AND KEPT MY CHARGE. Mishmarti (my charge) is a general term for all that Abraham was obligated to observe from the commandments (mitzvot), statutes (chukkim) and laws (torot). It is possible that the commandments spoken of in our verse refer to Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred etc. (Gen. 12:1), and Take now thy son…even Isaac…and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains etc. (Gen. 22:2).¹ refers to Gen. 12:1 and Gen. 22:2, as these were commandments. Statutes pertain to Abraham’s emulating God’s ways and laws. It should be noted that I.E. explains chok to mean a logical law. This is in contradistinction to Rashi, who explains chukkim as irrational laws. I.E seems to imply that Abraham did not observe all the laws, statutes and commandments contained in the Torah. This is contrary to the Rabbinic sage Rav, who held that Abraham observed the entire Torah, as seen from the verse because that Abraham hearkened to My voice, and kept My charge etc. (Yoma 28b).

footnotes: ¹ I.E. explains that My commandments

The statutes spoken of in our text pertain to the works of God that a man should uphold. These statutes are based on logic.² I will elaborate on this term (chukkim) in my comments on the verse dealing with the prohibition of wearing a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together (Lev. 19:19). The torot (laws) mentioned in our verse relate to Abraham’s circumcision of himself, his children and his servants. I will fully explain the meaning of the terms torah and mitzvah in my comments on the verse and the law and the commandment (Ex. 24:12).

footnotes: ² The point is that Abraham, before the revelation on Mt. Sinai, was able to ascertain God’s statutes.

AND ISAAC DWELT IN GERAR. Isaac did as God had commanded him. ³ (v. 3).

footnotes: ³ Sojourn in this land

OF HIS WIFE. The word le-ishto (of his wife) should be rendered: about his wife.⁴ here means about. See I.E.’s comments on Gen. 20:13. Le-ishto might be rendered to his wife, hence I.E.’s comment. We find a similar meaning for this word in that men say not of me (li) (Jud. 9:54).⁵ means about. Thus li should be rendered about me, not to me.

footnotes: ⁴ The lamed ⁵ Here too the lamed

FOR HE FEARED. Yare (he feared) is a perfect,⁶ can also be a participle, hence I.E.’s comment. as is the word zaken (old) in And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old (zaken) (Gen. 27:1).⁷ can also be a participle. However, in this verse it cannot be so, for the verse opens with a perfect viz., va-yehi (and it came to pass). The words “because he said” have been omitted before lest the men of the place should kill me.⁸. According to I.E. this is an abridged verse and should be read as if written: for he feared to say my wife, “because he said” lest the men of this place, etc. We find this phrase similarly omitted in for God hath made me fruitful (Gen. 41:52).⁹

footnotes: ⁶ Yare ⁷ Zaken ⁸ The verse reads: for he feared to say ‘My wife:’ lest the men of the place should kill me ⁹ It should be read: “because he said” for God hath made me fruitful.

A HUNDREDFOLD. The word sha’ar means the same as the Rabbinic term shi’ur (estimate, reckon). The meaning of me’ah she’arim (a hundredfold) is that Isaac was blessed in that the earth produced one hundred times more than what he sowed was estimated to produce. The word she’arim comes from the same root as sha’ar in For as one that hath reckoned (sha’ar) within himself (Prov. 23:7).

AND GREW. Ve-gadel (and grew) is a perfect.¹⁰, the second time gadal. Hence I.E. points out that both are perfects and mean the same. I.E.’s comment is pertinent because gadel can also be a participle (Krinsky, Weiser).

footnotes: ¹⁰ The word grew is written twice in the second part of the sentence. The first time it is written gadel

AND A GREAT HOUSEHOLD. Isaac had man and maidservants to serve him. Avuddah (household) is an adjective.¹¹ is an adjective, with the noun which it is modifying missing. Scripture should have read: adamah avuddah, ground worked by man and maidservants (Cherez, Weiser). I.E. interprets thus because the form avuddah looks like an adjective. On the other hand, it may be a noun following the paradigm of segullah (treasure).¹², or kedushah, the point being we find nouns with this vocalization. Hence avuddah does not have to be an adjective. In this case the meaning of avuddah is simply servants, both male and female.

footnotes: ¹¹ The word avuddah ¹² A collective noun, following the paradigm of segullah

[WELLS.] When the word be’erot is in the construct it can be vocalized in one of two ways.¹³ (wells) in our verse is in the absolute. In such cases it is always vocalized sheva, tzere, cholam. However, when in the construct it can either be vocalized sheva, tzere, cholam, as in verse 18, or segol, chataf segol, cholam as in Gen. 14:10.

footnotes: ¹³ The word be’erot

LIVING WATER. Water that is always bursting forth.

ESEK. This word is not encountered elsewhere in Scripture. However, its meaning can be ascertained from Rabbinic literature.¹⁴ in the Talmud means strife, cf. Bereshit Rabbah 8:5. It should be noted that in Rabbinic literature esek is spelled with a samech, in our verse with a sin.

footnotes: ¹⁴ The word esek

DIGGED. Va-yikhru means digged. Kariti, in in my grave which I have digged (kariti) for me (Gen. 50:5); yikhreh in or if a man shall dig (yikhreh) a pit (Ex. 21:33); and koreh, in whoso diggeth (koreh) a pit shall fall therein (Prov. 26:27), are similar.¹⁵ and mean to dig.

footnotes: ¹⁵ They all come from the root caf, resh, heh

BETWIXT US. Our verse contains two synonymous plurals in succession.¹⁶ (betwixt us) benenu u-vennekha (even betwixt us and thee). I.E. points out that benotenu and benenu are both plurals from the same root and mean the same. However, they belong to different paradigms. These two forms were employed by Scripture to avoid redundancy (Weiser). According to Filwarg what I.E. is saying is that one of these phrases could have been left out since they mean the same; i.e., benotenu (betwixt us) means the same as benenu u-venekha (even betwixt us and thee) Scripture repeated itself for emphasis.

footnotes: ¹⁶ Our verse reads: Let there be an oath benotenu

BEER-SHEBA. There were two reasons why the city was so called.¹⁷. Scripture then adds, Wherefore that place was called Beer-Sheba because there they swore both of them. However, here we are told that Beersheba was so called because of the oath (shevu’ah) taken by Isaac and Abimelech (cf. Rashi). I.E. points out that Beersheba was so called because of the oaths taken by Abraham and Isaac. Or possibly the two reasons for the name are: Abraham’s setting aside the seven (shevah) lambs and his oath (shevu’ah). Isaac merely repeated Abraham’s oath (Weiser). Or Abraham called the place Beersheba because of the setting aside of the seven lambs and Isaac called it thus because of the oath (Cherez). On the other hand, it is possible that this Beersheba is not to be identified with the Beersheba previously mentioned (Gen. 21:28-31).¹⁸

footnotes: ¹⁷ In Gen. 21:30 Abraham tells Abimelech, Verily, these seven ewe-lambs shalt thou take of my hand, that it may be a witness unto me, that I have digged this well ¹⁸ This would explain the two accounts for the name Beersheba in Scripture. According to this interpretation the two reasons given for Beersheba are the two oaths, viz., Abraham’s and Isaac’s. Each took place in a different city.

JUDITH. Judith is a proper name.¹⁹ (Judith) can be taken to be an adjective, viz., Yehudi, hence I.E.’s comment (Krinsky). She did not bear Esau any children.²⁰

footnotes: ¹⁹ Yehudit ²⁰ In chapter 36 Scripture lists Esau’s wives and children. Judith is not mentioned. I.E. explains that this is due to the fact that Judith did not bear any children.

BASEMATH. Basemath is to be identified with Adah.²¹. However, in Gen. 36:2 we read, Adah, the daughter of Elon, the Hittite. I.E. explains the discrepancy by saying that she had two names. She had two names. There are hundreds of similar instances in Scripture.²²

footnotes: ²¹ In our verse we read, Basemath, the daughter of Elon, the Hittite ²² See I.E.’s comments on Gen. 13:7 and 15:19.

A BITTERNESS OF SPIRIT. Each one of Esau’s wives²³ is in the plural; morat is a singular. Scripture should have used the plural morot. Hence I.E.’s comment. was a morat ru’ach (bitterness of spirit) to Isaac and Rebekah. Some say that morat (bitterness) is similar to the word moreh (rebellious) in If a man have a stubborn and rebellious (moreh) son (Deut. 21:18).²⁴) against the wishes of (ru’ach) Isaac and Rebekah. However, I believe that morat comes from the same root as marah (bitter) in bitter (marah) as wormwood (Prov. 5:4).²⁵ is not a verb meaning rebellious but a noun meaning bitter. The meaning of morat ru’ach is: they were a bitterness of the spirit; i.e., Isaac and Rebekah were displeased with having Canaanite daughters-in-law. In this case one does not have to interpret morat ru’ach as each one was a morat ru’ach, because it can be interpreted as both were a bitterness of spirit. Thus there is no problem with And they were being in the plural and morat ru’ach in the singular (Krinsky). Indeed, it is explicitly written, and Esau saw that the daughters of Canaan pleased not²⁶ Isaac, his father (Gen. 28:8). The account of Esau’s wives was recorded so that the Israelites would keep themselves from taking Canaanite women.

footnotes: ²³ And they were ²⁴ According to this interpretation the verse reads: and each one of them was rebellious (morat ²⁵ According to this interpretation morat ²⁶ The Hebrew literally reads: were evil in the eyes of Isaac his father; that is, Isaac did not like them. In other words, they were a bitterness of spirit to him because they were Canaanites, not because they rebelled against him.