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

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

GIFTS. He gave them money.⁶

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

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

[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).

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

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.

AND BY THEIR ENCAMPMENTS. Tirotam (encampments) means palaces. Compare, a turret of silver (tirat kasef) (Cant. 8:9).

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

OVER AGAINST ALL HIS BRETHREN. Zimram and Jokshan.²¹

footnotes: ²¹ Verse 2.

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.

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 born²⁸ 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.

OF PADDAN. Paddan means a field. It has the same meaning in Arabic.³⁰

footnotes: ³⁰ Similarly Rashi.

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.

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. 38, 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

AND THE LORD LET HIMSELF BE ENTREATED. Va-ye’ater means and He was appeased. It is a nifal.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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).

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

AND HE WAS FAINT. Ayef⁵⁷ (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

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.