HIS SONS. His grandsons, the sons of his daughters.¹ must refer to his grandsons.

footnotes: ¹ Laban was not bidding his sons adieu; hence his sons

AND THE ANGELS OF GOD MET HIM. To assist him on the way. Only Jacob saw the camp²; i.e., only Jacob saw them (Krinsky). of angels surrounding his camp. He called the name of the place Mahanaim (two camps), because of the two camps there, his and the angels’.

footnotes: ² Scripture says he saw them

AND JACOB SENT. This verse teaches us that the land of Edom lies between Haran and the land of Israel. This disproves Saadiah Gaon’s contention that Sinai, Seir and Paran are next to each other.³ [MESSENGERS.] From among his servants.⁴ 75:3 and Rashi who interpret malakhim to mean angels rather than human messengers.

footnotes: ³ Since Jacob was on the way to the land of Israel from Haran, why did he send messengers to Edom? We must assume that Edom is between Syria (Haran) and Israel, and Jacob thus had to reconcile his brother before he passed through his territory. This disproves Saadiah’s contention that Seir (Edom) is near Sinai, for Sinai is located southwest of Israel while Haran lies northeast of the land of Israel. The problem with I.E.’s note is that Edom was located southeast of Israel, while Haran, as just noted, lies northeast. This is another example of I.E.’s lack of knowledge concerning the geography of the Holy Land and its environs. ⁴ I.E. takes issue with the Midrash Bereshit Rabbah

THUS SHALL YE SAY UNTO MY LORD. Jacob used this language so that it would be clear to them that Esau was his lord and they should address him as a servant addresses his master.

AND STAYED UNTIL NOW. The alef of echar (and stayed) is a first person imperfect prefix. It is vocalized with a tzere to make up for the missing alef of the root.⁵ is alef, chet, resh. In the first person imperfect an alef vocalized with a segol is prefixed to the root. Our word thus should have been written e’echar (two alefs respectively vocalized with a segol and a chataf segol). However, it is written echar and has only one alef and is vocalized with a tzere. I.E. points out that this alef is not a root letter. It is a first person imperfect prefix vocalized with a tzere rather than a segol to make up for the missing root letter. Ehav (I love) in I love them (ehav) that love me (Prov. 8:17) is similar.⁶ (love) is alef, heh, bet. Thus the first person imperfect should be e’ehav. However, the verse has ehav, one alef vocalized with a tzere. See above note. The alef of the root is dropped because it is extremely difficult to pronounce two alefs back to back. Echar is a kal.

footnotes: ⁵ The root of echar ⁶ The root of ahav

OXEN AND ASSES. These are nouns referring to the respective species.⁷

footnotes: ⁷ The Hebrew has an ox and an ass, hence I.E.’s comment.

AND I HAVE SENT TO TELL MY LORD. That I wish to do whatever he commands me.⁸, we must insert: that I wish to do whatever he commands me. This is the meaning of that I may find favor in thy sight⁹ becomes clear.

footnotes: ⁸ The verse does not say what they were to tell Esau. I.E. points out that following to tell my Lord ⁹ Once we insert that I wish to do, etc., in the text, the meaning of so that I may find favor in thy sight

AND MOREOVER HE COMETH TO MEET THEE. He was told that you are coming.

AND WAS DISTRESSED. This thing distressed him.¹⁰ Va-yetzer (and he was distressed) is in the hifil.¹¹ is a hifil the word does not mean and he was distressed, but rather, it distressed him. Hence I.E. comments “this thing distressed him”; i.e., his brother’s coming distressed him. Others maintain that va-yetzer is a nifal meaning and he was distressed. Filwarg asks, “If va-yetzer is a hifil why isn’t it vocalized va-yatzer as is the rule with a double root (tzadi, resh, resh is the root of va-yetzer) in the hifil?” He suggests that va-yetzer is irregular. Weiser suggests that perhaps I.E.’s text of the Bible was vocalized va-yatzer. For a discussion of the problems concerning this comment of I.E., see Filwarg, Weiser and Cherez. It is similar to ve-hetzar¹². (and he shall besiege) in and he shall besiege (ve-hetzar) thee (Deut. 28:52).

footnotes: ¹⁰ According to Filwarg. Others interpret slightly differently. ¹¹ Since va-yetzer ¹² Which is in the hifil

AND HE DIVIDED. The yad of va-yachatz (and he divided) is vocalized with a pattach because it precedes a guttural. ¹³ is chet, tzadi, heh. Va-yachatz is an abridged kal imperfect with a conversive vav. In such cases the yod is vocalized with a chirik. Compare, ve-yifen and va-yiven. Hence I.E.’s comment. Compare, (va-ya’al) in And Moses went up (va-ya’al moshe) (Ex. 19:20).¹⁴ vocalized with a pattach rather than a chirik. The reason is also that it precedes a guttural (the ayin). The root of va-ya’al is ayin, lamed, heh.

footnotes: ¹³ The root of va-yachatz ¹⁴ Here, too, we have an abridged imperfect with the yod

CAMP. The word for camp (machaneh) can be either masculine or feminine¹⁵ (one camp) is feminine. However, the suffix of ve-hikkahu (smite it) is masculine, as is machanah ha-nishar (the camp which is left). like the word for house (bayit) and place (makom).

footnotes: ¹⁵ I.E. makes the point because the word is found in both the masculine and the feminine in our verse. Machaneh ha-achat

THEN THE CAMP WHICH IS LEFT SHALL ESCAPE. Perhaps¹⁶ of ve-hayah does not indicate certainty, for how could Jacob be certain one camp would escape? Its meaning is perhaps. Thus rather than translating our verse: then the camp which is left shall escape, it should he rendered: perhaps the camp that is left shall escape. the camp that is left shall flee, or perhaps my brother’s anger shall be assuaged after smiting one of the camps, or perhaps God will send them relief and deliverance. If the Arameans be too strong for me, then thou shalt save me (II Sam. 10:11) is similar.¹⁷ (II Sam. 10:11) does not mean, then thou shalt save me. Rabbi Solomon’s¹⁸ comment, to the effect that then the camp that is left shall escape means that the camp will be saved despite Esau’s intention, is Midrashic.¹⁹ as indicating certainty, then (ve-hayah) the camp that is left shall escape, i.e., despite Esau’s will, it shall be saved. I.E. claims that this is not the literal meaning of the verse (Cherez). Although God promised Jacob, And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth (Gen. 28:14),²⁰ Jacob did not know whether it referred to the children he now had, or to children he would have in the future.²¹ A prophet does not know hidden things unless God reveals them to him.²² Jacob was alive when Joseph was sold into slavery and yet was unaware of it.²³ Similarly Elisha said, and the Lord hath hid it from me (II Kings 4:27). The above also answers those who ask, why was Jacob afraid considering that God promised that he would protect him, viz., God’s assurance, and I will be with thee (Gen. 31:3)? The latter is also the promise referred to by Jacob when he said, And thou saidest I will surely do thee good (v. 13).²⁴. Hence when Jacob said, And Thou saidest: I will surely do thee good, he was restating, and I will be with thee. Jacob was afraid because of the possibility that he alone would escape. Furthermore, we know that the personality of the individual is taken into account when his sins are considered, be they major or minor transgressions. Therefore, a minor sin committed by a great personality is considered a major transgression. Jacob was afraid that he may have sinned or inadvertently transgressed in his mind and as a result of this God no longer would be with him. Do not be amazed at what I write, for behold, Moses the greatest of men, whom God himself sent to bring Israel out of Egypt erred and God sent an angel to kill him.²⁵

footnotes: ¹⁶ The point is that the vav ¹⁷ Here, too, there was no certainty. What Joab said was, if the Arameans be too strong for me perhaps you will be able to save me. Thus ve-hayita li li-shu’ah ¹⁸ Rashi. ¹⁹ Rashi apparently interpreted ve-hayah ²⁰ This verse indicates that Jacob’s children would not be destroyed. I.E. now argues that one cannot substantiate Rashi’s interpretation that Jacob was certain, on the basis of God’s promise to him in Gen. 28:14, that at least one of his camps would escape (Cherez). ²¹ How could Jacob be sure that one camp would escape, since the promise may not have applied to the children he now had (Cherez). ²² The fact that Jacob was a prophet does not mean that he knew that God’s promise recorded in Gen 28:14 applied to his present children. ²³ He thought Joseph was dead and was unaware that he had been sold into slavery. ²⁴ We do not find God saying, I will surely do thee good ²⁵ Moses erred in not immediately circumcising his son. As a result God sent an angel to kill him (Ex. 4:24-26). God acted in this manner because a minor sin committed by a man of Moses’ stature was considered by the Almighty to be a major transgression. Similarly Jacob was afraid that he might have committed a minor sin resulting in God’s removal of His divine protection, hence his anxiety.

I AM NOT WORTHY. Katonti (I am not worthy) is vocalized like yakholti (I have prevailed) in gam yakholti (Gen. 30:8).²⁶ in the perfect is usually vocalized with a pattach beneath the middle root letter. However, katonti and yacholti are vocalized with a cholam. The meaning of our verse is: I am insignificant and of little worth for you to have done all these merciful deeds for me.²⁷ 76:4: Katonti. Rabbi Abba says, “This means I am not worthy.” I have already explained the meaning of mercy and truth.²⁸

footnotes: ²⁶ A kal ²⁷ The verse literally reads: I am small. I.E. interprets this to mean I am insignificant. Cf. Bereshit Rabbah ²⁸ Cf. I.E.’s comments on Gen. 24:49.

AND SMITE ME. And smite me applies to two phrases.²⁹ is in the singular and prima facie refers only to Jacob. Thus nothing is stated about what Esau will do to the mother and the children. It is similar to And Saul’s son had two men that were captains of bands (II Sam. 4:2).³⁰ Our verse should be read as follows: and smite me and smite the mother and the children.

footnotes: ²⁹ Ve-hekkani ³⁰ The Hebrew literally reads: And two men, captains of bands were son of Saul. I.E. says that captains of should be read as if written twice, i.e., And two men, captains of bands, were captains of Saul’s son. Cf. Kimchi’s comment on this verse.

TWO HUNDRED SHE-GOATS. Jacob sent ten females for every male of the flock,³¹ four bulls for each cow, and two she-asses for every foal. He did this because he knew their nature.³²

footnotes: ³¹ Ten she-goats for every he-goat and 10 ewes for each ram. ³² He sent as many males as were needed to service the females.

AND PUT A SPACE. The word revach means a space. Harevachah (respite) in That there was respite (harevachah) (Ex. 8:11) is close in meaning to it. The meaning of the latter is, there was a separation between one plague and the other. It is similar to ve-ravach (found relief) in so Saul found relief (ve-ravach le-sha’ul) (I Sam. 16:23).³³ can refer to physical space, or space in time, to relief.

footnotes: ³³ Saul had space. Figuratively speaking, he went out of his straits to an open space. Thus the root resh, vav, chet

AND ASKETH THEE SAYING. U-she’elekha³⁴ in the third person has the suffix kha added to it, the second root letter is usually vocalized with a kamatz, hence I.E.’s comment. (and asketh thee) is vocalized the same as ahevekha (he loveth thee).³⁵ rather than with a kamatz beneath the second root letter (the heh).

footnotes: ³⁴ when a kal ³⁵ Deut. 15:16. It, too, is vocalized with a tzere

AND ALL THAT FOLLOWED. Scripture says this because there were five groups.³⁶ what to tell Esau because there were five groups and each group was instructed what to say.

footnotes: ³⁶ Goats, sheep, camels, cattle and asses. Scripture notes that Jacob commanded the foremost, the second and the third group, and all that followed

WHEN YE FIND HIM. The tzadi of be-motza’akhem (when ye find) is vocalized with a pattach because it precedes a guttural.³⁷, as in be-shovbekha (Deut. 6:7) or tofsekhem (Josh. 8:8). However, in our case rather than being vocalized with a sheva, the second root letter is vocalized with a pattach. We thus read, motza’akhem rather than motzakhem. I.E. explains that this is so because the tsadi precedes a guttural (the alef) (Cherez). This is so even though we do not find another example of this in the Bible.³⁸. Compare, shomakhem (Deut. 5:20), where the mem is vocalized with a sheva even though it precedes an ayin, a guttural (Cherez). Thus I.E. notes that while his explanation is correct with regard to our word it does not hold for similar words in Scripture.

footnotes: ³⁷ When an infinitive is combined with a pronominal suffix, the second root letter is vocalized with a sheva ³⁸ In all other similar cases, i.e., even preceding a guttural, the second root letter is vocalized with a sheva

FOR HE SAID. He said in his heart.³⁹ These are the words of Moses.⁴⁰

footnotes: ³⁹ Jacob thought this. He did not instruct his messengers to say this to Esau, as one might gather from the verse. ⁴⁰ Moses in writing the Torah explained what motivated Jacob to send these gifts to Esau.

[I WILL APPEASE HIM.] Akhapperah (I will appease him) means I will cover or hide.⁴¹ is caf, peh, resh, which means to cover. Panav (him)⁴² usually means face or countenance. Here it means anger. Jacob said, “I will cover his anger”; i.e., I will appease him. Weiser suggests that since anger is expressed in the face, face is, by extension, occasionally used as a synonym for anger. means his anger. Peneha (her countenance) in and her countenance (u-faneha) was no more sad⁴³ (I Sam. 1:18) is similar.

footnotes: ⁴¹ The root of akhapperah ⁴² Panav ⁴³ According to I.E. this should be rendered: her anger was no more, i.e., she was pacified.

AND PASSED OVER THE FORD OF THE JABBOK. Jacob passed over first.⁴⁴ (v. 23). And he took them, and sent them over the stream (v. 24). This is difficult to understand. Why interrupt the sequence of the narrative with and (he) passed over the ford Jabbok? Furthermore, if Jacob passed over the ford by himself, how could he take his wives and children over? Hence I.E. interprets that Scripture tells us that Jacob took his wives and children over but prior to this he had gone over himself (to see if it was safe for the others to pass-Nachmanides). Scripture then resumes the narrative by relating, And he took them and sent them over the stream, and sent over that which he had (Cherez). He then returned and took his wives and children and brought them over the ford. Thus the meaning of and passed over is and he had already passed over. He then went back for a final look to see if anything was forgotten.⁴⁵

footnotes: ⁴⁴ Scripture reads: And he rose up that night and took his two wives, and his two handmaids, and his eleven children, and (he) passed over the ford Jabbok ⁴⁵ After taking his family across the river Jacob went back for a final look. Hence he was left alone.

AND THERE WRESTLED A MAN. Va-ye’avek (and there wrestled) comes from the same root as avak (dust). They struggled so that dust arose between them.

UNTIL THE BREAKING OF THE DAY. Ad alot ha-shachar (until the breaking of the day) means until the darkness of the night went away.⁴⁶ (breaking) to mean go up, i.e., to depart, and shacher (dawn) to mean darkness, for this is what the root of shachar means. Others say that shachar (dawn) refers to the image of light that appears in the clouds before sunrise.⁴⁷ means dawn and alot the rising. Alot ha-shachar thus means the breaking of dawn. Shacher (light) in wherein there is no light (shacher) (Is. 8:20) is similar.

footnotes: ⁴⁶ I.E. interprets alot ⁴⁷ According to this interpretation shachar

THAT HE PREVAILED NOT AGAINST HIM. The angel against Jacob.

HE TOUCHED THE HOLLOW OF HIS THIGH. Jacob’s thigh.

WAS STRAINED. Va-teka (was strained) is similar to teka (be moved)⁴⁸ and means was moved (Cherez, Weiser). J.P.S. renders it as alienated. in Lest My soul be moved (teka) from thee (Jer. 6:8). The hollow of Jacob’s thigh moved out of its place.

footnotes: ⁴⁸ It comes from the root yod, kof, ayin

THE SINEW OF THE THIGH-VEIN. The meaning of the term gid ha-nasheh (the sinew of the thigh-vein) is known from the tradition received and transmitted to us by the Talmudic sages.⁴⁹ 91a. The rabbis interpret gid na-nasheh to mean the sinew that slipped from its place. No one but those lacking in understanding and knowledge of nature have any doubt as to its definition. The latter interpret gid (sinew) to refer to the penis and hold that nassheh (thigh-vein) comes from the same root as nashim (women).⁵⁰ as follows: Therefore the children of Israel do not engage (eat) in abnormal intercourse with women (gid ha-nasheh). According to Krinsky it is this interpretation which I.E. negates. Note, the angel that appeared to Jacob was corporeal.⁵¹. 38. It reads, ve-da (note). The printed text reads, la-da’at (to know). This will be explained to you, if God will enlighten you, in the chapter that begins, for My name is in him (Ex. 23:21).

footnotes: ⁴⁹ Chullin ⁵⁰ There was an anti-Rabbinic interpretation that explained the prohibition against eating the gid ha-nashah ⁵¹ This translation follows Vat. Ebr