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

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.

[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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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<i

footnotes: ³⁹ According to this interpretation Abimelech’s statement concludes with: and before all men Abraham is your covering of the eyes. ⁴⁰ It comes from the root nun, caf, chet

AND THEY BORE CHILDREN. That is, Abimelech’s wife and maidservants. It does not refer to Abimelech.⁴². As to how and they bore children can apply to Abimemech, see note 48. The following are similar: and shed the blood of war in peace (I Kings 2:5);⁴³ refers only to Abner, not to Amasa, although both are mentioned in the verse. He spoke unto them in the pillar of cloud (Ps. 99:7);⁴⁴ These are the sons of Adah (Gen. 36:12);⁴⁵ refers only to Eliphaz and his descendants. It does not refer to Reuel or Amalek. The former was the son of Basemath and the latter the son of Timna. This is so even though both Eliphaz and Reuel are mentioned prior to These are the sons of Adah, Esau’s wife (Weiser). for whom I have served thee (Gen. 30:26),⁴⁶ and the father of Abraham, and the father of Nahor; and they served other gods (Josh. 24:2).⁴⁷ refers to Tereh and Nahor, not to Abraham, even though all are mentioned in the verse (Weiser). That and they bore children does not apply to Abimelech is obvious from the fact that Abimelech per se is omitted from the verse which follows, For the Lord had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah Abraham’s wife (v. 18). I dwell on this point because there are commentators who insist that Abimelech’s bowels were closed up and he could not eliminate.⁴⁸.”

footnotes: ⁴² Scripture says: and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maid-servants, and they bore children ⁴³ In peace ⁴⁴ This refers only to Moses and Aaron but not to Samuel even though all three are mentioned in the previous verse. ⁴⁵ These are the sons of Adah ⁴⁶ This refers to Jacob’s wives not his children. This is so even though both are mentioned in Gen. 30:26. ⁴⁷ And they served other gods ⁴⁸ See also Rashi who says, “Their bowels were opened and they eliminated. This is what Scripture means by and they bore

However, the presence of the phrase all the wombs (v. 18) clearly refutes their interpretation. The term va-yeledu (and they bore children) is used when referring to women even though it is a masculine form. Compare, va-yechemu ha-tzon (and the flocks conceived) (Gen. 30:39).⁴⁹, rather than va-yechemu ha-tzon. In the same manner Scripture says, va-yeledu (and they bore), which is a masculine form, rather than va-teladnah, which is a feminine form.

footnotes: ⁴⁹ Since it is the females who conceived, Scripture should have read, va-techamnah ha-tzon