yaakov’s knees. The reason was that he had not brought them to his father in the order in which he meant for them to receive their blessing. He therefore now arranged them in what he considered the appropriate order. וישתחו, he thanked his father for wanting to bestow special blessings on his sons.
  מעם ברכיו, from between his knees. The word מעם occurs in this sense in connection with a table in Samuel I 20,34, מעם השלחן, it also occurs in a similar meaning in the phrase עם באר לחי רואי, (Genesis  25,11) “right by the well named by Hagar ‘the well of the Living G”d Who sees me.’” 
  
  Verse 13
  
  בימינו, on Joseph’s right, which was the left side of Yaakov (Yisrael)
  
  Verse 14
  
  שכל את ידיו, he conferred intelligence to his hands, so that they appeared to act intelligently on their own, seeing that Menashe was the firstborn and Yaakov saw with prophetic vision that he would be the “smaller one,” in the sense that his future would reflect less blessing than the future of his younger brother. Had he placed his right hand on Menashe, what intelligence would this have demon-strated? [the author surely means that the Torah does not have to speak about an act of special intelligence being required to put one’s right hand on the older of the two sons. Ed.]
  
  Verse 15
  
  ויברך את יוסף, anyone blessing his sons, automatically was conferring a blessing on him also.
  אשר התהלכו אבותי לפניו, I have already explained on Genesis 17,1 that this wording includes serving G’d in one’s heart as well as with deeds. The root of all religious service is in the heart. [when it is only the from the lips outward it is a sham. Ed.] We must not understand Yaakov as claiming credit for himself or boasting, that he himself had served G’d, although it is a fact that he had served the Lord; he meant to give credit to his fathers, suggesting that if G’d had been at his side this had been largely due to the merits of both his father and grandfather.  המלאך, having first spoken about G’d having assisted him, and creating the impression that G’d, personally, had done so, he now mentions the intermediary always used by G’d to do His work. We know from Psalms 34,8 חונה מלאך ה' סביב ליראיו ויחלצם, “G’d’s angel camps around those who fear Him and He rescues them,” that His agents called מלאכים are close at hand whenever the righteous are in danger. This is why Yaakov at this time referred to המלאך הגואל אותי מכל רע, the one sent by G’d to rescue him, protect him, and bless him, יברך את הנערים will function similarly and protect Joseph’s sons. We know that such angels had been in evidence protecting Yaakov first from Lavan, then from Esau, and again when the Emorites launched an attack after Yaakov’s sons had killed the males of Shechem and looted the town.
  
  Verse 16
  
  ויקרא בהם שמי ושם אבותי, he meant that Joseph would be called Israel on occasion, as for instance in Psalms 80,2  רועה ישראל האזינה נהג כצאן יוסף, “Give ear O shepherd of Israel who leads Joseph like a flock.” Also in Amos 6,6 we read ולא נחלו על שבר יוסף, “but they are not concerned about the ruin of Joseph;” (Joseph being a euphemism for Israel, of course) The author quotes several more verses proving the same point, i.e. that Joseph is being equated with his father Israel, i.e. is the spiritual continuation of his father Yisrael, the founder of the 12 tribes. Psalms 80,3 uses the same simile for Joseph’s sons Ephrayim and Menashe when writing לפני אפרים ובנימין ומנשה עוררה את גבורתך ולכה לישועתך לנו, “at the head of Ephrayim, Benjamin, and Menashe! Rouse Your might and come to our help!”
  וידגו לרב, may the multiply like fish. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  וירא, it is possible that Yaakov made this comment even before he began the formal blessing, or that after he commenced blessing them that this was the first part of the blessing.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  יהיה לעם, will become so numerous until people will refer to his descendants as “a nation.”
  וגם הוא יגדל, he will also develop into becoming very numerous. However his younger brother will become even more numerous. At the Exodus from Egyptian the arms-bearing males of the tribe of Ephrayim were 45.500 (Numbers 1,33-35 as opposed to only 32.200 members of the tribe of Menashe. Interestingly, when numbering the males over 20 who entered the Holy Land, the members of the tribe of Menashe outnumbered those of Ephrayim by 52.700 to 32.500. (Numbers 26,34-36.) If we keep this in mind we may have to redefine the meaning of the word יגדל when used by Yaakov not as referring to numerical strength, but as referring to the great men produced by each of these tribes and the relative importance of these men. We know that Moses’ successor, Joshua, was from the tribe of Ephrayim. He was a great saviour, and conquered the land of Canaan enabling the promise of G’d to the patriarchs to finally become realised. The tribe of Ephrayim also provided the first king of the 10 tribes who had split away from Solomon’s son Rechavam after the death of Solomon.  Furthermore, throughout the history of the Jewish people until the destruction of the first Temple the political rivalry between Ephrayim and Yehudah is well documented, whereas hardly ever is Menashe mentioned as playing a major part in this. When the prophet Isaiah prophesied an idyllic future, he described this as being characterised by the end of the rivalry between Ephrayim and Yehudah. (Isaiah 11,13). Still, it is possible to also understand the word יגדל ממנו as referring to numerical strength, as except in the single instance we mentioned before Ephrayim always outnumbered Menashe. We must also take into consideration the words וזרעו יהיה מלא הגויים, “and his seed will become plentiful enough to form nations.” The unique phenomenon of the members of Ephrayim being inferior in numbers at the time the Israelites entered the Holy Land may possibly be accounted for by the tradition that 30 years prior to the Exodus the tribe of Ephrayim rebelled, left Egypt and marched to the land of the Philistines on the way to the land of Canaan. According to that report they lost 200.000 of their number in a battle at Gat. [the reason why I do not think this relevant is that if so, there should have been fewer member of the tribe of Ephrayim at the time of the Exodus, instead of 40 years later when near entering the Holy Land. Ed.]
  יהיה מלא הגויים, until his descendants are numerous enough when they go into exile to fill countries belonging to, or having belonged to other nations with their numbers alone. [possibly a reference to the population transfer mentioned in Kings II after the Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdom. and replaced the exiled Jews there with other nationals. (Kings II chapter 17) Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  ויברכם. He bestowed an additional blessing on them on the same day, saying: בך יברך ישראל,  whenever an Israelite wants to bestow a blessing on his son, he will preface it with the words: ישימך אלוקים כאפרים ומנשה. “May the Lord make you to be like Ephrayim and Menashe.”
  וישם את אפרים לפני מנשה, in this blessing too, Yaakov placed more emphasis on the recipient of the blessing being compared to Ephrayim, the younger of Joseph’s sons, by mentioning his name first. Even the choice of words כאפרים וכמנשה instead of כאפרים ומנשה, indicated clearly that Menashe was considered secondary in Yaakov’s blessing. He was considered the adjunct.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  אנכי מת, I am close to dying, therefore I command you that when the time comes and the Lord will bring you back, the word אתכם referring not to “you,” but to “your descendants,” אל ארץ אבותיכם, that you will have an extra share over and above that allocated to your brothers, i.e. the extra share befitting the firstborn. This was the practical meaning of Yaakov having said that Joseph’s sons would be to him as Reuven and Shimon. They would inherit as if they had been biological sons of their grandfather (not merely grandsons) when it came to the division of that land among the tribes.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  שכם, another word meaning חלק. The word occurs in the same sense in Psalms 21,13 כי תשיתמו שכם, as well as in Tzefania 3,9  ולעבדו שכם אחד.
  אשר לקחתי מיד האמורי, as if the Torah had written this in the future tense, i.e. “which I am going to take from the Emorite.” It is quite common for the past tense to be employed instead of the future tense. When reporting prophecies, Scripture very frequently resorts to describing something in the future as if it had already taken place. [presumably in order to strengthen the belief of the reader in such prophecies, positive ones, to the fulfillment of which one looks forward. Ed.]
  When Yaakov said: לקחתי, “I will take or I took,” he did not refer to his own person but to the extension of himself, his children or offspring. The same is true also when he said: ובחרבי ובקשתי, “and with my sword and with my bow.” He referred to the sword and bow used by the members of the tribes of Ephrayim and Menashe in the conquest during the days of Joshua. Although we read in the Book of Joshua 24,12 לא בחרבך ולא בקשתך, that Joshua is reminding the Jewish people that their victory was not due to their prowess in the martial arts, our sages already explained that Joshua did not mean to deny the facts, but to deny faulty interpretations of the facts, by not giving the credit for their success to G’d’s help, or in this case, for the assistance of the merit of their illustrious ancestor Yaakov. This is not the only time in Scripture that we encounter such apparently enigmatic statements. We read in Samuel II 22,3 that David speaks of G’d being “my shield, my fortress and my refuge.” Any fool can understand that David did not consider G’d as an invisible shield, seeing he had refused to use one in his fight against Goliath, for instance. He indicated that without G’d’s help, even if holding a shield in his hand, such a shield would have been powerless to protect him.
  When Yaakov made reference to האמורי, he did so merely because this tribe was the most ferocious and powerful among all the Canaanite tribes Joshua faced. We find this confirmed in Amos 2,9 ואנכי השמדתי את האמורי מפניהם אשר כגובה הארזים גבהו, “and I have destroyed the Emorite before them, whose stature was as tall as the cedar’s and who was as stout as the oak, etc.” According to Bereshit Rabbah end of chapter 96 as quoted by Rashi, Yaakov had referred to the city of Shechem, Yaakov telling Joseph that the city in which he would eventually be buried would be part of his tribal territory. The word לקחתי is also understood by the Midrash as in the past tense, and as referring to what had happened there at the time. Shimon and Levi, Yaakov’s sons, had conquered that city, and the Emorite and the Hittite are two different names for the same tribe.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויקרא, he called them in to assemble around him
  את אשר יקרא אתכם, a reference to future events, מקרה, events that are not the direct outcome of man’s initiatives. The word occurs in this spelling (with the letter א instead of ה at the end) in Jeremiah 13,22 מדוע קראני אלה?, “Why did these things happen to me?” Or, in Isaiah 51,19 שתים המה קוראותיך, “these two things have befallen you.” There are many other examples of a similar nature in Scripture.
   The meaning of the words את אשר is the same as כאשר, “when;” the word את frequently means the same as מן, “part of.” Yaakov, after all, did reveal only a very small fraction of what would happen to the tribes in the אחרית הימים, the period when the tribal heads had long died and their offspring had become part of the Jewish nation. Some of what he predicted was to occur relatively soon, other parts much later. When he used the words באחרית הימים he meant that what he spoke about would be as real as what would happen on the morrow. He referred specifically to the period when the Israelites would settle in the Holy Land, describing events that would take place then. Whatever he told them had been inspired by the spirit of prophecy. Parts of the prophecy concerned Israel when settled peacefully on its land, other parts spoke of events occurring during wars which would threaten the nation’s continued existence. He listed the names of his sons in the order of their birth up until Yehudah only.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  הקבצו ושמעו, this was the introduction to his prophetic utterances, just as in Moses’ parting speech to the nation the words האזינו השמים והארץ (Deut. 32,1) were the opening line. The prophetess Devorah in her victory song extolling G’d, (Judges 5,3) also began with a similar opening, i.e. שמעו מלכים, “listen, pay attention, kings!”
  
  Verse 3
  
  ראובן בכורי אתה; Yaakov repeated this theme a second and a third time when he continued: כחי, וראשית אוני. The reason was that theoretically, Reuven was entitled to three advantages. 1) birthright; 2) priesthood, as every firstborn in each family was automatically what the כהן would be after the sin of the golden calf when that privilege was transferred to the tribe of Levite who had not participated in that sin. 3) the position of political head of the nation, known as מלכות in the language of our sages.
  יתר שאת, this expression encompasses both the birthright and the priesthood, both of which are primarily a description of an aristocratic social standing. ויתר עז, a reference to the political power, Royalty. Kings need to excel in this fortitude, toughness described by the word עוז. We find the expression used in that sense in Samuel I 2,10 ויתן עוז למלכו, “He will give power to His king.” Yaakov is reminding Reuven: “you would have enjoyed all these advantages over your brothers if you had not become guilty of a great sin.” This is why he continued with פחז כמים, you were precipitous as water in not restraining your biological urges which led you to mount the couch of your father. You did not stop to consider what a sin with far ranging effects you would make yourself guilty of by your lack of self control.
  אל תותר, you will no longer enjoy any advantage over your brothers.
  
  Verse 4
  
  כי עלית משכבי אביך, when you committed that act, חללת יצועי, you defiled my couch; your act prevented me from having any further marital relations with my wife Bilhah. My grandfather explained the expression יתר שאת as an allusion to atonement. [שאת from the root נשא, to elevate, i.e. to forgive as in ונשאתי לכל המקום, “I will forgive the whole place” (Genesis 18,26) Ed.] If so, far from putting down Reuven in his final words to him, Yaakov blessed him by offering his forgiveness at this time for the sin he had committed. against him.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  שמעון ולוי אחים, they had acted like brothers in their concern for their sister Dinah, as the Torah credits them in Genesis 34,25.
  כלי חמס, their swords, (weapons) have become  instruments of violence. [used aggressively instead of defensively. Ed.] Yaakov considered the slaying of the male population of Shechem as having been illegal. He did not consider the men of the city responsible for the sin of rape committed by their crown prince Shechem. Seeing that their act was illegal they endangered their whole family, including their father, as they could not count on G’d’s protection against the avengers of Shechem when the wrong they had committed themselves had brought that attack upon them. The fact that in the event, G’d did protect them, was not thanks to these two brothers.
  מכרותיהם, as if the Torah had written במכרותיהם. The construction is parallel to ארץ מגוריהם, the land of their sojourn, i.e. the land in which they sojourned. The people of Shechem had lived peaceably side by side with the family of Yaakov, there being no war-like actions between them. [The author apparently sees in the word מכרותיהם the root הכר, “to recognise someone, i.e. to know him well.” Yaakov describes the deed of Shimon and Levi against the people of Shechem as having been perpetrated on friendly unsuspecting neighbours. Ed.] Ezekiel 21,35 as well as 29,14 also speaks of מכורותיך meaning מגורים the place where one resides. Onkelos also translates it in this sense. Midrash Tanchuma Vayechi 9 understands the word as applying to their swords. In Greek a sword is known as makirin. 
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  בסודם אל תבא נפשי. At the time they planned their revenge I had not been taken into their confidence either about what they were going to do or about how they were going to do it. It had not been done at my suggestion.  Yaakov repeats what he said in different words, continuing אל תחד כבודי, the word תחד is in the feminine mode seeing it refers to כבוד which is another word for נפש which is a feminine noun.
  כי באפם הרגו איש, the word איש refers to people generally, as in Samuel I 14,24 ואיש ישראל נגש, where it also did not refer to a single Israelite but to the Israelite troops who were pressing for action. Yaakov too describes the whole population of the city of Shechem as איש, as if a single unit. We find that the word שור is often used also as a reference to many oxen although it is in the singular mode. Other examples of such constructions are Exodus 15,19 כי בא סוס פרעה, where the Torah speaks of all of Pharaoh’s (Egypt’s) horses, not just of Pharaoh’s personal horse. Some commentators understand the words שור as meaning the ruling prince of the land, Chamor. We have several examples of someone in a high position being referred to as שור, as for instance in Deuteronomy 33,17  בכור שורו. The word עקרו in our verse, is another word for הרגו, “they killed.” The word שור may also mean “wall, fortification,” as understood by Onkelos.
  וברצונם, “in order to carry out their will; their urgent desire.” In our homiletic literature, (compare Rashi) the entire line starting with אל תבא is understood as referring to misdeeds carried out by members of the tribe of Shimon in the distant future such as the leader of that tribe Zimri who slept with a Midianirte princess in an act of defiance of Jewish mores, and the infamous Korach of the tribe of Levi who wanted to usurp the position of Moses and Aaron. Due to Yaakov’s express wish here, neither of these two men had his genealogy traced all the way back to Yisrael when the Torah explains who they were. (compare Numbers 16,1 and Numbers 25,15)
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  ארור אפם, whenever we encounter the expression ארור it involves denial of some blessing or something good and welcome to the party subject to the curse. For instance, we read in Maleachi 2,2 וארותי את ברכותיהם, “I will turn their blessings into a curse.” The words ארור אפם must be understood as a type of prayer by Yaakov, who wishes that Shimon and Levi be denied at least a part of their willfulness of character, as something that has become too strong to endure. Yaakov repeated the same thought in different words to make his point more insistently. This is why he added the words ועברתם כי קשתה.
  אחלקם ביעקב, so that they will not constantly be next to one another. Shimon’s ancestral territory in the land of Israel actually became an enclave within the boundaries of the land allocated to the tribe of Yehudah. Shimon and Levi (who had no territorial claims after being granted the status formerly occupied by the firstborn after the golden calf episode) had no common territorial boundaries, so that the danger of their joint cooperation resulting in a repeat of what happened at Shechem was drastically reduced. In Bereshit Rabbah 99,7 the words אחלקם ביעקב, are understood as referring to the 24 thousand members of the tribe of Shimon who were killed as a result of Zimri’s brazen act of sexual union with a Midianite princess. This resulted in 24 thousand wives of these men becoming widows, These widows were distributed to the other tribes, 2000 to each tribe, so that anyone having to go begging was from the tribe of Shimon. As a result, G’d said that the Levites were to be similarly distributed among all the tribes seeing he did not deserve a better fate than that of his partner in crime Shimon. Seeing that the Levites became dependent on the tithes, etc, voluntarily given to them by the farmers of the other tribes, their basic livelihood was no less precarious than that of the widows and orphans of the members of the tribe of Shimon who had been killed by a plague by G’d at Shittim.( Numbers 25,9) It is a historical fact then that Yaakov’s prediction came true. Seeing what had happened, G’d elevated the Levites by granting them 10% of the combined harvests of all the other tribes. However, the Levites, just as the members of the tribe of Shimon, had to visit all the threshing floors and request from the local farmers to give the tithe tithes they were obliged to give to a Levite to them. [The Midrash endeavours to justify Yaakov saying both אחלקם ביעקב, and אפיצם בישראל, meaning that each of these tribes will be busy looking for handouts and not have spare time for aggressive ventures such as those hatched by their respective founding fathers. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  יהודה אתה יודוך אחיך, they will elevate you to the position of royalty instead of Reuven, for the royalty, or potential for royalty of which I have deprived him your brothers will bestow upon you. We have proof of this happening from Samuel II 5,1 when David was crowned in Chevron by all the tribes of Israel. We are told in Bereshit Rabbah 99,8 that when Yehudah saw that Yaakov suddenly served up Reuven’s sin, as well as that of his brother Shimon and Levi, he became afraid that his own sin with Tamar would be the next one to be referred to by his father. He only calmed down when Yaakov began his remarks to Yehudah with the words “your brothers will elevate you to the position of royalty because you had the strength of character to publicly acknowledge and repent your having slept with your daughter-in-law Tamar.”
  ידך בעורף אויביך, a reference to King David, who was victorious in all his wars against his enemies. We have a parallel verse said by David himself in Samuel II 22,41 ואויבי תחת לי עורף, “He made my enemies turn tail before me.”
  ישתחוו לך בני אביך, when they will observe that you are successful, then they will prostrate themselves before you and declare that you are fit to be their king. When Yitzchok blessed Yaakov in Genesis 27,29 he referred to “the sons of your mother” prostrating themselves before him. Seeing that Yitzchok had only one wife this was quite normal. Seeing that Yaakov had four wives it would not have been good enough to refer to the sons of Yehudah’s mother, as that would have included only half the tribes. By phrasing the blessing as applicable to the “sons of your father,” Yaakov included all 12 tribes.
  
  Verse 9
  
  גור אריה יהודה; at the beginning of his career he would be only a גור, a cub, one that has not attained maturity. Even so, such a lion is stronger than all the other beasts. Yehudah was also the first of the tribal princes to offer his inaugural sacrifice (Numbers 7,12). When it came to the war against the Canaanites in Judges 1,2 this tribe was the one leading all the others. Again, at Geva in Binyamin (Judges 20,18) the tribe of Yehudah was in the lead in the tragic civil war against the tribe of Binyamin. [at any rate a heavenly voice or the High Priest after consulting the Ephod had announced that Yehudah should be in the lead. Ed.] The first of the Judges who were heads of the nation after the death of Joshua who had failed to appoint a successor, was Othniel son of Knaz from the tribe of Yehudah. (Judges 3,9). Eventually, when David was appointed King of all the Israelites, this גור, “young lion,” became a fully grown mature lion, i.e. אריה, 
  מטרף בני עלית, due to the surfeit of loot you rose to a position of distinction and glory as we know from Samuel II 8,13 “David gained fame when he returned from defeating Edom in the valley of Salt.”
  כרע רבץ כאריה, my father of blessed memory explained this verse as follows: during the period of David, Yehudah crouched as does a lion who at the time when he is afraid of other ferocious beasts does not lie down and relax, but only crouches. This he does in order to be able to rouse himself at a moment’s notice when attacked. However, at a time when he does not face imminent danger he lies down relaxed. Similarly, David. Seeing that he was involved in wars practically during the entire period of his reign and had to be ready to rise at a moment’s notice to face his enemies and to kill them, he was like a lion concerned about staying alive. However, his son Solomon, could afford to lie down in repose seeing that all the nations were afraid of him and none dared attack him. There was no one around who would rouse him from his slumber.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  לא יסור שבט מיהודה, the ruler is called שבט because he exercises authority over the people and disciplines them if they disobey. He uses his power like a father uses his rod on a disobedient son. In fact, the rod or scepter, or its equivalent, are carried by people in authority in order to remind those who are subservient to them as a symbol of their power to exact punishment. We find such a שבט called שרביט הזהב, “the golden scepter,” and whether the king extended it or failed to extend it to a supplicant determined if he would be executed. (Esther 5,2) The expression also occurs in the sense we have mentioned in Isaiah 14,5 and in Psalms 45,7.
  ומחוקק מבין רגליו, a reference to the sons of Yehudah, i.e. that his appointment as forecast by Yaakov will be hereditary, just as the priesthood is transferred from father to son. (if the son is worthy and the people do not object)  The expression מבין רגליו is analogous to the afterbirth, which exits from between the mother’s legs (Deuteronomy 28,57) The reason why the king is referred to as מחוקק, is because he has the authority to legislate laws, חוקים. Yaakov said that this authority of an informal nature would not depart from Yehudah until he would have someone from his tribe who wields formal authority, i.e. is elected king, a reference to David.
  שילה; a reference to David’s son, seeing that the meaning of the word is derived from Deuteronomy 28,57 ובשליתה, i.e. “and against her afterbirth, etc.” Onkelos understands the word as referring to the Messiah. He bases himself on the variant spelling here still having the same meaning as שלו, “his.” This is also the way Bereshit Rabbah 99,8 understands the word שילה in our verse. Yaakov would be saying that Yehudah’s preeminence would not be short-lived, but would continue until the coming of the Messiah, the one to whom royalty would belong permanently. The whole blessing to Yehudah could then be compared to a father saying to his son: “accept this token in the meantime until I can give you the real thing!”
  ולו יקהת עמים. The word יקהת is a noun meaning “obedience,” as it is also in Proverbs 30,17 ותבוז לקהת אם, “and disdains to relate with obedience to his mother.” Yaakov predicts that all the nations will show obedience to the king stemming from Yehudah. This prophecy began to be fulfilled in the days of King David, and in an even greater measure during the reign of his son Solomon.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  אסרי לגפן. The letter י in the word אסרי is an addition, similar to the letter י in Deuteronomy 33,15 שכני סנה, and other examples of a similar construction. Also the letter י in בני אתונו, is an addition. The entire expression ולשרקה בני אתונו is a duplication, seeing that the word שרקה means the same as גפן, perhaps a superior type of vine. The entire verse is a praise of the quality of the land apportioned to the tribe of Yehudah which yields such bountiful harvests that the farmer can tie his ass to the vine after having eaten from its grapes, without any worry. There are so many grapes on a single vine that they suffice to make up a full load for his ass. Similarly, there is so much wine that even if he were to launder his garments in wine instead of in water, he would not run short of wine. Yaakov repeats the theme once more in different words, saying: ובדם ענבים סותה, the expression דם ענבים refers to wine, the word סותה to garments. Naturally, this is an exaggeration permissible to poets.
  
  Verse 12
  
  Yaakov adds something else which is an exaggeration when he says: חכלילי עינים סותה, not only Yehudah’s clothing would be red but even his face and eyes. The word עינים describes the exterior appearance, as in Proverbs 23,29 למי חכלילות עינים? “Who suffers from redness of his eyes? The word עין, עינים, to describe an exterior appearance is also used to describe the manna in Numbers 11,7.
  ולבן שנים מחלב. Due to drinking a lot of milk his teeth are white. Some commentators understand the word שנים in our verse as describing the teeth-like points of the rocks being white from the drippings of excess milk by the sheep and goats. Accordingly, even these so-called teeth have to be explained allegorically, as a reference to the Messiah. [I believe that all the commentators who chose the path of interpreting Yaakov’s words allegorically, simply could not credit that he would waste his last few minutes on earth with describing mundane matters as being the essence of what he had to communicate to his children at that time, even if these words were garbed in poetic language. The sages were convinced that behind this lovely prose there must be hidden far more profound spiritual messages. Ed.]
  To continue with the “Messianic” interpretation. אסרי לגפן עירה, the word הגפן is a metaphor for the concept of the Jewish nation, כנסת ישראל, an expression used in the same sense in Psalms 80,9 גפן ממצרים תסיע, “You transplanted a vine (the people of Israel) from Egypt.” Just as the word גפן is used as a metaphor for the Jewish people in Psalms, so the word שרקה is used in a similar sense in Jeremiah 2,21, ואנכי נטעתיך שורק כלו זרע אמת, “whereas I had planted you as a vine, all with the choicest seed.” The prophet, of course, compares the Jewish people to a vine, normally yielding excellent grapes, but somehow having become corrupted. When such vines are at their best, the grapes they produce do not even have kernels, (i.e. seedless grapes)
   Yaakov continues with אסרי, this King Messiah, when he arrives, will tie together two vines, i.e. the Kingdom of Yehudah and the Kingdom of Ephrayim who had been bitter competitors until then, as predicted in clear language by Ezekiel 37,19 ועשיתם לעץ אחד”so that they will become a single stick.” The reason Yaakov chose the expression אסרי for this kind of unification can be well understood when we read in Hoseah 10,10 באסרם על שתי עוונותם, an expression used by the prophet when referring to these two kingdoms. The most effective union, one that is least likely to come undone, is the one described in Hebrew by the verb אסר and קשר respectively. עירה and בני אתונו, refer to the King Messiah of whom it has been said in Zecharyah 9,9 that he will appear riding on an ass, on a donkey foaled by a she-ass. Yaakov continues with כבס ביין לבושו, here the word לבושו is an alternate for בגדו a word also used in Psalms 45,9 an expression used in Kohelet as describing one’s words of wisdom and one’s good deeds. In other words, tangible phenomena that we are familiar with are used as substituting for meta-physical, abstract concepts by our sages and patriarchs. Yaakov refers to ביין with the vowel patach under the letter ב, meaning a specific wine as distinct from wine generally. The fragrance of good wine envelops the people who drink it. Compare Hoseah 14,8 זכרו כיין לבנון, “His scent is like the wine of Lebanon.” The wine Yaakov speaks of is well known for its fine bouquet. A similar reference to the fragrance of wine occurs in Song of Songs 7,10 וחכך כיין הטוב, “and the breath of your mouth is like the choicest wines.” We believe that the thrust of these allegorical interpretations is that if ever Yehudah were in difficulties in matters physical, then spiritual mental faculties should compensate for what he could not accomplish in the natural way. This is the definition of the Messiah in Isaiah 11,2 “the spirit of the Lord shall alight upon him; a spirit of wisdom and insight; a spirit of counsel and valor, a spirit of devotion and reverence for the Lord.” The prophet continues.והריחו ביראת ה' ולא למראה עיניו ישפוט ולא למשמע אזניו יוכיח ושפט בצדק דלים והוכיח במישור לענוי ארץ והכה ארץ בשבט פיו, וברוח שפתיו ימית רשע. “He shall sense the truth by his reverence for the Lord. He shall not judge what his eyes behold, nor decide by what his ears perceive; thus shall he judge the poor with equity and decide with justice for the lowly of the land. He shall strike down with the rod of his mouth and slay the wicked with the breath of his lips.” ובדם ענבים סותה, Yaakov mentions the appearance as something comparable to how it appears after it has been laundered, whereas he describes the wine as symbolic of a pleasant fragrance but here he uses it in connection with the external appearance of something. All these hyperboles are just that, a parable.
  He continues: חכלילי עינים מיין ולבן שנים מחלב, having already mentioned wine as symbolising fragrance as well as symbolising an impressive appearance, he did so because he views them as the most appropriate description of something that looks pleasant and inspiring. Such a perception of what looks beautiful is also echoed in Lamentations 4,7 ”Her elect were purer than snow and whiter than milk,” and in Song of Songs  5,10 the example for such a lovely appearance is “my beloved is clear-skinned and ruddy.” The appearance of wine is most impressive and it is reddish and sparkling as described in Proverbs 23,31 “do not ogle that red wine as it lends its colour to the cup.” It is described as if giving off sparks. Pure white colour is also extolled in Exodus 24,10 when the elders before the revelation at Mount Sinai feasted their eyes on a Divine appearance described as “like a brick of sapphire, and the essence of the heavens in purity.” The  whitest parts of the human body are the teeth They are praised for their whiteness also in Song of Songs 6,6 where their whiteness is compared to that of “a flock of ewes climbing up from the washing pool.” [The author continues in this vein for a few more lines. Ed.] The point he is trying to make is that over and beyond any physical perfection we know of in this world, the perfection of virtues, albeit intangible, is superior to anything perfect but tangible on earth. Hence the superiority of the Messiah with his virtues and supernatural qualities. Yaakov, using his prophetic insights, addresses each of his sons with the degree of prophetic insight he has been granted in describing the future in store for him. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  זבלון, up until this point Yaakov listed his sons in the chronological order of their birth, not paying attention to who was their mother. At this juncture he mentions Zevulun before Issachar although the latter had been born earlier by the same mother, Leah. Concerning this anomaly we read in Bereshit Rabbah 99,9 that the fact that Issachar chose the pursuit of Torah as his vocation whereas Zevulun supported him financially with his marine endeavours enabling his brother to concentrate on his Torah studies, he deserves to be mentioned first. The concept underlying this preferential mention of Zevulun here is explained in Proverbs 3,18 as עץ חיים היא למחזיקים בה, “the Torah will prove a tree of life to those who support it (financially).” Moses followed Yaakov’s example when blessing Zevulun before Issachar (Deuteronomy 33,18) when he said שמח זבולון בצאתך ויששכר באהליך, “rejoice Zevulun when you set out (on your journeys) and Issachar in your tents.” Everywhere else Issachar is mentioned ahead pf Zevulun.
  לחוף ימים ישכון, part of his ancestral heritage will be situated along the shores of the sea as stated in Joshua 19,11 ועלה גבולם לימה, ”their boundary ascended to the sea.” Moses had already hinted at this in Deut. 33,19 when he said כי שפע ימים ינקו, “they will draw from the riches of the sea.” The word חוף describes something covered, or better: “a place where ships can find refuge from the storms.”
  והוא לחוף אניות, he, Zevulun, will constantly be as a haven for ships. Most of his mercantile endeavours will be related to wares brought from overseas. Hence, ships will constantly anchor on its coast.
  וירכתו על צידון, his borders will extend as far north as the coastal town Tzidon. The meaning of the word על in this phrase is similar to the meaning of the word עד, “as far as.” The word על occurs as meaning “as far as” also in Joshua 2,7 על המעברות, “as far as the fords.”
  וירכתו, as if the Torah had written ולירכתו as in Exodus 26,23 ולירכתו המשכן, “at the rear of the Tabernacle.”
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  יששכר חמור גרם, like a strong donkey possessing strong bones. He is able to lie down while carrying his load and to get up again while still having his load on his back.
  המשפתים, a reference to the load the donkey carries. Yaakov uses the word in the plural mode, to indicate that Issachar will be loaded with not only one burden but two, carrying one on his right side, the other on his left. His soil will be extremely good, as if to say that he will not join battle formations in war but will belong to the troops bringing the supplies to the front lines. He will pay a special tax to the king to be allowed this arrangement, hence ויהי למס עובד. This is what Yaakov had in mind when he said of Issachar  וירא מנוחה כי טוב. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 98,12, and 99,10 explain the entire blessing as a prophecy that Issachar would make his primary occupation the study of Torah, and Yaakov depicting such a way of life as something lovely and rewarding for those who pursue it. The more one labours and immerses oneself deeply in Torah study the greater the ultimate sense of serenity, מנוחה, constructive peace of mind one will experience. All the expressions used here such as וירא מנוחה כי טוב ואת הארץ כי נעמה ויט שכמו לסבול ויהי למס עובד, describe, step by step the immersion in Torah study, the difficulties in mastering that discipline, and the eventual satisfaction it yields the person who stays the course. As proof that Yaakov’s blessing for Issachar did indeed come true, consider that the tribe of Issachar sent only 200 representatives to attend the crowning of David as King, whereas all the other tribes sent delegations numbering between 10,000 and 120,000. The 200 men from Issachar however, are described as יודעי בינה לעתים, “knowing how to interpret the signs of the times.” They were all Torah scholars. (compare Chronicles I 12,24-38)
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  דן ידין עמו, Yaakov predicts that a judge will emerge from among the Danites as, or equal to, any of the other tribes of Israel. The reason why Yaakov had to make such a strange sounding comment was that Dan was a son of Rachel’s maid, Bilhah, and the status of the descendants of the maidservants of the matriarchs might have been questioned. Yaakov wants it understood that there is not going to be such a relationship between his sons. To emphasise this, Moses appointed the tribe of Dan as one of the four tribes who were leaders of their respective army corps comprising three tribes each. (compare Numbers 2,25) The judge from the tribe of Dan who presided over the court was Shimshon, of whom we are told in Judges 16,31 that he judged the people for 20 years. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  יהי דן, Yaakov compared Dan to different kinds of serpents which do not travel (hunt) in packs, but rely on their wits, killing many. Shimshon, the most prominent warrior of the tribe of Dan, was a loner, never involving others when he faced danger. Compare Judges 15,8 ויך אותם שוק על ירך וכלחי חמור הכה אלף איש, “he struck them leg as well as thigh, and with the jawbone of a donkey he killed one thousand men.” He saved the Israelites from the constant incursions of the Philistines before he engaged in his acts of daring. This is what prompted Yaakov to wish him success with the words: 'לישועתך קויתי ה, “your type of salvation for Israel, orchestrated by a single individual, is something that normally, only G’d Himself can orchestrate.” Some commentators (Rashi) view these words of Yaakov as his reaction when he foresaw with prophetic vision how Shimshon had his eyes blinded by the Philistines. The words לישועתך וגו' then are Yaakov’s prayer that G’d Himself would avenge what was done to Shimshon. This prophecy/prayer was also fulfilled, as we are told in Judges 16,30 that Shimshon killed more Philistines in dying than he had killed cumulatively while alive.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  גד גדוד יגודנו, if a troop, battalion attacks him he will overpower that troop. This is the meaning of the last words in the verse והוא יגד עקב, in the end (עקב) he will prevail. This is a specific reference by Yaakov to what we have been told in Chronicles I 5,18-22 in which this tribe (together with Reuven and half the tribe of Menashe) is described as waging a successful war against the Hagrites. Their victory, -apparently they had been attacked,- is credited to the fact that they implored G’d to help them, and had faith that He would help them. Their trust was justified as is evident from the amount of loot they captured after that battle, Subsequent to that battle they remained undisturbed until their exile, about 150 years before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.
  
  Verse 20
  
  מאשר שמנה לחמו, the introductory letter מ appears to indicate that the bounty described in the verse following applied to only part of the territory in which Asher dwelled. The word לחמו is a euphemism for the whole ancestral land of the tribe of Asher, as it is what produces the bread of this tribe. The word לחם here as well as in many other examples, is a collective term including all the food these people grew and consumed. There were many olive trees on the territory of Asher, something confirmed by Moses in Deut. 33,24 where the tribe is described as immersing its feet in that oil.  Also all the other fruit grown on its soil was especially good in quality. This is why the verse concludes with the words: והוא יתן מעדני מלך, that the dignitaries of that tribe would send gifts of these fruit to be served at the king’s table.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  נפתלי אילה שלוחה, Yaakov prophesied regarding the extraordinary salvation which would accrue to Israel thanks to a single man from the tribe of Naftali, Barak, the commander of the forces who defeated Siserah at the river Kishon, putting to flight an army boasting 900 armoured vehicles. Seeing that he would be assisted by the prophetess Devorah, his being fleet-footed is not credited only to him, and the word describing this is in the feminine gender, ayalah, instead of ayal. Barak had refused to attack unless Devorah would be with him. This is also why Yaakov said שלוחה, again in the feminine mode, to allude to Devorah’s role in the battle. It sounds as if Devorah had been dispatched by G’d to hasten Barak’s coming to a decision, seeing he had been so hesitant to join battle with Siserah. Concerning the song of thanksgiving composed by Devorah after that battle (Judges chapter 5), Yaakov describes that song as אמרי שפר,”words of beautiful poetry.”
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  בן פרת יוסף בן פרת עלי עין, the branch סעיף, is referred to as בן, as it is an offshoot of the tree. Seeing that it is called בן in the masculine mode, he word פרת, the adjective modifying it, ought to be in the masculine mode also, but it is not. Suddenly, the Torah changes grammar in mid-stream and speaks of בנות צעדה עלי עין instead of בנים צעדו עלי עין, “his branches spilling (running) over the wall.” The reason is that the word סעיף also occurs as a feminine noun, as in Ezekiel 31,6 בסעפתיו קננו, “in its boughs they made their nest.” Such nouns in a dual role are not that rare, as for instance we find the חמור, male donkey, treated as if it were an אתון, the she-ass in Samuel II 19,27 אחבשה לי החמור וארכב עליה, “I will saddle my donkey and ride on her.” The donkey is both a beast, בהמה, a feminine noun, and a male of its species. We are therefore free to use either gender when referring to it. A similar example is found in Exodus 22,25 where the Torah describes the word שלמה, dress, as masculine although generally we always use it as feminine. The fact is that the specific garment “dress, שלמה,” is at the same time a garment, בגד, a noun describing all garments, a masculine noun. While a bough, פארה, is indeed a feminine noun, referring to a specific type of branch, the word סעיף includes many types of branches and is a masculine noun. There are quite a few examples of this grammatical phenomenon. As to the addition of the letter ת in פרת, it substitutes for the letter ה as it does on many occasions. Look at Deuteronomy 31,29 for instance, where we have וקראת instead of וקראה.
  בן פרת עלי עין, its leaves will not wilt and it will prove to be very fruitful as per Psalms 1,3 והיה כעץ שמול על פלגי מים, “he will be as a tree planted by springs of water, etc.” The reason for this apparent duplication is that Joseph would be split into two of the twelve tribes, hence the blessing had to be twofold.
  בנות צעדה עלי שור, these two branches (from the בן above) would grow and branch out so much until they would spillover the protective wall around the orchard, just as grapevines are in the habit of doing when they require  trellises to support them..
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  וימררו ורובו, if Yaakov spoke of the past in this verse we must understand his remarks as pertaining to Potiphar and his wife, as well as to the members of his household, but not to Joseph’s brothers. It is quite impossible to conceive of our patriarch Yaakov speaking of the brothers’ shame at the same as he was blessing them. Even though Yaakov had spoken of Reuven’s having disgraced himself, Yaakov had to do this in order to justify why he had deprived him of the privileges of the birthright. The same reasoning applies to his having recalled Shimon and Levi’s acts of violence, for which Yaakov made appropriate precautions for the future by dividing them up so that they could not pose a threat again.
  וימררוהו, they embittered his life throwing him into jail for at least two years, as we know from Psalms 105,18 ענו בכבל רגלו ברזל באה נפשו, “his feet were subjected to fetters, an iron collar was put on his neck.”
  ורבו, they shot arrows at him. The root of the verb רבו is of the type in which two root letters appear רבב repeated. Yaakov repeats the thought expressed by the word וימררוהו, also a root with a double consonant. The word רומו in Job 24,24 is a parallel construction to our word here.
  וישטמהו בעלי חצים, they hated him for no cause, slandering him to his employer. Yaakov summarises all these wicked words with the word חצים, arrows. We find the word חץ used in the same sense in Psalms 120,4 חצי גבור שנונים עם גחלי רתמים, “a warrior’s sharp arrows with hot coals, etc.” [the previous verse speaks of the deceitful tongue, so that this verse is a simile for such deceitful tongues. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  ותשב באיתן קשתו, the bow from which they aimed their arrows at him broke, whereas the supposed victim, Joseph, remained unhurt, not only that, but advanced to ever higher positions. 
  ויפוזו זרעי ידיו, his hands and arms kept getting stronger, i.e. he acquired the means to punish those who had slandered him. We encounter the expression מפזז in Samuel II 6,16 as a description of strength. It appears there next to the word מכרכר, a variation of the root פזז having a similar meaning, when applied to the legs. What was the source of Joseph’s strength?
  מידי אביר יעקב, the G’d Who had manifested Himself many times as the Power that stood by his father and lent him strength, not allowing him to collapse in spite of all the troubles that had dogged him for many years.
  משם רועה אבן ישראל, Joseph’s great honour originated from there, משם, from the Shepherd of Israel. Seeing that a stone represents something solid, unshakable, permanent, all of Israel is compared to a stone, אבן. Alternately, seeing that Yaakov/Israel was the founding father of the nation, Yaakov refers to himself in that manner, i.e. the corner stone of the nation. Rabbeinu Saadyah gaon translates it into Arabic as עצם, the essence. This conforms to what we said.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  מאל אביך, your glory stems from the G’d of your father, and He will assist you, ואת שדי, and your blessing will be confirmed by Shaddai. The letter מ in the word מאל also serves as an unwritten preposition for the expression ואת שדי, i.e. it really means ומאת שדי, “and from Shaddai.”
   What will Shaddai’s blessing consist of? מברכת שמים מעל, the dew which comes from above and the rain which arrives at its proper time.
  ברכות תהום רובצת תחת. The subterranean blessing from below. Moses uses similar words when he blesses the tribe of Joseph in Deuteronomy 33,13 saying: מברכת ה' ארצו ממגד שמים מטל ומתהום רובצת תחת. He only reversed the order in which he recited these blessings. He says of the water which reposes in the belly of the earth that it is perceived as lying down, as if in preparation for the time when it is expected to rise and to irrigate the crops. Alternately, it awaits man to draw it to perform irrigation. A third possibility would be that irrigation will be performed by the rain from heaven. The gist of the blessing is that the soil in the part of the land on which the tribe of Joseph dwells is so amply irrigated from underneath that even if there should be a drought, and no rain would fall, there is enough moisture to support the herbs in the fields.
  ברכת שדים ורחם, Onkelos, who understands this as the blessing of father and mother, is familiar to most readers. Other commentators understand these words as referring to blessing emanating both from heaven and earth, although if we were to accept this, Yaakov would have repeated himself. The fact is that he wanted to reinforce the power of the blessing. “The heavens” are a euphemism for the breasts, and the drops of rain they yield are being compared to the drops of milk from the breasts, whereas the earth is a simile for the womb, seeing it produces fruit, as does the womb. My late father of blessed memory explained the word שדים as referring to the wet nurse, (when the mother herself cannot nurse her baby) and the word רחם as referring to the actual mother. Yaakov follows this blessing with the blessing of אביך “your father,” seeing that the baby requires a blessing from three sources. They are: father, mother, and the wet nurse who feeds the baby with her own milk. Personally, I feel that the blessing refers to the children that are being born to the tribe of Joseph, the opposite of a רחם משכיל ושדים צומקות, which we already referred to as a curse (Hoseah 9,14). 
  
  Verse 26
  
  ברכת אביך גברו, although Yaakov uses the past tenses in the word גברו, what he means is the future, that the blessing will prove to be what he says. The anomaly of using the past tense to describe matters that are yet to occur is no anomaly; it occurs again and again in Scripture. The word הורי, normally translated as “my parents,” refer to Avraham and Yitzchok, Yaakov’s father and grandfather respectively, his mentors. The very expression הורה, horeh, and הורה, horah, respectively, apply to father and mother, depending on the vowel under the letterר . This is so as both are involved in bringing about the pregnancy leading to the eventual birth of the child. The father is the active partner, whereas the mother is considered the passive partner seeing that she is the recipient of the male’s sperm.
  עד תאות גבעת עולם, these blessings should in turn be transferred to your offspring in an unending chain. We know the word תאוה as describing a limit, boundary, from Numbers 34,10 והתאויתם לכם, “you will draw for yourselves (boundaries).” Yaakov simply means that as long the universe will continue to exist “my blessing to you shall remain in force.” Hills and mountains, as opposed to rivers, are symbols of something that endures. The prophet Isaiah echoes this thought when he said (Isaiah 54,10)כי ההרים ימושו והגבעות תמוטינה “for even if the mountains were to move and the hills to collapse, etc.” [just as the former is unlikely, so G’d’s loyalty shall remain steadfast towards Israel. Ed.]
  תהיינה לראש יוסף, in all the blessings which have been mentioned in this chapter Joseph should be the first and principal beneficiary. The words וקדקד נזיר אחיו are again a duplication, repetition, in order to emphasise how strongly Yaakov feels about the matter.
  נזיר, an expression applied to leading people as in Nachum 3,17 מנזריך כארבה.”your guards were like locusts.”
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  בנימין זאב יטרף, he will be comparable to a ravenous wolf which tears apart its victims whether domestic animals or predators. The wolf is more courageous than other wild animals, not being afraid to invade human habitations. The members of the tribe of Binyamin demonstrated this quality of fearlessness on many occasions during their long history.  In Judges chapter 20 they took on single-handedly the armies of all the other tribes in a tragic civil war. Also in Chronicles I 12,2 they joined the persecuted David who commanded only a small number of men, in what must have appeared as a hopeless undertaking. In verse 19 there we read that David placed these Binyaminites at the head of his small band.
  בבוקר יאכל עד ולערב יחלק שלל. He will outdo the wolves, which have to wait until evening to eat any part of their prey. Binyamin will consume the foe in the morning and the loot in the evening following. Compare Tzefaniah 3,3 for confirmation of this. The word עד is equivalent to the word שלל, loot, booty. The Aramaic term for the word שלל is עדאה. This also contains an allusion to the war of Sha-ul, of the tribe of Binyamin against the Amelekites as well as against other nations as we know from Samuel I 14,47. Also Mordechai, who was descended from Binyamin , won against all the Antisemites including Haman and thus brought a great salvation to his people. The reason why the wars of Sha-ul are referred to by Yaakov as בוקר, morning, is because they occurred at the very beginning of the years during which the Jews had a crowned head as their leader. Mordechai’s “war,” by comparison was called ערב, evening, seeing that during his time the Jews were in exile, something compared to evening.
  יחלק שלל, you may ask that we read in the Book of Esther 9,15 that the Jews did not pocket any of the loot. The meaning of that line was that seeing the King had given to Mordechai all that had belonged to Haman, such belongings could not longer be described as “loot.”
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  כל אלה שבטי ישראל שנים עשר, he had to mention this seeing that Joseph amounted to two tribes, which otherwise would have made us believe that Yaakov envisioned 13 tribes. When it came to the distribution of the land of Canaan there were only 12 tribes, seeing that the tribe of Levi did not share in that land distribution but was allocated only cities in which the Levites were to reside, scattered among all the other tribes.
  וזאת אשר דבר להם, this is the future of which he spoke to them.
  ויברך אותם, these were the words with which he blessed them,
  איש אשר כברכתו ברך אותם, each of these tribes according to the specific blessing Yaakov had bestowed on them. The blessings would all become effective in the future. 
  
  Verse 29
  
  ויצו אותם, after he had completed his blessing, he instructed them that they should bury him in the family plot; even though he had already commanded Joseph concerning this, he also commanded his other sons. He wanted them all to be prompt in carrying out his wishes.
  אל אבותי, same as ‘“with” my fathers.’ We find the word אל meaning “with” also in Leviticus 18,17 אשה אל אחותה לא תקח, “you must not marry the wife together with her sister.”
  אל המערה, same as במערה, “in the cave.” We have the same construction in Exodus 25,21 ואל הארון תתן את העדות, “you are to place the tablets inside the ark,” not: “you shall give the tablets to the ark.”
  
  Verse 30
  
  במערה, we have explained on Genesis 25,10 why this mention of the cave of Machpelah as the patriarchs’ burial site is mentioned so many times in the Torah as if we did not know already.
  
  Verse 31
  
  שמה קברו, Yitzchok and Ishmael.
  קברו את יצחק, the reason why Yaakov did not say “we buried,” but “they buried,” although the Torah had testified that he and Esau had buried their father, was that he did not want to even be mentioned in the same breath as his brother who was a wicked person.
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   ויאסוף את רגליו. As long as he had still been speaking to his sons he felt strong enough to carry on sitting on the bed with his feet on the floor. As soon as he had finished, he pulled up his feet to the bed and lay down.
  ויגוע, an expression used with the righteous, describing a painless death. Some (Taanit 5) explain the fact that the Torah did not add the word וימת, “he died,” which is customary, as a hint that Yaakov did not actually die in the accepted sense of the word. Although the Torah specifically mentioned that Moses died, i.e. וימת משה, (Deut. 34,5) the fact is that he did not die. (Sotah 13). The fact is that the righteous do not die in the accepted sense of the word.
  ויאסף אל עמיו, I have explained the meaning of this expression on 25,8.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויפול יוסף, not only he but also his brothers, of course. Seeing that he was the most highly placed of the brothers the Torah mentions him. If he allowed himself this display of emotion, his brothers surely did no less. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  לחנט, a procedure of embalming the remains of the deceased so the body would not become putrid.
  
  Verse 3
  
  שבעים יום . Forty days were spent embalming his body and thirty days of weeping for the absence of this man henceforth. We find that both Moses and Aaron were mourned for 30 days (Numbers 20,29 and Deuteronomy 34 8) The difference was that Moses and Aaron were mourned after they had been buried, whereas Yaakov was mourned prior to his interment. This was permissible as the embalming procedure was equated with a kind of burial. During all these days the Egyptians wept out of respect for the feelings of Joseph. According to a view quoted by Rashi, the Egyptians also mourned him, being aware that this man had been able to arrest the famine five years before it had run its predetermined course. This concludes the manuscripts available of the Redak’s commentary on the Torah. We are all impoverished when reflecting on much has been lost of his commentary.