“And Abraham was old, advanced in days.” Many commentators were puzzled, as it was already stated previously And Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in days, and there were approximately thirty-seven years between these two time periods. In Genesis Rabbah (48:16), it concludes that the Holy One, Blessed be He, restored both of them to their youth, and while this explanation is sufficient, it lacks support from the biblical text. Some say that the word “ba’im” [coming/advancing] indicates that specific time, because it should have said “ba’u” [came/advanced, past tense]. Rather, “ba’im” implies that at that time they were continuously coming and going in days, but here it says ba [came/advanced, singular], which implies that he had already come into his days, and this is a correct grammatical observation.

According to the simple interpretation, we can say that two are better than one, and a threefold cord is not quickly broken. This is because a good wife adds life to her husband, as it is said See life with the wife (Ecclesiastes 9:9), and a good son also adds life to his father, for anyone who raises a righteous son is as if he has not died, all the more so while still alive. Therefore, from Isaac’s birth until Sarah’s death, there was a threefold cord, as Abraham received additional vitality both from his wife and from his son Isaac. During all these days, he remained in one steady state without experiencing the typical weakness of the elderly, for these were days of joy and blessing for him. However, before Isaac’s birth, he only had joy from his wife, and after Sarah’s death, he only had joy from his son. Therefore, these two periods were equivalent — just as it was [before] Isaac’s birth, so it became after Sarah’s death. This is why the same expression is used for these two time periods, even though there was a great distance between them. Therefore, he immediately sought to find a wife for Isaac, thinking perhaps his wife would fill Sarah’s place and he would be happy with her just as with his own wife. And so it was — before Sarah’s sun had set, Rebecca’s sun rose, and she became exactly like Sarah, as Rashi explains regarding the verse and he brought her into Sarah his mother’s tent — that she became like his mother, etc. This provides a proper connection between this verse and Isaac’s marriage.

Regarding what is written “came into days [ba bayamim],” for apparently it should have said “went out from the days [yatza min hayamim].” However, this is because it is characteristic of the wicked that their days of youth are for them days of light and a bright day, as these are good for them for their physical pleasures, as this is their entire purpose. And the days of old age are for them like night and not day, for the world becomes dark for them since they can no longer taste the honey at the edge of the staff. Therefore, the earlier days are better for them than these [later days], as if they are exiting from days into nights. But for the righteous, the approach is reversed — they come from nights into days, for the days of old age are better for them for acquiring wisdom. This follows what is said: Do not say, “Why were the earlier days better than these?” For it is not from wisdom that you ask about this (Ecclesiastes 7:10). For one who says this does not value wisdom, therefore regarding the righteous it says “came into days” in their old age.

And there are those who say, the reason why [the Torah] mentioned advanced in days was to indicate that old age did not befall him due to suffering, but rather because he had naturally advanced in days, for God had blessed him in everything and he had no suffering. And we can say that this is why he called Eliezer the “elder of his household” — because he was elderly due to the responsibilities of the household being placed upon him. And the verse informs us that because Abraham was elderly, he did not have the strength to go himself, and he also did not want to send Isaac because he said “perhaps he will die suddenly, and who will place his hand upon my eyes [in death].”

“The one who ruled over all that he had.” Since he saw him as trustworthy in his entire household, therefore he trusted that he would not take bribes and arrange a marriage for his son with an unsuitable woman. For why would he take what is not appropriate for him when he ruled over all that he had? We can say that the word lo [to him] refers back to Eliezer, because anyone who is obsessed with the desire for wealth — his money rules over him in whatever direction it wishes to pull him, but he has no control over his money at all. As it is written, a man to whom God gives wealth, honor, and possessions… but God does not allow him to enjoy them (Ecclesiastes 6:2). The verse should have said “a man to whom God gave” [past tense] rather than gives [future tense]. This is because the verse speaks of someone who is never satisfied with his portion and constantly anticipates that God will give him more beyond what he already has, as he never has enough. This is the man whom God does not allow to enjoy his wealth, because he views his own possessions with a bad eye. However, earlier in the text it states, also every person to whom God gave wealth and possessions and enabled him to enjoy them… this is a gift from God (Ecclesiastes 5:18). Here it uses gave in the past tense — this refers to one who is content and happy with his portion. This is the man who rules and has dominion over all that he has. Such a person will certainly not take what is not appropriate for him, and it was for this reason that Abraham trusted Eliezer, for he knew that Eliezer ruled over all that he had, and his wealth did not rule over him. Therefore, money would not compel him to do what was inappropriate and improper. This is a precious interpretation.

Place your hand under my thigh. He made him swear by the circumcision, because through circumcision a person becomes guarded against sexual immorality. Therefore he said, Do not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, for sexual licentiousness was an inheritance among them from Ham, the father of Canaan. For there are those who say that Ham sexually violated Noah (Sanhedrin 70a). Therefore, it is not fitting for one who is circumcised to join with those who are sexually licentious, because through circumcision God blessed Abraham, and through Ham’s violation of Noah, he received the curse of Canaan. And that which is blessed cannot cleave to that which is cursed.

And regarding what was said, And I will make you swear by the Lord, God of heaven and God of earth — according to what our Sages said (Nedarim 31a), “Great is circumcision, for if not for circumcision, heaven and earth would not continue to exist,” as it is said If not for My covenant day and night, I would not have set the laws of heaven and earth (Jeremiah 33:25). Therefore, he mentioned God of heaven and earth in the oath regarding circumcision. The reason for this is because circumcision completes the name of Shaddai, and it was with this name that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said “Dai” [enough] to His world when the heavens and earth were continuing to expand and stretch, as is found in the chapter Ein Dorshin (Chagigah 12a). This explains what they said that “heaven and earth would not continue to exist” — meaning that after they were created, they could not have continued to exist. And the verse says I would not have set, which implies from the outset. Rather, this refers to the laws of heaven and earth, to the boundary set for them not to expand infinitely, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, rebuked them with the name Shaddai, for with it He said “Dai” [enough] to His world. If not for this, they could not have continued to exist if they had expanded infinitely, and all this comes from circumcision which completes this name. However, when He took me from my father’s house — this was before the circumcision — He was only God of heaven, because the name Shaddai had not yet extended to the lower realms. And some say that the Holy One, Blessed be He, is called “God of the earth” specifically in the Land of Israel, for one who lives outside the Land [is considered as if they have no God] (Ketubot 110b), as it is said They do not know the law of the God of the land (Second Kings 17:26). Therefore, regarding outside the Land of Israel, he said Lord God of heaven who took me from my father’s house, but here, while standing in the Land of Israel, he said by the Lord, God of heaven and God of earth.

“Do not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites among whom I dwell.” Did we not already know that he was dwelling among them? Rather, this comes to resolve a difficulty: Presumably, he commanded not to intermarry with the Canaanite daughters lest he learn from their ways, as it is stated in the Torah You shall not intermarry with them… for they will turn your son away from following Me (Deuteronomy 7:3). If so, what would be gained by taking a wife from the daughters of Laban and Bethuel, since they too were idol worshippers like the Canaanites? Therefore, he emphasized among whom I dwell and said lest you return my son there. For he reasoned: Obviously, if my son marries a Canaanite woman, since I dwell among them, presumably my son will also live near them, and then there is concern that he might learn from their ways. And if he marries from the daughters of Laban and Bethuel and lives near them, there is also concern that he might learn from their ways. However, if he takes a wife from there but lives here, then from either perspective there is no concern: He won’t learn from Laban and Bethuel since he won’t live near them, and he won’t learn from the Canaanites because he won’t have interactions with them. On the contrary, they will hate him because he refused to intermarry with them. However, there is another concern, which is that the nature of the parents is passed on to the children. This applies specifically to those sins that come from the physical aspect of human nature, such as gluttony, sexual impropriety, stinginess, jealousy, and all negative character traits that are connected to the physical being. These flaws spread from parents to children, and their offspring are similar to them. But idol worship, which depends on a person’s intellect, does not spread from parents to children. For there are three partners in the creation of a person: The physical body comes from the father and mother, therefore all parental actions connected to the physical are inherited by children. But faith depends on a person’s intellect, and since the Holy One, Blessed be He, gives the soul and intellect, why should this spread from parents to children? Therefore, he distanced himself from the Canaanites who were steeped in sexual impropriety and many types of sins connected to the physical nature of humans apart from idol worship, but did not distance himself from Laban and Bethuel who only had the deficiency of idol worship alone.

Another explanation: This is why he said among whom I dwell — meaning, I dwell in the inner chambers of their hearts, and I [can see] all their deeds and thoughts before Me. For perhaps you might judge by what your eyes see, as there are among them hypocrites who act like Zimri but seek the reward like Pinchas, and you might think they are proper and worthy to marry into. Therefore, he said that through my prophetic vision with the holy spirit that is upon Me, I see that there is not even one among them who does good. For I am as if I dwell within their hearts and know their inner nature as well as their outer appearance. This is why Eliezer changed [the wording] and said in whose land I dwell, so that Laban and Bethuel would not say, “If so, he is a prophet who examines hearts, and we are deceivers — but our deception will not benefit us because He knows everything in our hearts.” Perhaps because of this they would refuse to arrange the marriage. Therefore, he changed [the wording] and said that Abraham had said in whose land I dwell.

And there are those who say that when he said among whom I dwell, it was to exclude even the daughters of Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre, among whom he was dwelling, because ultimately they are from cursed seed. However, Eliezer thought that if he would say this explicitly, they would become arrogant and say, “He has no choice but to arrange a marriage with us, as he has no way to turn right or left,” and they would force him to come to them. Therefore, he [Eliezer] said among whom I dwell in his land referring to the Canaanites in general, but implying that those among whom he dwells [Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre] would be permitted for marriage. Through this, their minds would not become haughty. This is why he said and I will turn to the right or to the left, indicating that there were options of right and left before him. But the truth was that he did not permit marriage with the daughters of Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre, and so explains the Ramban.

And all the goodness of his master was in his hand. Since the verse does not specify what was in his hand, it is reasonable to interpret this as referring to what we [later] find that he took in his hand — namely, a gold nose ring weighing a beka and two bracelets weighing 10 [shekels of] gold. These are called all the goodness of his master because Abraham made them symbolic of the shekels and of the 10 Commandments that were on the two tablets. Since there is no true good except Torah, therefore he called them all the goodness of his master, as this is the true good. This is why it doesn’t say “all the wealth of his master.” All these allusions will be explained, God willing, shortly.

“Please make happen [hakreh] before me today.” Some say that he [Eliezer] was asking God to arrange for him [to meet] an important young woman who normally never goes out at all, and that just for this moment she should happen [bemikreh] to come out now, specifically before him, so that she would not be among the women who frequently go out [implying immodesty]. This is why the Torah states no man had known her, meaning that no one recognized her because she had never gone out except for this one time. This is why he needed to ask her whose daughter are you?, and why didn’t he ask the other young women who were there — for undoubtedly she didn’t go alone — but rather [he asked her] because no man had known her, meaning no one recognized her.

“You have designated her for Your servant, for Isaac.” Rashi explains that she is suitable for him as she performs acts of kindness. This passage is juxtaposed with the story of Ephron the Hittite because he too was from the seed of Canaan, as it is said And Canaan begot Sidon his firstborn, and Heth (Genesis 10:15). And Ephron was evil-eyed [stingy]; therefore [Abraham] commanded to distance themselves from the Canaanites who are possessors of the evil eye, for money answers and testifies to everything, and every person is recognized by his pocket [financial dealings] whether his actions are pure and upright. There is no better crucible and test for a person than silver and gold, as Solomon said The crucible is for silver and the furnace for gold (Proverbs 17:3). For one who wishes to test and examine a person should look to [their] money and see what their nature is, and similarly the furnace to test a person — go to gold and see how the person conducts themselves with it. For if one maintains their righteousness in monetary matters, in all wisdom it will be revealed that they are complete, and vice versa. From here Eliezer learned to test Rebecca only in this quality — whether she has a good eye [generosity] and performs acts of kindness. Therefore he said, “I will only ask her for a drink, and if she responds ‘drink, and I will also water your camels,’ then surely she is one who performs acts of kindness as she will give more than what I ask for.” And if so, You have designated her for Your servant, for Isaac, for his entire household is clothed in garments of salvation for others [i.e., dedicated to helping others].

On the level of allusion, he mentioned “your camels” [gemalekha] — the word relates to acts of kindness [gemilut chesed], as it is linguistically similar to “your camels.” Thus our Sages interpreted (Tanchuma Shemini 8) “the camel” as referring to Babylon, as it says your recompense that You dealt to us (Psalms 137:8). His intention here was that if she adds saying “and I will also water your camels,” it would be a meaningful sign — that she so loves the attribute of performing acts of kindness that she loves anything associated with this trait, as this is natural behavior. Our Sages interpreted (Chullin 63a) the stork [chasidah] as being called such because it performs acts of kindness [chasidut] with its fellows. Therefore, it is not far-fetched to similarly interpret the word “camel” [gamal], as perhaps it is in their nature to perform kindness with one another. Thus she increases her love for them by saying and I will also water your camels, as all this indicates that she loves the attribute of performing kindness. Our Sages said (Taanit 24a) “Any bride whose eyes are beautiful requires no further examination of her entire body.” This seems to contradict what we observe, as there are many unattractive women who have beautiful eyes. Furthermore, it is difficult to understand why our Sages would give advice to examine external beauty, when “charm is deceptive and beauty is vain.” Rather, they must have been giving advice to examine her deeds, and this is the advised strategy: to check if she has a “good eye” [meaning generosity] and performs acts of kindness. For if she has “beautiful eyes” towards others [meaning she views them kindly], then she is undoubtedly complete in all virtuous traits. Our Sages learned this from Eliezer, who examined Rebecca only regarding this trait, as this characteristic serves as the archetypal model for all other virtuous traits.

According to its simple interpretation, it appears that Eliezer took this sign for himself, saying, “I will only ask her Please tilt your jug so I may drink, and I will not mention the camels to her nor make any request regarding them. And if she replies and says Drink, and I will also water your camels, showing more concern for the camels than I do, surely it is the spirit of God speaking through her, [indicating] that the camels will be hers when Isaac marries her. This is why she shows more concern for the camels than I do, because they are not mine but will eventually be hers, and she shows concern for them because they will be her property.” And regarding what it says that he waited silently to know whether God had made his journey successful or not, this is because there are people who make promises but don’t fulfill them and boast with false gifts. Therefore, he was not confident in this sign until they finished drinking; only then did he rely on the sign and gave her the nose ring and the bracelets.

And the man took a golden nose ring weighing a beka, and two bracelets, etc. Rashi explains that “beka” alludes to the shekels of Israel, which were a beka per head, and the “two bracelets” allude to the Two Tablets, “ten [shekels] of gold was their weight” corresponding to the Ten Commandments that were on them. All these matters require sufficient explanation as to what connection the shekels and the tablets have to each other. Perhaps he foresaw through Divine inspiration that the Tablets were destined to be broken because the evil eye had power over the first Tablets, as they were given publicly and with great fanfare. Perhaps those who cast the evil eye on the Tablets would be punished measure for measure, meaning through the evil eye. Therefore, the shekels were alluded to her, as they protect against the evil eye. Since Eliezer tested Rebecca to see if she possessed a good eye [generous nature] and found her to be so, he therefore gave her the beka which atones for and protects against the evil eye. For anyone who has a generous eye is saved from the evil eye, as evidenced by Joseph who had a generous eye, and from there he became the shepherd of the Stone of Israel. Therefore, he was blessed with the blessing “Ben Porat Alei Ayin” [a fruitful son by the eye] - read it as “Olei Ayin” [those who rise above the eye], meaning they rise above the evil eye, for the evil eye had no power over anyone who came from Joseph’s descendants. Similarly, Rebecca, by virtue of having a good eye, would merit the commandment of the shekels, whose purpose is to save from the evil eye at the time of counting.

Furthermore, she is worthy of receiving the Ten Commandments, as established by the liturgical poet of Shavuot who wrote: “These commandments are all included in ‘Do not covet,’” because anyone with a good eye who gives from their own possessions obviously does not covet taking from others. And you need to understand how all the commandments are included in ‘Do not covet.’ For while it’s understandable regarding the latter commandments from “Do not murder” onward - as we see with Ahab in the story of Naboth the Jezreelite, where he coveted, and also murdered, and hired false witnesses, and deceived the court, and “Do not commit adultery” is equivalent to “Do not covet your neighbor’s wife” - but how do the first commandments relate to “Do not covet”? It seems to me that since the commandment of “Honor your father” concludes all five of the first commandments and encompasses them together [as they all speak about honoring Heaven, and from the end of the matter we can recognize that its beginning is true, because honoring Heaven comes from a fortiori reasoning from honoring parents], and the tablets were arranged five opposite five, therefore just as the five latter commandments are included in “Do not covet,” so too are they all included in it, since all the commandments were arranged parallel to each other. However, according to this assumption, the commandment of “Do not covet” only includes them all together through the connection of the two tablets. Therefore it says “and two bracelets on her hands” - meaning specifically ‘paired’ [tzmudim] - because through the connection of the tablets, five opposite five, all the commandments are included in “Do not covet.”

If you examine carefully the terminology of ‘tzmidim’ [bracelets] and ‘beka’ [half-shekel], you will find that they are opposites, for ‘beka’ is one thing split into two, while ‘two tzmidim’ refers to two separate things that become joined and connected. This alludes to how [Torah’s] commerce is better than the commerce of silver and more desirable, for monetary acquisitions are always split in half, as no person leaves this world with even half his desires fulfilled — if one has a hundred, he desires 200. This is why it’s called ‘mamon’ [money], for the revealed is half of the hidden, as when you write Mem-Mem-Vav-Nun [spelling מָמוֹן]: it hints that if one has 40 zuz, he desires another 40, and so on. However, the acquisition of Torah is entirely bound and connected, increasing peace by joining separate entities, as it is written Great peace have they who love Your Torah (Psalms 119:165). At the time of one’s passing, nothing accompanies a person except Torah and good deeds — and the term ‘accompanying’ implies connection and binding. Thus, money is alluded to in ‘beka’ because one always has only half, while the commandment is represented by ‘two bracelets’ because, on the contrary, one mitzvah draws another complete mitzvah. Money breeds all strife and affliction and separates between brothers, while the Torah’s paths are all peace. Money becomes separated and split from the person and does not accompany him, while the acquisition of Torah accompanies him in all his toil.

“And I said to my master, ‘Perhaps the woman will not follow me.’” Rashi explains that [the word “ulai” [maybe]] is written, “elai” [to me], without the letter ‘vav’, because Eliezer had a daughter, etc. Critics question why the word “ulai” [perhaps] isn’t written in its defective form [without the ‘vav’] when Eliezer initially speaks with Abraham. I suggest that if it had been written there [in the first instance], I would have said that it was written in its defective form because Eliezer was saying “to me she will not consent” — meaning “because of me,” as she wouldn’t want to go with a servant like me, but rather with princes and dignitaries. However, now that it’s written in its defective form in Eliezer’s conversation with Laban and Bethuel, it cannot be interpreted this way, for how could he mention his own lowly status before them and give them reason to object that indeed she wouldn’t want to go with someone of such low standing as himself? Furthermore, why would he mention to them that he said this to Abraham? Rather, it must be that he said this because he had a daughter, and he mentioned this to pressure them — that if she [Rebecca] wouldn’t go with him, Abraham might agree to his daughter after not finding someone suitable from there [Haran]. As for Abraham’s response to Eliezer, Beware that you do not [take my son back there], which implies that even if she wouldn’t follow him, Abraham still wouldn’t agree to marry him to Eliezer’s daughter — it’s possible that Abraham said this so that Eliezer wouldn’t become lax in his mission by relying on this backup plan.

“And may your offspring inherit the gate of those who hate him.” This same language was also said to Abraham — your offspring shall inherit the gate of his enemies — because this is the nature of all who perform acts of kindness: they have many friends, as it is written Many will entreat the favor of the generous person, and everyone is a friend to one who gives gifts (Proverbs 19:6). Abraham performed acts of kindness to all, both to those close and those distant, and so did Rebecca. Therefore, naturally, they will inherit the gate of their enemies, for they have many friends who stand by them in times of trouble. As our Sages said (Bava Kamma 17a), “Anyone who engages in Torah study and acts of kindness merits the inheritance of two tribes, etc.” And it concludes there that some say their enemies fall before them as casualties, like Joseph, as it is said His firstborn bull has majesty, and his horns are the horns of a wild ox, etc. (Deuteronomy 33:17). For Joseph too performed acts of kindness with his father’s entire household and with strangers during the years of famine. Similarly, David said Good is the man who is gracious and lends… his heart is firm, he will not fear, until he sees his desire upon his adversaries. He has distributed freely to the poor; his horn is exalted in honor (Psalms 112:5). For with his horn he will gore nations like Joseph. Therefore, they said to her, May you become thousands of myriads. Did they set a limit to their blessing? What is remarkable about this — any person who has children will, over time, produce this number and more? Rather, they certainly weren’t speaking about her direct descendants, as they were already confident in the power of the elder Abraham, who had already been blessed that his offspring would be like the sand of the sea. So what did they mean by saying to thousands of myriads — what is the purpose of the ‘lamed’ [to] in to thousands? They were saying, “May it be God’s will that you merit to do good and perform kindness for thousands of myriads, for you shall have great wealth, and through this you will have many friends, and because of this your offspring will inherit the gate of their enemies, for many will stand to help you when you go to war.” It’s possible they were giving her this as advice, and this explains the precise language of become to thousands of myriads. And from the use of the word “inherit,” we can learn that they were telling her, “Don’t worry about the expenses, but rather cast your bread upon the waters for thousands of myriads of people, and in the end you will receive a double inheritance in the gate of your enemies, for there are those who scatter yet end up increasing even more.”

And Isaac went out to meditate in the field towards evening. Our Sages (Berachot 26b) learned from here that Isaac established the mincha prayer, which is towards evening near sunset. From here there is support for what our Sages said (Berachot 6a) that a person should always be careful with the mincha prayer, for even Elijah was only answered during the mincha prayer. And even though Abraham and Jacob also established the morning and evening prayers, nevertheless we don’t find that they were answered immediately and instantly, but with the mincha prayer we find that Isaac was answered right away. For presumably Isaac prayed about finding his match while Eliezer was still on the way, because regarding this “every pious one should pray at a favorable time — this refers to [finding] a wife” (Berachot 8a). Therefore he went to pray this prayer in the field. For if God gave him a field prepared for sowing more abundantly than all other fields, as it is written And Isaac sowed in that land and found a hundredfold (Genesis 26:12), how much more so would He give him a wife — the foundation of the world — who would produce good and upright offspring in God’s eyes. And immediately after he prayed for this it is written He lifted his eyes and saw camels approaching, for during prayer he kept his eyes lowered, and immediately after finishing the prayer he raised his eyes upward and saw that he was answered right away — behold camels were coming carrying his destined partner. From this they learned that a person is more readily answered during the mincha prayer. The reason for this is that the attribute of strict judgment prosecutes specifically at night, and therefore the evening prayer which is close to night [is more difficult to be answered], and similarly the morning prayer is also close to the night that just passed, but the mincha prayer is distant from both nights — therefore this prayer has no prosecutor.

Another explanation: The reason this prayer was [performed] close to sunset was because before Sarah’s sun had set, Rebecca’s sun had already risen. Therefore, the verse informs us that Rebecca arrived close to sunset, to teach us that before Sarah’s sun set, Rebecca’s sun had already risen. [This was] so that the world would not be lacking these righteous women who are like the sun’s orb to the world, and so that there would not be missing [from the tent] a lit candle, a cloud tied above it, and the blessing in the dough. And this is easy to understand.