## Ibn Ezra on Genesis Chapter 25

###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:1:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:1:1)

**קטורה.** איננה הגר, כי כתוב ולבני הפילגשים אשר לאברהם נתן אברהם (בראשית כה ו), ופי' פלגש שפחה וזה השם איננו נופל על זכר, ונוכל לפרש על פילגשים נשים:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
KETURAH. Keturah is not to be identified with Hagar¹ 61:4; also Rashi’s comments. because Scripture explicitly states, *But unto the sons of the concubines* (pilagshim), *that Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts* (v. 6).² (concubine) refers exclusively to a handmaid to forestall the argument that verse 6 refers to male slaves (*pilagshim* has a masculine ending) and therefore negate his argument that Abraham had more than one concubine. The meaning of *pilegesh* (concubine) is a handmaid. This term cannot refer to a male. We can explain *upon concubinage* (Ezek. 23:20) as referring to females.³ has a masculine ending it refers to females (Weiser). However, Filwarg and Krinsky, as well as Weiser himself, point out that I.E. may be alluding to Ezek. 23:20, *And she doted on concubinage* (pilagshehem) *with them, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses*. The words *be-saram* (whose flesh) and *zirmatam* (whose issue) are masculine; hence the concubines spoken of in this verse appear to be males. Indeed, Kimchi in his comments on Ezek. 23:20 quotes an opinion which maintains that the concubines referred to in this verse are male slaves. Therefore I.E. points out that *pilagshim* refers only to females. Filwarg suggests amending our texts of I.E. to read *pilagshehem*, as in Ezek. 23:20. In this case the allusion to Ezekiel would be unmistakable. The fact of the matter is that *Vat. Ebr*. 38 reads *al pilagshehem*, and we have translated accordingly.

footnotes:
¹ See Bereshit Rabbah
² “Concubines” indicates that Abraham had more than one concubine. If Keturah and Hagar were one and the same person the verse would have read concubine. I.E. goes on to note that pilegesh
³ The printed editions have, “We can explain on concubines as women.” If we accept this reading the point that I.E. is apparently making is that even though the word pilagshim


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:3:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:3:1)

**אשורים.** י"א כי אשורים שהי' יודעים הדרכים, ולטושים צופים מרחוק, והנכון בעיני כי הם שמות, ואין בהם תואר שם:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
ASSHURIM. Some say that *asshurim* means those who know the roads⁴ with *ashur* (step or going). See Job 31:7; Prov. 14:15. and *letushim*, those who see from afar.⁵ (sharpeneth his eyes). This term, too, pertains to their occupation as caravaneers. However, I believe that *asshurim* and *letushim* are proper nouns and not adjectives.

footnotes:
⁴ Caravaneers. This interpretation connects asshurim
⁵ See Job 16:9, yiltosh enav


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:6:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:6:1)

**מתנות.** ממון נתן להם:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
GIFTS. He gave them money.⁶

footnotes:
⁶ That is, movable possessions, in contrast to real estate (Weiser).


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:6:2
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:6:2)

קדמה. פי' אל ארץ קדם, וכן "אשר לא יעבדו אותו את נבוכדנצר" (ירמי' כז ח), וקדם מזרח א"י, וי"א אל מקום בן ישמעאל והראשון נכון:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
EASTWARD. *Kedemah* (eastward) means *unto the East country. And it shall come to pass, that the nation and the kingdom which will not serve him, Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon* (Jer. 27:8)⁷. is similar. East means east of the land of Israel.⁸ is an explanation of *eastward* in the same way that *Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon* is an explanation of *him*. Others say that *kedemah* (eastward) means to the place where the son of Ishmael dwelt.⁹ means to Kedemah. Kedemah was a son of Ishmael (v. 15). According to this interpretation the verse is not redundant in stating *unto the east country*, for it is telling us where Kedemah dwelt. The first of these two interpretations is the correct one.

footnotes:
⁷ This is the literal reading of the verse. J.P.S. translates, And it shall come to pass, that the nation and the kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon
⁸ Eastward refers to the entire eastern compass point, be it northeast or southeast (Weiser). According to this interpretation unto the east country
⁹ This explanation is that kedemah


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:8:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:8:1)

**מלת ויגוע.** צאת הרוח מהגוף רגע אחד בלי עינוי ועיכוב, הלא תראה "ויאסוף רגליו אל המטה" (בראשית מט ג), ומיד גוע והנה כל גויעה מיתה ואין כל מיתה גויעה על כן כתוב במבול ויגוע (בראשית ז כא):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
[AND ABRAHAM EXPIRED.] Expired refers to a death wherein the soul leaves the body in a moment, without pain or delay. Proof of this is *he (Jacob) gathered up his feet unto the bed* and then immediately expired (Gen. 49:33).¹⁰ refers to a quick and painless death. Every expiration (*gevi’ah*) is a death, but not every death is an expiration (*gevi’ah*). Hence Scripture states, with regard to those who perished in the flood, *And all flesh expired* (Gen. 7:21). ¹¹

footnotes:
¹⁰ We thus see that gava
¹¹ According to I.E., Gen. 7:12 teaches that the flood killed swiftly (Weiser).


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:8:2
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:8:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:8:2)

**ופי' וימת אברהם**. שמת בשיבה טובה:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
The meaning of, *and (Abraham) died* ¹² is that he died at a ripe old age.¹³ is not redundant since it is not connected to expired but to what follows, i.e., *and Abraham died in a good old age* (Filwarg).

footnotes:
¹² There was no need to state “and Abraham died” after stating “and he expired,” since expired means he died quickly.
¹³ And Abraham died


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:8:3
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:8:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:8:3)

**ויאסוף אל עמיו.** י"א כי על כבוד הנפש אמר, כי בהיותו מתעסקים עם הגוף הוא כחלק נפרד, ובהפרד מהגוף יאסף הכבוד אל עמיו, וי"א כי זה משפט הלשון, והטעם על לכתו בדרך אבותיו כאלו יתחבר אליהם, וכן "ואתה תבוא אל אבותיך בשלום" (בראשית טו טו):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND WAS GATHERED TO HIS PEOPLE. Some say that this refers to the soul of life which, even while functioning¹⁴ literally, the glory of life. The “glory” refers to man’s soul which gives life to the body. in the body, is a separate entity. When it separates from the body it returns to its source.¹⁵ Others say that *and was gathered to his people* is a mere idiom.¹⁶ One who follows in the footsteps of his ancestors is said, as it were, to be joining them. *But thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace* (Gen. 15:15) is similar.

footnotes:
¹⁴ I.E. uses the term kevod ha-nefesh
¹⁵ According to I.E. man’s soul is derived from a universal soul. While in the body the soul does not share the former’s corporeal properties. It has its own existence and can function independently of the body. It is thus a “separate entity” (Levine, p. 13).
¹⁶ According to this interpretation there is no philosophical implication in the verse.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:16:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:16:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:16:1)

**ובטירותם.** ארמונים כמו "טירת כסף" (ש"ה ח ט):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND BY THEIR ENCAMPMENTS. *Tirotam* (encampments) means palaces. Compare, *a turret of silver* (tirat kasef) (Cant. 8:9).


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:16:2
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:16:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:16:2)

**לאמותם.** בשורק, מצאנו אמות, ואומים, ולמ"ד לאמותם נוסף כלמ"ד לגוייהם, ואיננו כלמ"ד "בלאמים" (תהלים קמט ז) כי הוא שרש כמו "ולאום מלאום יאמץ" (בראשית כה כג), והטעם שהוא בלמ"ד ובחסרונו שוה והם שני שרשים:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
ACCORDING TO THEIR NATIONS. We find Scripture employing *ummot* (nations) and *ummim* (nations),¹⁷); Ps. 117:1 (*ummim*). The former has a feminine ending, the latter, a masculine ending. Our verse (*le’ummatam*) employs the former. both of which are vocalized with a *shuruk*.¹⁸. I.E. refers to both a *kubbutz* and a *shuruk* by one term, *shuruk*. Cf. L. Prijs, *Die Grammatikalische Terminologie Des Ibn Ezra*, Basel, 1950, p. 136. The *lamed* of *le-ummatam* (according to their nations) is a preposition,¹⁹ similar to the *lamed* of *le-goyehem* (after their nations). It is not the same as the *lamed* of *ba-le’ummim* (upon the peoples) (Ps. 149:7) which is a root letter like the *lamed* of *le’om* (people) in *And the one people* (u-le’om) *shall be stronger than the other people* (mi-le’om) (v. 23). Whether spelled with a *lamed* or not, it has the same meaning. However, they come from different roots.²⁰ and *le’om* mean the same, but come from different roots. The root of *om* is *alef, vav, mem* and that of *le’om, lamed, alef, mem* (Cherez, Krinsky).

footnotes:
¹⁷ Num. 25:15 (ummot
¹⁸ Actually a kubbutz
¹⁹ It is not a root letter. It means according to.
²⁰ That is, both om


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:18:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:18:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:18:1)

**על פני כל אחיו.** הם זמרן ויקשן:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
OVER AGAINST ALL HIS BRETHREN. Zimram and Jokshan.²¹

footnotes:
²¹ Verse 2.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:18:2
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:18:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:18:2)

**נפל.** חלקו או גורלו, או שרוב בני ישמעאל נוסעים ממקום אל מקום, כטעם "אל הכשדים אתה נופל" (ירמי' לז יג), וזה מעט רחוק בעבור שאחיו במזרח ומצרים ואשור למערב א"י, ויתכן שהכתוב דבר על ישמעאל שמת בחיי אחיו אחד שנפל, כי לא ידענו סבת מותו:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
HE DID SETTLE.²². I.E. points out that fell must refer to Ishmael’s portion or to Ishmael himself. It may also mean settled. The meaning of *nafal* (fell) is that his portion or his lot fell among his brethren. Or it refers to the fact that most of the Ishmaelites journeyed from place to place. In this case *nafal* ²³ is like *nofel* in *Thou fallest away* (nofel) *to the Chaldeans* (Jer. 37:13). However, this is a bit far-fetched in view of the fact that his brethren were in the east (v. 6), and Egypt and Asshur are west²⁴ who were Asshurim (v. 3). of the land of Israel.²⁵ offered up to this point. It is possible that this verse deals with Ishmael’s death. He died during the lifetime of his brethren, after he fell.²⁶ We do not know the cause of Ishmael’s death.

footnotes:
²² The verse literally reads: upon the face of his brethren he (or it) fell
²³ That is, it means passed over.
²⁴ This comment presents a problem in view of the fact that Assyria (Asshur) lies east of the land of Israel. Krinsky suggests that Asshur does not refer to the Assyrians but rather to the children of dedan
²⁵ It is hard to believe that they had so large an inheritance. I.E.’s comment applies to all the interpretations of nafal
²⁶ He fell off a roof or out of a tree and died (Krinsky). This interpretation is possible because we do not know any of the causes of his death. Cohen, on the other hand, suggests that I.E. held that fell means fell dead.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:19:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:19:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:19:1)

**ואלה.** אחר שהזכיר תולדות ישמעאל שב להזכיר תולדות יצחק שהם עשו ויעקב, וי"א כי טעם הוליד את יצחק שהיה דומה לאביו וכל רואיו יעידו כי אברהם הולידו וי"א כי טעם הוליד גדל ורבה, כמו "יולדו על ברכי יוסף" (בראשית נ' כג), והעד שאמר "וישלחם מעל יצחק בנו" (בראשית כה ו'):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND THESE. After recording the generations of Ishmael, Scripture returns to record the progeny of Isaac, Esau and Jacob. Some say that *Abraham begot Isaac* means that Isaac resembled his father, and all who looked upon him could tell that he was Abraham’s son.²⁷ 87a and Rashi. Others say that *holid* (begot) means raised and brought up, as in *were born*²⁸ as: were brought upon Joseph’s knees. They obviously were not born on his knees. (yulledo) *upon Joseph’s knees* (Gen. 50:23). This interpretation is substantiated by *And he sent them away from Isaac his son* (v. 6).²⁹

footnotes:
²⁷ Baba Metziah
²⁸ I.E. renders yulledu
²⁹ He did not raise the sons of the concubines but he raised Isaac.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:20:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:20:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:20:1)

**מפדן.** שדה, וכן בלשון ישמעאל:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
OF PADDAN. *Paddan* means a field. It has the same meaning in Arabic.³⁰

footnotes:
³⁰ Similarly Rashi.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:20:2
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:20:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:20:2)

**אחות לבן.** הוא ידוע ונכבד מאביה, וכן אחות נחשון (שמות ו כג):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
THE SISTER OF LABAN. Laban is mentioned because he was better known and more revered than her father. *Elisheba…the sister of Nahshon* (Ex. 6:23), is similar.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:21:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:21:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:21:1)

**ויעתר.** מבנין הקל, כי "העתירו אל ה'" (שמות ח ד) מהכבד וטעמו שרצה ה' בדבריהם:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND ISAAC ENTREATED. *Va-yetar* (entreated) is in the *kal*. However, *hatiru* (entreat) in *Entreat the Lord* (Ex. 8:4) is in the *hifil*. Its meaning is that Isaac appeased³¹ with a *chirik* and reading the word *ritzah*, as in *Vat. Ebr*. 38. God with his prayers.³² as in *Vat. Ebr. 3*8, rather than *bi-divrehem* as in the printed texts. The latter reading is extremely difficult. It reads: *ratzah* (he wanted)…*bi-divrehem* (their words). Krinsky tries to justify this reading by maintaining that I.E. explains why entreat is here in the *kal* and in Ex. 8:4 in the *hifil*. It is here in the *kal* because God wanted their prayers. However, He really did not want to hear prayers on behalf of Pharaoh, hence the *hifil* form in Exodus. The latter being in the causative form implies that Moses burdened God with his prayers on behalf of Pharaoh. Krinsky also suggests that the text be read: he appeased God (vocalizing *ritzah* rather than *ratzah*) with their prayers, that is, with Isaac and Rebekah’s prayers. This is a bit forced. *Vat. Ebr.’s* reading is superior and has been followed.

footnotes:
³¹ Vocalizing the resh, tzadi, heh
³² Reading bi-devarim


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:21:2
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:21:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:21:2)

**ויעתר.** ויתרצה מבנין נפעל:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND THE LORD LET HIMSELF BE ENTREATED. *Va-ye’ater* means and He was appeased. It is a *nifal*.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:22:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:22:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:22:1)

**ויתרוצצו.** מלשון מרוצה והצדי"ק כפול, ואחיו "כברקים ירוצצו" (נחום ב ה), ונקראו בנים על שם סופם וכן "ובגדי ערומים תפשיט" (איוב כב ו), והיא שאלה לנשים שילדו אם ארע להם ככה, ותאמרנה לא:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND THE CHILDREN STRUGGLED TOGETHER. *Va-yitrotzatzu* (and they struggled) comes from the word that means running.³³. According to I.E., *And the children struggled…within her* is to be rendered: and the children ran within her, that is, moved quickly within her. The *tzadi* is doubled.³⁴ is conjugated in the *hitpa’el*. Its parallel is found in *They run to and fro* (yerotzetzu) *like the lightnings* (Nahum 2:5).³⁵ (run to and fro) is from the root *resh, vav, tzadi*. The *tzadi* is doubled in keeping with the rule that the last letter of an *ayin vav* is doubled when conjugated in the *pi’el*. The Bible refers to the fetuses as children³⁶ (children) always refers to born children. A fetus is not a child (Krinsky). because that is what they ultimately became.³⁷. *And stripped the naked of their clothing* (Job 22:6)³⁸ is similar. Rebekah asked women who had children if they had had a similar experience. They responded that they did not.

footnotes:
³³ The root of run is rash, vav, tzadi
³⁴ As is the rule when an ayin vav
³⁵ Yerotzetzu
³⁶ Banim
³⁷ The Hebrew reads: nekre’u banim al shem sofam
³⁸ One cannot strip the naked.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:22:2
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:22:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:22:2)

**וטעם ותאמר אם כן.** הדבר והמנהג, למה זה אנכי בהריון משונה:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
Rebekah then said, *if it*, namely, the manner and custom of pregnancy, *be so* as they said, *wherefore do I* undergo such an abnormal pregnancy.³⁹ (Wherefore do I live) literally reads: why, then, am I, which I.E. interprets to mean: why, then, am I undergoing an abnormal pregnancy. It should be noted that according to I.E., Rebekah’s questioning of the other women is not stated in the text but is implied by her saying, *im ken lammah zeh anokhi*.

footnotes:
³⁹ Lammah zeh anokhi


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:23:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:23:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:23:1)

**ויאמר ד' לה.** על ידי נביא, או אברהם בעצמו כי לא מת עד שהי' בניה בני ט"ו שנה:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND THE LORD SAID UNTO HER. Via a prophet, or through Abraham himself, for Abraham did not pass away until her sons were fifteen years of age.⁴⁰

footnotes:
⁴⁰ Abraham begot Isaac at the age of 100 (Gen. 21:5). Isaac was 60 when he begot Jacob and Esau. Abraham lived 175 years (Gen. 25:7). Thus Jacob and Esau were 15 when Abraham died.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:23:2
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:23:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:23:2)

**ורב.** הוא הפועל וכן "בן יכבד אב" (מלאכי א ו) ועוד אפרש זה הפסוק:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
THE ELDER. Elder is the subject.⁴¹, the indicator of the direct object, is missing in our verse. I.E. points out that even so, *elder* is the subject and *younger* the object, the meaning of our verse being the elder shall serve the younger. *Ve-rav ya’avod tza’ir* is the same as *ve-rav ya’avod et hatza’ir*. One can argue that since this verse is poetic it has placed the object first and the subject last and that its intention is to teach that the younger shall serve the elder, hence I.E.’s comment. *A son honoureth his father* (Mal. 1:6) is similar.⁴² is missing. However, it is obvious that it is the son who honors the father and not the reverse. We thus see that the Bible at times omits *et*. Nevertheless, the syntax of the sentence remains subject (son), object (father). Similarly in our verse the subject (elder) is stated first and the object (younger) afterward. I will explain our verse later.⁴³

footnotes:
⁴¹ Et
⁴² Here, too, et
⁴³ See I.E. on Gen. 27:40.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:24:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:24:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:24:1)

**תומים.** בחסרון אל"ף השרש, כמו "אם לא שריתך לטוב" (ירמי' טו יא), שפירושו נתתי שאריתך לטוב:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
TWINS. The root letter *alef* is missing in the word *tomim* (twins). *Tomim* in this regard is like the word *sheritikha* (release thee)⁴⁴ is usually spelled with an *alef*, which is missing in our verse. Thus *tomim* is like *sheritikha* in that the root *alef* is missing in both words. *Tomim* should have been written *te’omim* and *sheritikha, she’eritkha*. in *Verily I will release thee* (sheritikha) *for good* (Jer. 15:11), the meaning of which is: I will deal well with thy last years (*she’erit*).⁴⁵, will be happy years. Cf. Kimchi’s comment on this verse.

footnotes:
⁴⁴ This is the J.P.S. translation. I.E. renders it your remnant. She’erit
⁴⁵ Your last years, your she’erit


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:25:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:25:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:25:1)

**יו"ד אדמוני.** נוסף כיו"ד אכזרי,

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
[RUDDY.] The *yod* of *admoni* (ruddy) is superfluous. It is similar to the *yod* of *akhzari* (cruel).⁴⁶ and *akhzari* mean the same thing, cruel. Hence its *yod* is superfluous. Similarly *admoni* and *admon* mean the same thing and Scripture could have read *admon*.

footnotes:
⁴⁶ Akhzar


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:25:2
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:25:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:25:2)

ואין מלת כאדרת סמוכה רק טעמו כולו שער כאדרת, ועל דעת אחרים שהיא סמוכה:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
[LIKE A MANTLE.] *Ke-adderet* (like a mantle) is not in the construct with *se’ar* (hairy).⁴⁷ (all over like a hairy mantle) but as *kullo se’ar ke-adderet* (all over hairy; like a mantle). In other words, *kullo* (all over) refers to *se’ar* (hairy) even though the word *ke-adderet* (like a mantle) separates the two (Krinsky). The verse is to be read as follows: all over hairy, like a mantle. However, others say that *ke-adderet* is in the construct with *se’ar*.⁴⁸

footnotes:
⁴⁷ That is, the text is not to be interpreted as kullo ke-adderet se’ar
⁴⁸ In this case the verse reads: all over like a mantle of hair.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:25:3
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:25:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:25:3)

**ויקראו שמו.** רואיו, ויתכן שפירושו מעשה בפני עצמו, ופליאה גדולה היתה זאת הלידה בעבור שכל בן אדם יוצא בשליא שהיא מכסה עליו, והנה שתי השליות נפתחו רגע אחד:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND THEY CALLED HIS NAME. Those who saw him called him thus. The name Esau possibly connotes a unique occurrence (*ma’aseh*).⁴⁹, a participle meaning made, the idea being that Esau was born a complete man. Filwarg explains that Esau’s birth was a unique event (*ma’aseh*) in that unlike all other children he was born hairy. This birth was extremely wondrous. Every human being leaves the womb in a placenta which covers him.⁵⁰ However, in this instance the two placentas opened simultaneously.⁵¹

footnotes:
⁴⁹ Krinsky maintains that I.E., like Rashi, explains Esau to mean asui
⁵⁰ Thus Jacob and Esau were each in a separate placenta. The fact that Jacob and Esau’s individual placentas opened simultaneously made their birth exceptional.
⁵¹ This is obvious since Jacob was born grasping Esau’s heel.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:26:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:26:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:26:1)

**ויקרא שמו.** הקורא או יצחק אביו:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND HIS NAME WAS CALLED. Someone, or Isaac his father, called him Jacob.⁵²

footnotes:
⁵² Literally, he called his name. The subject (he) is not identified, hence, I.E.’s comment.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:27:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:27:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:27:1)

**יודע ציד,** לעולם מלא מרמות כי רוב החיות בדרך מרמה יתפשו, ויעקב הפך עשו כי הוא איש תם גם עשו איש שדה, ויעקב יושב אהלים, ויתכן להיות פירושו כמו "יושב אהל ומקנה" (בראשית ד' כ):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
A CUNNING HUNTER. Esau was constantly practicing deception, for most animals are trapped through trickery.⁵³ Jacob was his antithesis, because he was a man of integrity.⁵⁴ is translated by J.P.S. as *a quiet man*. However, according to I.E., as Jacob was the antithesis of Esau, the deceiver, the term *tam* should be rendered as honest, sound, as in *that man was whole-hearted* (tam) *and upright, and one that feared God* (Job 1:1). They also differed in that Esau was *a man of the field* and Jacob a man *dwelling in tents*. It is possible that the meaning of *dwelling in tents* is like *dwell in tents and have cattle* (Gen. 4:20).⁵⁵

footnotes:
⁵³ Scripture’s purpose in telling us at this point that Esau was a hunter is to inform us that Esau was a cunning and deceptive individual (Weiser).
⁵⁴ The Hebrew ish tam
⁵⁵ It does not meant that Jacob was a homebody, but that he was a keeper of herds and flocks. Jacob set up tents in order to be close to the flocks (Weiser).


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:28:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:28:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:28:1)

**כי ציד בפיו.** מביא ציד בפיו:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
BECAUSE HE DID EAT OF HIS VENISON. He brought him game to eat.⁵⁶, literally, because game in his mouth. I.E. points out that the word *me-vi* (brought) has to be inserted into the text. The verse should be read as if written: he brought game into his mouth; i.e., he brought him game to eat.

footnotes:
⁵⁶ The Hebrew reads: ki tzayid be-fiv


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:29:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:29:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:29:1)

**והוא עיף.** כטעם "בארץ עיפה" (ישעי, לב ב) רעב וצמא:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND HE WAS FAINT. *Ayef*⁵⁷ (faint) may imply faint from exertion or faint from lack of food or water. Here it means the latter (Krinsky). However, Weiser maintains that I.E. holds that *ayef* applies only to faintness due to lack of food and water. (faint) means hungry and thirsty, as in *be-eretz ayefah* (in a weary land) (Is. 32:2).⁵⁸ is a land lacking in food and water.

footnotes:
⁵⁷ The word ayef
⁵⁸ A weary land


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:30:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:30:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:30:1)

**הלעיטני.** אין לו חבר והטעם האכילני

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
LET ME SWALLOW. This is the only place in Scripture where the word, *haliteni* (let me swallow) is encountered.⁵⁹ Its meaning is *feed me*.

footnotes:
⁵⁹ Krinsky.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:30:2
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:30:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:30:2)

וטעם נזיר תבשיל רק ויזד מהשניים הנחים והם שני שרשים והפירוש אחר, וכן "לא ידון רוחי" (בראשית ו ג) עם "נדנה" (דה"א כא כז):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
*Nazid* (pottage) means a cooked dish. However, *va-yazed* (sod) is an *ayin vav*. They are two roots with one meaning.⁶⁰ is *nun, zayin, dalet*. The root of *va-yazid* is *zayin, vav, dalet*. Both relate to cooking. The meaning of *va-yazed ya’akov nazid* is: And Jacob cooked a cooked dish. *Yadon* (shall abide) in *My spirit shall not abide* (yadon) (Gen. 6:3) and *nedanah* (the sheath thereof) (I Chron. 21:27)⁶¹ are similar.

footnotes:
⁶⁰ The root of nazid
⁶¹ See I.E.’s comments on Gen. 6:3.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:31:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:31:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:31:1)

**מכרה.** בחירק כמו "שלחה הנער" (בראשית מג ח), "שכבה עמי" (בראשית לט ז), והבכורה שיקח פי שנים בממון אביו וי"א שיש לבכור לעולם מעלה על הצעיר לקום מפניו ולשרתו כבן לאב:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
SELL ME. *Mikhrah* (sell me) is vocalized with a *chirik*,⁶² (sell me) is an elongated imperative, the usual imperative of sell being *mekhor*. The rule in Hebrew grammar is that when a word in the *kal* follows the *efol*, vocalization of its elongated imperative is written with a *kamatz katan*, i.e., *zekhor* (remember) is elongated like *zokhrah* (Neh. 5:19), and *shemor* (keep) to *shomrah* (Ps. 25:20). Hence *mekhor* should become *mokhrah*. I.E. points out that even though *mekhor* follows the *efol* conjugation, it is elongated as an *efal*. In the latter, the elongated imperative is vocalized with a *chirik* (Cherez). like *shilchah* (send) in *Send* (shilchah) *the lad* (Gen. 43:8) and *shikhvah* (lie) in *Lie* (shikhvah) *with me* (Gen. 39:7.⁶³ and are thus vocalized with a *chirik* in the elongated imperative. The birthright refers to the double share of the father’s wealth which belongs to the first born.⁶⁴ Others maintain that the first born is always superior to his younger siblings in that they must rise before him and serve him as a son serves his father.⁶⁵

footnotes:
⁶² Mikhrah
⁶³ These words are conjugated in the efal
⁶⁴ Cf. Deut. 21:17.
⁶⁵ In other words Jacob did not buy the birthright because he wanted a double share but because the birthright had honorary significance. I.E. offers this interpretation either because he believes that Isaac was poor at this time and the double share was insignificant, or because the law of the double share of the first-born took effect only after the revelation at Sinai.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:32:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:32:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:32:1)

**וטעם הנה אנכי הולך למות.** שבכל יום ויום הוא מסתכן בעצמו כאשר יצא לצוד שמא יהרגוהו החיות ויתכן שימות קודם אביו:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
[BEHOLD, I AM AT THE POINT TO DIE.] He was daily exposed to danger when he went out hunting, as an animal might kill him. Thus there was a possibility that he would predecease his father.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:34:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:34:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/25:34:1)

**ויבז עשו.** גם זאת הבכורה בעבור שראה שאין לאביו עשר, ורבים יתמהו כי עזב לו אברהם ממון רב, וכאילו לא ראו בימיהם עשיר גדול בנעוריו ובא לידי עוני בזקוניו, והעד שהיה יצחק אביו אוהב את עשו בעבור צורכו, ואילו היה הלחם רב בבית אביו, והוא נכבד בעיניו לא מכר בכורתו בעבור נזיד, ואם היה אביו אוכל בכל יום מטעמים מה טעם אמר הביאה לי ציד, ולמה לא היה ליעקב בגדים חמודות. ולמה לא נתנה לו אמו כסף וזהב בדרך שהוא אומר ונתן לי לחם לאכול ובגד ללבוש, ולמה לא שלחה אליו הון והיא אוהבת אותו, כי הוצרך לשמור הצאן, והפסוק שאמר "ויגדל האיש" (בראשית כו יג) קודם זקנתו, ועורי לב יחשבו כי העושר מעלה גדולה לצדיקים, והנה אליהו יוכיח, ועוד ישאלו למה חסר השם ממון ליצחק, אולי יודיעונו למה חסר מאור עיניו, ואל ידחונו בקנה של דרש כי יש לו סוד, ואין לנו לחפש, כי עמקו מחשבות השם, ואין כח בדעת האדם להבינם וכן אחרים אמרו, הנה צאן יש לו, כי רבקה אמרה לו "לך נא אל הצאן" (בראשית כז ט) ויתכן שנשאר לו מקנה מעט, גם נכון הוא להיות פי' לך נא אל הצאן, אל מקום הצאן שהן נמכרות:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
SO ESAU DESPISED. Esau also despised the birthright⁶⁶ (also this birthright) to *gam baz et* (he also despised the birthright). The point is that in addition to selling the birthright because he was weary, he also despised the birthright because his father had no wealth to leave him (Weiser). because he saw that his father had no wealth. Many are amazed at this because Abraham left Isaac a vast amount of money?”⁶⁷ Have they never seen a man very rich in his youth and poor in his old age? Proof that Isaac was poor is the fact that he loved Esau because of his need.⁶⁸). The printed texts read: because of his need (*tzorko*). Had there been ample food in Isaac’s house and Esau the honorable one in his father’s sight,⁶⁹ he would not have sold his birthright for a dish of food. Furthermore, why did Isaac have to tell Esau, *Bring me venison* (Gen. 27:7), if he had savory meat at home for his daily meals? Additionally, why did Jacob not have choice garments ⁷⁰ and why didn’t Rebekah give Jacob gold and silver for his journey (when he fled to Haran), seeing that Jacob was so poor that he had to say, *“If God will…give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on”* (Gen. 28:20). Also, why did Rebekah, who loved him so much, not send him money in view of the fact that he was so impoverished that he had to tend Laban’s flock? As to the verse which states, *And the man waxed great…And he had possessions of flocks, and possessions of herds, and a great household* (Gen. 26:13, 14), it refers to the period prior to Isaac’s old age. Now, those who are intellectually blind think that wealth is a great distinction for the righteous. However, the prophet Elijah shows that the opposite is the case.⁷¹ They further ask, why did God withhold wealth from Isaac? Let them tell us why God withheld sight from Isaac’s eyes. Let them not put us off with a poor answer based upon a Midrashic homily,⁷² 15a) or as a result of the incense which Esau’s wives offered to the idols (*Tanchuma* 20:20). Additional Midrashic reasons for Isaac’s blindness are quoted by Krinsky in his comments on Gen. 27:1. for there is a secret meaning in the matter⁷³ and we must not probe into it, for the thoughts of God are deep and beyond the ken of man. Similarly others say, behold Isaac had sheep,⁷⁴ for Rebekah told Jacob, *Go now to the flock* (Gen. 27:9). However, it is possible that he had a few sheep remaining. It is also possible that *Go now to the flock* means go to the place where sheep are sold.

footnotes:
⁶⁶ The opening line of I.E. is difficult to comprehend. It literally reads: also this birthright because… Weiser, Filwarg, and Krinsky suggest that the text is corrupt. We have followed Filwarg’s reconstruction since it involves adding only one letter, viz., emending gam zot
⁶⁷ Gen. 24:34, 37.
⁶⁸ Cf. verse 28. The reading of Nachmanides is: because of his game (tzedo
⁶⁹ Cf. Is. 43:4.
⁷⁰ Gen. 27:15.
⁷¹ I Kings 17:6, where Elijah’s poverty is described.
⁷² The allusion is either to an aggada which ascribes Isaac’s blindness to a curse put on him by Abimelech (Megillah
⁷³ Either for Isaac’s blindness (Weiser, Krinsky) or to the Midrash (Filwarg).
⁷⁴ If Isaac had sheep then he was not poor. The contradicts I.E.’s assertion that Isaac was poor.