## Ibn Ezra on Genesis Chapter 20 ###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 20:2:1 [Ibn Ezra on Genesis 20:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/20:2:1) **אל שרה אשתו,** כמו על, וכן "אל הנער הזה" (ש"א, א, כז) **Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:** OF SARAH HIS WIFE. The word *el* in *el Sarah* (of Sarah) should be rendered *al* (of, concerning).¹ is usually rendered to. Thus our phrase would ordinarily be translated: And Abraham said to Sarah she is my sister. However, this makes no sense. Therefore I.E. points out that *al* also has the meaning of, concerning. *El* in *For* (el) *this child I prayed* (I Sam. 1:27) is similar.² to mean to, this verse would read: to this child I prayed. This would be an impossible rendering. footnotes: ¹ El ² If we translated el ###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 20:3:1 [Ibn Ezra on Genesis 20:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/20:3:1) ובא המלאך בחלום אל אבימלך, בעבור כבוד אברהם, ופה כתוב לקיחה וכן עם פרעה רק על פרעה הביא נגעים גדולים, ועל ביתו, ונגעי אבימלך וביתו לא הי' כן, כי צדיק היה מפרעה **Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:** The angel appeared to Abimelech in a dream because of God’s regard for Abraham’s honor.³ Scripture tells us that both Abimelech⁴ (v. 2). and Pharaoh⁵ (Gen. 12:19). took Sarah;⁶ nevertheless, God brought upon Pharaoh and his house great plagues,⁷ while the plagues brought on Abimelech and his house were of a lesser nature. The reason for this is that Abimelech was more righteous than Pharaoh. footnotes: ³ Abimelech was no prophet and consequently would not experience prophetic visions. He did so only because God wanted to safeguard Abraham’s wife. It should be noted that Scripture says God appeared to Abimelech. I.E. explains that God came to him via an angel. ⁴ With regard to Abimelech it is written, And Abimelech King of Gerar sent, and took Sarah ⁵ So I took her (Sarah) to be my wife ⁶ Hence both committed the same sin. ⁷ Gen. 12:17. ###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 20:4:1 [Ibn Ezra on Genesis 20:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/20:4:1) וטעם הגוי גם צדיק תהרוג, בעד נפשו וביתו וממלכתו, וכן כתוב, ואל תשמע אל דברי חולם החלום המחליף מלה במלה שפי' הגוי איש ובמלת לעם נכרי (שמות כא ח) אאריך מעט: **Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:** [LORD, WILT THOU SLAY EVEN A RIGHTEOUS NATION?] The term *nation* includes Abimelech, his household and his kingdom. That this is so can be seen from Scripture.⁸ Thus Abimelech was worried about his kingdom. Pay no attention to the dreamer⁹ who changes the terms used in Scripture. The latter explains *goy* (nation) to mean *ish* (a person). I will elaborate a bit upon this in my comments on the verse *to sell her unto a foreign people he shall have no power* (Ex. 21:8).¹⁰ footnotes: ⁸ Verse 9, in which we read, What hast thou done unto us…that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? ⁹ A term used by I.E. for one who comes up with a far-fetched interpretation. See I.E.’s comment on Gen. 2:11. According to Weiser the allusion is to Saadiah. Saadiah renders our verse, “Lord, wilt thou slay even a righteous man?” ¹⁰ Saadiah renders people as person. Cf. I.E.’s comment on Ex. 21:8. ###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 20:6:1 [Ibn Ezra on Genesis 20:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/20:6:1) **לנגוע.** ולגעת כמו לנטוע (ישעי' נא טז) ולטעת (קהלת ג ב) וכולם הם שמות פועל: **Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:** TO TOUCH. *Li-nego’a* (to touch) means the same as *la-ga’at*.¹¹. The root of *li-nego’a* is *nun, gimel, ayin*. In *la-ga’at* the *nun* is dropped; in *li-nego’a* it remains. The point is that in this *peh nun* the *nun* is not dropped in one form of the infinitive. It is treated as a *shelemim*, a root that does not drop a letter. We find the same with the root *nun, tet, ayin* (to plant). The same is true¹² with *li-neto’a* (to plant)¹³ and *la-ta’at*.¹⁴ All of the above are infinitives.¹⁵ forms. footnotes: ¹¹ Our verse employs li-nego’a ¹² The word can be expressed in two ways. ¹³ Cf. Is. 51:16. ¹⁴ Cf. Eccles. 3:2. ¹⁵ They are also kal ###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 20:9:1 [Ibn Ezra on Genesis 20:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/20:9:1) **מה עשית לנו,** בפתח קטן תחת "מה" בעבור אות הגרון. הבא אחריו וכן המשפט: **Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:** WHAT HAST THOU DONE UNTO US? *Meh* (what) is vocalized with a *segol* because it precedes a guttural.¹⁶ of *asita* (thou hast done) is vocalized with a *kamatz*. I.E. points out that the Hebrew word for “what” is always vocalized with a *segol*, (*meh*) whenever it comes before an *ayin* vocalized with a *kamatz*. The usual vocalization of “what” is with a *pattach* (*mah*), hence I.E.’s comment. This is the rule in Hebrew grammar. footnotes: ¹⁶ The ayin ###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 20:12:1 [Ibn Ezra on Genesis 20:12:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/20:12:1) **אחותי בת אבי.** י"א שהוא כמו אלהי אבי אברהם והנכון בעיני שדחה אבימלך בדברים כפי צורך השעה ובפ' "אנכי עשו בכורך" (בראשית כז יט) אביא הברים: **Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:** AND MOREOVER SHE IS INDEED MY SISTER, THE DAUGHTER OF MY FATHER. Some say that this verse is to be understood in the same way as *O God of my father Abraham* (Gen. 32:10).¹⁷ is short for the daughter of my brother, the son of my father, in the same way as *O God of my father Abraham* is short for O God of my father’s father Abraham (Weiser). Some identify Sarah with Iscah, the daughter of Haran. I.E. rejects this identification. Cf. I.E.’s commentary on Gen. 11:29. Krinsky suggests that what I.E. means is that grandchildren are considered as children. Thus Sarah, the daughter of Haran, was considered Terah’s daughter and hence Abraham’s sister. Similarly Jacob is considered Abraham’s son. However, I believe that Abraham put Abimelech off with a timely excuse. When we come to the verse *I am Esau thy first-born* (Gen. 27:19), I will offer other examples of the same.¹⁸ footnotes: ¹⁷ That daughter of my father ¹⁸ Jacob also was not telling the full truth. ###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 20:13:1 [Ibn Ezra on Genesis 20:13:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/20:13:1) **התעו אותי אלהים.** לשון קודש והטעם שהוא נוסע ממקום למקום ולא ידע אנה ילך, וכן "והנה תועה בשדה" (בראשית לז טו) ואין זו התעייה בלב גם כן כתוב "למה תתענו ד'" (ישעי' סג יז): **Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:** WHEN GOD CAUSED ME TO WANDER. The word *Elohim* is to be rendered as God.¹⁹ is the plural. Hence at first glance *Elohim* cannot refer to God since there is only one God. I.E. points out that even so, *Elohim* here refers to God. It should be noted that Onkelos apparently took *Elohim* as referring to idols. See also Rashi’s note on this verse. Cf. M. Adler’s commentary on Onkelos, *Netivat Ha-Ger*, Israel, 1968. The meaning of *hitu oti Elohim* (God caused me to wander) is that God made Abraham journey from place to place without Abraham knowing where he would go next. *To’eh* (wandering) in *and, behold he was wandering* (to’eh) *in the field* (Gen. 37:15) is similar. *Hitu* (caused me to wander) in our verse is not to be translated as caused me to err.²⁰ as err. He explains *when God caused me to wander* as meaning: when the nations erred and followed idols, God drew me near to his service; i.e., *ka-asher hitu* (when the nations erred), *oti Elohim* (God took me). We find the Bible using the word *to’eh* in the sense of erring²¹ in *O Lord, why does Thou make us to err* (tatenu) *from thy ways* (Is. 63:17).²², the same as the root for wander. The word can therefore mean wander or err. Erring is an intellectual wandering. footnotes: ¹⁹ Hitu ²⁰ Onkelos renders to’eh ²¹ According to Cherez. For an alternate interpretation see Krinsky. ²² The root of err is tav, ayin, heh ###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 20:13:2 [Ibn Ezra on Genesis 20:13:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/20:13:2) **אמרי לי.** בשבילי וכן "ואמר פרעה לבני ישראל" (שמות יד ג): **Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:** SAY OF ME. *Imri li* ²³ usually means to me, hence I.E.’s comment. is to be rendered: say of me. *And Pharaoh will say of the children of* (le-vene) *Israel* (Ex. 14:3)²⁴ means of, not to. is similar. footnotes: ²³ The word li ²⁴ Here, too, the lamed ###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 20:16:1 [Ibn Ezra on Genesis 20:16:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/20:16:1) **הנה הוא לך כסות עינים.** י"א כי הוא רמז אל כהות עיני בנה, וזה דרך דרש והישר בעיני שיהיה כסות עינים מושך עצמו ואחר עמו כמו "אל בקצפך תוכיחני" (תהלים לח ב), ורבים אחרים, והנה הוא לך כמו מכסה עינים בעבור אברהם שהוא בעלך והטעם שלא ישא איש את עיניו אליך גם הוא כסות עינים לכל אשר אתך מהשפחות שהם נשי עבדיו ויהיה וי"ו ונוכחת בפ"א רפה בלשון ישמעאל ובמקרא אלפים כמוהו, כמו "ביום השלישי וישא אברהם את עיניו" (בראשית כב ד) וטעם ונוכחת דברי משה שלא אמרה עוד שרה על אברהם אחי הוא, והנה פי' ואת כל, ועם כל זה נתוכחה שרה, וי"א כי הנה הוא לך על הכסף לקנות מלבוש, ומלת נתתי מושכת עצמה ואחרת עמה, וכן הוא, הנה נתתי אלף כסף לאחיך לקנות לך בו מכסה כמו כסות שיהיה תאוה לעינים ונתתי לכל אשר אתך, ואת כל אשר נתתי לאברהם צאן ובקר ועבדים ושפחות, ויותר נכון להיות פי' כאשר אמרתי כי אברהם הוא כסות עינים לך ולעבדים אשר אתך שהיו לך, גם אשר נתתים גם אני: **Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:** BEHOLD, IT IS FOR THEE A COVERING OF THE EYES. Some say that this alludes to the dimming of her son’s (Isaac’s) eyes.²⁵ However, the latter is a Midrashic interpretation.²⁶ 15a; *Baba Kama* 93a), Abimelech cursed Sarah for deceiving him. The Talmud states, “Abimelech cursed Sarah and said, may your eyes be covered…The curse took effect on her seed as it is written, *And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim*.” I believe that the phrase *kesut enayim* (a covering of the eyes) is to be read as if written twice.²⁷ can mean either he or it, Hebrew having no neuter term. I.E. translates the word *hu* in our verse as he and explains that it refers to Abraham. It is similar to the word not (*al*) in *O Lord, rebuke me not in Thine anger, and chasten me in Thy wrath* (Ps. 38:2).²⁸) in Ps. 38:2 is to be read as if written twice: O Lord rebuke me not in thine anger, chasten me not in thy wrath. There are many other such examples in Scripture.²⁹ Our verse is to be interpreted as follows: Behold, he, viz., Abraham thy husband, is for thee as a covering of the eyes, i.e., no one will dare lift up his eyes to thee.³⁰ refers to other men’s eyes, i.e., because of Abraham it is as if other men’s eyes are covered. He is similarly a covering of the eyes to all that are with thee, namely, the handmaidens who are married to his servants.³¹ Furthermore, the *vav* of *ve-nokhachat* (thou are righted) is rather like the Arabic *fa*.³² is not a connective but is similar to the Arabic *fa* which serves as a particle introducing the principal part of the sentence (Friedlander). There are thousands of similar *vavs* in Scripture, an example being *On the third day Abraham lifted up* (va-yissa) *his eyes* (Gen. 22:4).³³ of *va-yissa* were a connective *vav*, the verse would read: On the third day and Abraham lifted up his eyes. *Ve-nokhachat* (thou are righted) is a comment by Moses,³⁴ (ve-et kol nokhachat) is a comment by Moses on the affair. It should be noted that I.E. interprets *ve-nokhachat* (thou art righted) as chastened, and *ve-et kol* (and before all man) as: and all, which he explains to mean, and after all this. who added that Sarah did not ever again claim that Abraham was her brother. The meaning of *ve-et kol* (and before all men) is: after all this; i.e., after all this Sarah was chastened.³⁵ as: and after all of this, and after this incident, she was chastened. Netter interprets I.E. as saying: even with all this honor done to her, Sarah was chastened. If the *vav* of *ve-nokhachat* were a connective *vav*, the phrase would read: and after all this and she was chastened, a very awkward construction. Others explain that *behold, it is for thee* ³⁶ means a garment appealing to the eyes. refers to money which Abimelech gave for the purchase of a garment, and it is the word *natati* (I have given) that is to be read as if written twice. The verse is to be interpreted as follows: Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver to buy thee a covering (*kesut*), meaning a garment, that is appealing to the eye (*enayim*) and I have also given gifts to all that are with thee, and I have also given Abraham sheep, cattle, man and maidservants.³⁷ (and all). It is to be interpreted *ve-et kol asher natati*, plus everything that I have already given. It should be noted that this third *natati* is implied in *ve-et kol* and does not pertain to the *natati* which is to be taken as if written twice. However, my above quoted interpretation is better. It means that Abraham is a covering of the eyes to thee, before the servants that you had prior to coming here and before the servants that I have given you. class="footnote">According to I.E. the root of *ve-nokhachat* is *yod, caf, chet*, meaning to chasten, show (Weiser). For alternate interpretations of I.E.’s comment on this verse, see Filwarg. footnotes: ²⁵ Gen. 27:1. ²⁶ According to the Talmud (Megillah ²⁷ See I.E.’s comment on Gen. 2:8 and the note thereto. The verse should be read as follows: Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver; behold, he is for thee a covering of the eyes; and he is also a covering of the eyes to all that are with thee. The Hebrew word hu ²⁸ The word not (al ²⁹ In which a word written once is to be read as if written twice. See I.E.’s comments on Gen. 14:3. ³⁰ Because Abraham is your husband. What I.E. seems to be saying is that covering of the eyes ³¹ No one will molest any of the handmaidens; i.e., because of Abraham no one will dare lift up his eyes to Sarah or her handmaidens (Filwarg). Weiser explains I.E. as meaning that the handmaidens will honor Sarah and not treat her with disdain. ³² This vav ³³ If the vav ³⁴ And not spoken by Abimelech. Abimelech would not first apologize and then reprimand Sarah; hence and after all this Sarah was chastened ³⁵ I.E. interprets ve-et kol ve-nokhachat ³⁶ See note 27. According to this interpretation a covering of the eyes ³⁷ This is implied in ve-et kol ###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 20:16:2 [Ibn Ezra on Genesis 20:16:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/20:16:2) **ואת כל.** ועם כל בני אדם הוא לך כסות עינים **Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:** Similarly *ve-et kol* (and before all men) means, and before all men Abraham is your *covering of the eyes*.³⁸ refers to Abraham. footnotes: ³⁸ That the covering of the eyes ###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 20:16:3 [Ibn Ezra on Genesis 20:16:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/20:16:3) ונוכחת דברי משה ויעמוד טעם הוי"ו במקומו והגאון אמר שהוא מן נוכח ואין דבריו נכוחים: **Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:** According to this interpretation only *ve-nokhachat* (and she was chastened)³⁹ are the words of Moses. Hence the *vav* of *ve-nokhachat* is a connective *vav* as it is normally. Saadiah Gaon says that *ve-nokhachat* comes from *nokhach* (in front of).⁴⁰, meaning in front of; i.e., you are now able to stand before anyone without shame (Weiser, Cherez). However, he is wrong.41