ואברהם זקן בא בימים, “Avraham was old, getting on in years, etc.” The meaning of the verse is 1) seeing Avraham felt that he had aged he was afraid that he might die before Yitzchak had married. He did not want to send off his servant without an oath in the event he would not return from his mission before he, Avraham, had died. By making Eliezer swear he assured himself that Yitzchak would do what he wanted as Yitzchak was in the habit of listening to Eliezer’s advice. The reason Avraham did not impose an oath on Yitzchak instead was so that the servant would not be able to fool Yitzchak by presenting any number of arguments seeing hat he was not under oath to Avraham. Avraham considered the Canaanite as captive to deceitful practices as we know from Hoseah 12,8: כנען בידו מאזני מרמה לעשוק אהב, “A Canaanite uses false weights, loves to overreach.” He made the servant swear to reinforce Eliezer’s obligation in the matter.

Tanchuma Chayey Sarah 2 claims that there are four possible causes why premature old age suddenly settles on a person. 1) because he lives in fear of something; 2) because he is angry at his children; 3) because he is married to an evil person; 4) because of being involved in waging wars. The respective verses from Scripture quoted by that Midrash to support its claim are 1) Chronicles 1 21,30 “and David was unable to go to it to worship the Lord because he was terrified by the sword of the angel of the Lord.” We also have a verse in Kings I, 1,1 “and King David was old, advanced in years.” As to the anger caused to a person by his children aging him, we read in Samuel I 2,22: now Eli was very old. When he heard all that his sons were doing to all Israel, etc.” We have proof that being engaged in constant warfare ages a person from Joshua 13,1: “Joshua was old, advanced in years.” Concerning a husband’s aging prematurely due to being married to bad women, we find a verse in Kings I 11,4 “it was when Solomon grew old because his wives had turned his heart, etc.” On the other hand, we know that Avraham’s wife had always honoured him and not caused him any grief, for even when she referred to him as old (Genesis 18,12), she still called him אדוני, “my lord.”

וה' ברך את אברהם בכל, “and G’d had blessed Avraham with everything.” The plain meaning of the word בכל is Avraham was blessed in every undertaking; he had all types of properties, enjoyed honour both locally and amongst distant countries. He enjoyed old age. He had not been denied any of the things the average person hopes for. The only thing he had not yet achieved was to be blessed with grandchildren. Seeing that he was anxious to become a grandfather, Avraham made his servant take an oath that he would secure a suitable wife for Yitzchak.

A Midrashic approach (Baba Batra 16): Concerning the words וה' ברך את אברהם בכל, Rabbi Meir said that seeing Avraham did not have a daughter, this was a blessing. Rabbi Yehudah said that Avraham did have a daughter. A third (anonymous) view quoted in the Talmud is that the name of that daughter was בכל, hence this was part of the blessings the Torah speaks about Avraham enjoying. Rabbi Meir meant that if Avraham had had a daughter he would have faced the difficulty of finding a husband for her. He most certainly would not have chosen a son-in-law from amongst the local Canaanites, and even if such a daughter would have married someone in Charan, the people there were also idolaters and a woman who is subservient to her husband would have had an untenable position if she had been loyal to her father Avraham’s teachings in the home of her pagan husband. Rabbi Yehudah simply felt that one cannot describe someone as enjoying “all of G’d’s blessings,” unless such a person had also been blessed with having a daughter. The unnamed scholars (אחרים) who claim that Avraham’s daughter was called בכל, revealed a profound mystical dimension to us.

When they said that Avraham’s daughter was called בכל, they did not refer to a biological daughter. They referred to a spiritual dimension called בת, “daughter.” Their statement is of a kabbalistic nature [elaborated on by Nachmanides in his commentary on this verse]. They meant that Avraham achieved a virtue known as כל. Anyone who attains this virtue will find himself blessed both on earth and in heaven. This is why these sages said that Avraham was blessed בכל, i.e. “with“ the virtue known as kol. The reason why these sages called this virtue “bat,” is that the greatest (hollow) measure known in the Bible (Kings I 7,26) was the so-called ים של שלמה, the copper basin in front of the Temple from which the priests washed their hands and feet. This basin had a capacity of 2000 bat [equal to 225 times the minimum size of a ritual bath. Ed]. The reason these sages used this measure as their terms of reference when alluding to Avraham’s achievement in the spiritual spheres is that the bat is a sub-category of the virtue (מדה) known as כל. Being a sub-category the name בת, “daughter” is appropriate (just as a subsidiary commercial company is called חברת בת in Hebrew; i.e. “daughter-company.”) In kabbalistic parlance this “virtue,” or “emanation,” is known as the “celestial tribunal of G’d.” This is the reason our verse did not commence with the customary ויברך ה' את אברהם, first describing the actvity, i.e. ויברך, but it first described who carried out the activity, i.e. השם. It is important to appreciate this rule, as it is one of the mystical dimensions of understanding a Torah text.

שים נא ידך תחת ירכי, “please place your hand under my thigh, etc.” The plain meaning of the text is hat Avraham demanded two separate matters from Eliezer. 1) that he should make a covenant with him to serve him as a servant serves a master; i.e. to pay homage to Avraham. 2) an oath sworn by Almighty G’d, the G’d of both heaven and earth .

Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra also explains the request of Avraham for Eliezer to place his hand under his thigh in a similar fashion. He writes that it was customary in those days to place one’s hand beneath the thigh of one’s master while the master was seated, so that in effect the master “sat” on the hand of his servant at the time he made him take an oath. According to Ibn Ezra this custom continued in his time in India.

A Midrashic approach based on Bereshit Rabbah 59,8 cited by Rashi: The words: “place your hand under my thigh so that I can make you swear an oath,” are all a single request [not as we said previously that there were two requests here.] Avraham made Eliezer swear by placing his hand on the place where he had been circumcised, i.e. where he wore the sign of his covenant with the G’d of heaven and earth. This had been a commandment which Avraham had revealed to the world. The reason the Torah mentions that G’d is the G’d of the heaven is to remind us that the entire Torah is an elongated name of G’d. As a result of this truth, any single commandment in the Torah may be viewed as a “portion” of the name of G’d. When G’d endows us with one of His commandments it is as if He endows us with a part of His elongated name.

ואלוקי הארץ, “and the Lord of the earth.” Do not be surprised if Avraham spoke about “the G’d of the earth,” seeing that he made Eliezer swear in the land of Canaan, a place where G’d most certainly had not yet been recognised as such. It is customary throughout the Bible to relate the term G’d to a certain country as most nations had “national gods,” deities which supposedly had the interests of the inhabitants of that country at heart. This is why we have such expressions as “the God of Israel,” (Exodus 5,1 and many others), “the G’d of Jerusalem,” (Chronicles II 32,19). The name of our G’d is never associated with other nations or their countries. The reason is that the Holy Land is G’d’s special “inheritance;” when Avraham referred to אלוקי הארץ, he referred to G’d as the especial Patron of the Holy Land, the very land in which he resided. If Avraham had found himself in Egypt at that moment, he would not have referred to G’d at that time as אלוקי הארץ, “the G’d of the land. This is why he added a little while later (verse six) “the G’d of heaven who has taken me out from my father’s house, etc.” Whereas Avraham lists a number of places G’d has taken him away from, he never once refers to G’d as being the G’d of any of these places. The reason was that he did not want the G’d in heaven to be associated in Eliezer’s mind with any country other than the Holy Land. This may help explain the famous statement in Ketuvot 110 that anyone who resides outside the Holy Land is as if he did not have any god at all. They quote as proof Samuel I 26,19 “For they have driven me out today (David speaking), so that I cannot have a share in the Lord’s possession, but am told: ‘go and worship other gods!’”

The meaning of the word “as if” in the statement we quoted from Ketuvot is: “such a person is as if he did not belong to the special people who enjoy the protection of the only true G’d, the G’d who is the Lord of the whole universe.”

Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra explains the word הארץ to mean that all marriages on earth are the result of divine input. This is what is meant by the Talmud in Sotah 2 that 40 days before the gestation of the fetus a heavenly voice decrees: “the daughter of so-and-so will be married to so-and-so.” These predictions apply even if the parties involved live on opposite sides of the ocean.

אשר לא תקח אשה לבני מבנות הכנעני, “that you will not take a wife for my son from amongst the daughters of the Canaanite, etc.” He warned Eliezer not to take a wife from a nation which was cursed. When a woman is predestined for destruction, she is apt to drag her husband in the same general direction. This is precisely what the mother of all human beings did (compare Genesis 3, 20). You are aware that this is what happened to Solomon who married a number of alien women (Kings I 11,1). The prophet testifies there that it was these women who turned his heart from being completely loyal to G-d. This is the reason that it has become the custom of the Jewish people to read this portion (in the presence of the assembled guests) to a bridegroom on the day when he gets married to remind all the people to be very circumspect in their choice of life-partners. (There is a section on this custom in Zunz: “Ritus” page 15). The Avudraham at the end of ברכת נשואין brings the custom as “on the Sabbath of the seven days of the Chuppah one reads this section before the bridegroom, etc.” (apparently in the Synagogue during the regular morning service). The groom is reminded not to marry a woman because of her physical beauty, as Solomon has said in Proverbs 31,30 ,שקר החן והבל היופי, “grace is deceptive, and beauty is vain.“ He should also not marry a woman because she is wealthy, as money is apt to develop wings and to fly off just like an eagle (compare Proverbs 23,5). The groom should also not marry a woman because she is a member of a powerful, and influential family and he hopes to become powerful and influential himself due to his wife’s connections. If these are a groom’s considerations in the choice of his wife he will be punished and will likely fail on all three counts. The guiding considerations when choosing a wife have to be reverence for G-d, choosing a family which enjoys a good reputation. Seeing that in the majority of cases the daughter‘s character is similar to that of her brothers, one may form some idea about a girl by observing the way her older brothers conduct themselves. (compare Baba Batra 110).

Our portion also teaches that it is appropriate to select a bride from amongst one’s family, as did Avraham (compare verse 4) for his son Yitzchak, and as did Amram who married Yocheved (an aunt, Exodus 2,1 something that the Torah forbade later on). Whenever people marry someone to whom they already have a natural affinity, such as members of their own family (excluding incest, of course), the likelihood of harmonious relations not only between husband and wife but between the mutual members of the respective families is enhanced. If someone marries a wife from a lower social strata, there is a chance that he will feel superior to her and this will lead to bad blood and resentment on his wife’s part. The result will be an ongoing friction. Our sages in Pessachim 49, have described families who are cleaving to one another because they are all part of the same social strata as ענבי הגפן בענבי הגפן דבר נאה ומתקבל, “grapevines joining grapevines are something beautiful and acceptable.” The author continues in this vein, concluding with the quotation from Psalms 125,4 הטיבה ה’ לטובים ולישרים בלבותם, “Do good, O Lord to the good, to the upright in their heart.” The psalmist implores G-d to grant His blessing to people whose motivations in their choice of wife are guided by the principles we have just outlined. The psalm goes on by predicting that those who are guided by base motivations will join the path of the evildoers. When such clear lines of distinction are drawn between people who are sincere in their motivations and those who are not, Israel will be at peace (as one will not confuse one group with another).

פן תשיב את בני שמה, “lest you bring my son back there.” The meaning is “do not lead him back to there.” Avraham did not want Yitzchak to leave the boundaries of the Holy Land. This was because he had once been designated as a sacred offering, and something sacred must not be desecrated by reverting to a secular status.

וכל טוב אדניו בידו, “and with all the bounty of his master in his hand.” Actually, for the sake of accuracy, the Torah should have written ומטוב אדניו, “and with (samples of) all the bounty of his master,” just as it goes on to say מגמלי אדניו from amongst the camels of his master,” (where the Torah also did not write that Eliezer took all the camels.) According to the plain meaning of the text the verse describes the greatness and superior loyalty of Avraham’s servant. The Torah reveals that Avraham had entrusted all his wealth to be administered by Eliezer, everything was “left in his hand.” Eliezer was in full control. We may understand this verse as similar to Numbers 21,26 ויקח את כל ארצו מידו, “he took his entire land from his hand.” (The reference is to Sichon having taken all of Moav’s land) Clearly, the meaning of the verse is a figure of speech. Here too the Torah employs a figure of speech to describe the status Eliezer enjoyed in Avraham’s household.

A Midrashic (Bereshit Rabbah 59,11) approach: the words וכל טוב אדוניו בידו, “all the bounty of his master in his hand,” refer to a document which Eliezer carried in his hand in which Avraham had appointed Yitzchak as his sole heir. Avraham had done this in order to encourage the parents of any bride Eliezer would choose to allow their daughter to marry out of the country. The Torah writes: “in his hand,” to inform us of this. The word וילך, “he went,” is also meant to draw attention to this, as obviously, Eliezer did not “walk” all that way but rode on one of the camels. The combined words וילך וכל טוב אדוניו בידו, are a clear hint that Eliezer walked while holding something in his hand. What did he hold in his hand? “The gift-certificate donating all of Avraham’s wealth to his son Yitzchak,” in the event that he would not be alive when the servant returned. The word וילך appears a second time in the same verse to show that Eliezer set out armed with such a document which was going to be helpful to his mission. According to this interpretation, the words ויתן אברהם את כל אשר לו ליצחק, “Avraham (now) gave all that was his to Yitzchak,” a verse we find only in 25,5 have been repeated there only in order to forestall any claims by any other children of Avraham to part of his estate. The fact is he had already given his accumulated wealth to Yitzchak before the sons of Keturah had been born. They only shared in possessions Avraham acquired after he had remarried.

ועשה חסד, “and perform a kindness!” The servant implored G-d’s attribute at the beginning of his prayer as well as at its conclusion when he said ובה אדע כי עשית חסד עם אדוני, “and through her I will know that You have indeed performed a kindness for my master.” Seeing that Eliezer was aware that the outstanding characteristic of his master Avraham was the quality of חסד, this was the attribute of G-d he addressed when he prayed to the Ineffable Name, י-ה-ו-ה.

הנה אנכי נצב על עין המים, ”here I am standing at a fountain of water, etc.” We have to be alert to the fact that this whole paragraph appears to be merely a repetition of what the Torah already told us. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 60,8 have explained that this teaches that the small talk of the servants of the patriarchs was dearer to G-d than some of the profound Torah insights of the children of the patriarchs. We can prove this from the fact that the Torah was very expansive in reporting everything the servant did, whereas it was most concise in relating some very basic legislation which applies to the Jewish people throughout the ages. Sometimes, such legislation is merely hinted at in the text so that if it had not been revealed to Moses orally we would never have found it in the written text. The whole matter is further proof that the patriarchs were carriers of G-d’s “chariot,” i.e. that their stature exceeded that of the angels who had preceded them as the carriers. There can be no doubt that the Torah did not repeat this whole report of Eliezer’s prayer and his dialogue with Rivkah without an ulterior motive. I will explain this as we proceed with the text of this entire paragraph. I advise you the reader to keep your eyes open as all these matters were directly related to the success of Eliezer’s mission. For instance: the Torah speaks of the עין המים, the well (fountain) of water three times, each time varying the syntax somewhat. In our verse here the well is simply described as עין המים, “a fountain of water.” In 24,42 the servant is reported as saying: ואבא היום אל העין, “I arrived this day at the well.” in 24,16 the Torah says of Rivkah: ותרד העינה, “she descended to the well.” In other words, the Torah speaks of the same well in three slightly different versions, עין, העין, העינה. We need to understand the precise reason for each of these nuances. [The author leaves it there, but Rabbi Chavell quotes that according to תורת חיים the combination of the word עין (numerical value 70) plus two more times the same word equals an allusion to the name of G-d consisting of 72 letters. The additional letters ה, either at the beginning of the word or at the end, allude to the last letter ה in the Ineffable Name, a reference to G-d’s attribute of חסד. Eliezer invoked this attribute in order to secure for Yitzchak the mate who was appropriate for him.]

והיה הנערה אשר אומר אליה הטי נא כדך, “let it be that the maiden to whom I shall say: ‘please lower your jug so that I may drink,’ etc.” We have learned in Taanit 4 that there were three people who did not phrase a request to G-d in an appropriate manner. The three were: Eliezer, the servant of Avraham, Saul, son of Kish; and Yiftach from Gilead. Concerning Eliezer the Torah writes: (quoting our verses) “the criteria Eliezer listed to enable him to choose a bride for Yitzchak could have been met by a blind or lame girl.” [Eliezer surely did not mean for a girl with either one of such a handicap to become the bride of Yitzchak. Ed.]. Nonetheless, G-d arranged for the girl whom Eliezer met to be Rivkah, i.e. an eminently suitable choice. Saul, son of Kish requested victory over Goliath the Philistine blasphemer, promising the man who would kill Goliath his daughter as well as material wealth (Samuel I 17,28). If a slave or a bastard had taken up the challenge and succeeded, Saul would have been bound by a promise so carelessly formulated. G-d was kind enough to send him David who took up the challenge. In the case of Yiftach, we are told (Judges 11,31) that he foolishly vowed to offer as a sacrifice to G-d the first living creature which would come to meet him when he returned victoriously from battle. As it happened, his only daughter came out to welcome him. He had laid himself open to having to sacrifice any animal that was not even permitted to be offered as a sacrifice. G-d arranged that his daughter should meet him instead of what he had had in mind. This was the mystical dimension of Jeremiah 8,22 הצרי אין בגלעד אם רופא אין שם? “is there no balm in Gilead, no physician either?” The prophet points out that Yiftach could have had his vow annulled by the High Priest Pinchas or even by someone else had he not been too proud to do so. This thought [that there is not the slightest reason to honour a vow when it involves human sacrifice. Ed.] is underlined by the same prophet in Jeremiah 19,5 אשר לא ציויתי ולא דברתי, ולא עלתה על לבי, “which I have not commanded, nor spoken about, nor even thought about.” In other words, it was not G-d’s fault, or the fault of G-d’s legislation about honouring one’s vows which led to the death of Yiftach’s daughter.

אותה הוכחת לעבדך ליצחק, “her you have designated for your servant, for Yitzchak.” She is fit for him as she performs deeds of loving kindness and she therefore is suitable to enter the household of an Avraham.

ובה אדע, “and by means of her (actions) I will know, etc.” this was an appeal to G-d to let him know that G-d had performed an act of kindness for Avraham (compare Rashi).

ויהי הוא טרם כלה לדבר, “and it was before he had finished speaking, etc.” We need to understand the need for the apparently extraneous word הוא in this verse. All the Torah had to write to tell us that Rivkah appeared before Eliezer had completed his prayer was ויהי ככלותו לדברו, “as soon as he had finished speaking, etc.” Actually, the word הוא in this verse is not a personal pronoun, i.e. “he,” but a name of G-d. (compare Genesis 19,33 where we encountered this word in that context) We have numerous examples of the word הוא being a reference to a name of G-d, such as Psalms 100, 3 הוא עשנו ולו אנחנו, “He has made us and we belong to Him;” Numbers 18,23 ועבד הלוי הוא, ”and the Levite will serve G-d, etc.;” the word הוא in that verse means that Eliezer enjoyed G-d’s special assistance in his mission by means of the angel concerning whom Avraham had prayed to G-d that He should make Eliezer’s mission successful (verse 7).The angel, was at hand already before Eliezer had completed praying and he arranged for Rivkah to be the maiden whom Eliezer would address first with his request for water. This is why the Torah wrote: והנה רבקה יוצאת, “and here Rivkah was already in the process of coming out, etc.” The word והנה means that what follows was the result of a special arrangement, invitation. If the servant immediately ran towards her (verse 17) it was because he had noticed the water of the well rising to meet Rivkah on her descent. This is what our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 60,5 have derived from the wording in our verses here. At that moment Eliezer already understood what Avraham had meant when he had said to him that G-d would send His angel ahead. This is also what he related once he was in Bethuel’s house when he told the family that Avraham had assured him already before he set out on his journey that G-d would send His angel ahead and that he would succeed (verse 40). In view of this it is easy to understand that from the moment that Eliezer had become aware that the angel was supporting him the Torah refers to him no longer as עבד, servant, but as איש, a man of stature. Up until then we read about וישם העבד, “the servant placed;” ויקח העבד, “the servant took;” וירץ העבד, “the servant ran.” From this point on the Torah keeps referring to Eliezer as האיש until he leaves the house of Bethuel with Rivkah. The expressionהאיש is applied to the angel Gavriel in Daniel 9,21. It is also applied to the angel who told Joseph that his brothers had moved away from Shechem, (Genesis 37,17) and that they had been overheard as planning to move to Dothan. In other words, as of the time the angel joined Eliezer in his quest, he himself assumed the role of the angel in an executive manner. The words והאיש משתאה לה (verse 21) which appear to be somewhat problematical if we assume Eliezer and the angel to have become as one, must be understood as “he was waiting for her;” he did so as he had become aware that his mission was about to be crowned with success. Having done so, the Torah from now on refers to him constantly as האיש, such as when we read (verse 22) ויקח האש, or (verse 26) ויקוד האיש, or (verse 30) כה דבר אלי האיש, etc. When, a little while later, Lavan and Bethuel gave their consent for Eliezer to take Rivkah (verse 51) and they said הנה רבקה לפניך קח ולך, “here Rivkah is in your presence, take her and go,” at which point Eliezer’s mission had been completed, the Torah reverts to describe Eliezer as עבד instead of as האיש. In verse 53 when Eliezer is reported as sharing out gifts, as well as in every subsequent move of his, the Torah speaks of העבד, “the servant,” seeing that the angel’s assistance was no longer required for that part of his activity. Avraham’s prayer which invoked the assistance of an angel had been answered in full. If you were to ask that when Lavan and his mother asked Rivkah if she were willing to go עם האיש הזה, “with this man,” and this occurred only in verse 58, after verse 51 which we described as the point at which Eliezer’s mission had basically been completed, the answer is simple. The words reported in verse 58 were not spoken by the Torah but by Lavan and his mother. They certainly were not bound by the considerations we described before. How could they be expected to refer to someone as “this slave,” when the person in question was distributing lavish gifts to every member of their household, not to mention to Rivkah herself? Would it not have been a gross insult to their sister to ask her is she were willing to leave her parental home in order to travel to a distant land “with this slave?” Concerning verse 61 in which both Rivkah and her maids are reported as traveling אחרי האיש, which appears to contradict the explanation I have offered that Eliezer had reverted to being an עבד the moment consent had been obtained for her to become Yitzchak’s bride, this wording was chosen by the Torah in honour of Rivkah. It would not have looked respectful if she had been described as riding “behind the slave.” Another approach to the words והאיש משתאה לה. It is an allusion to the angel who had tarried and waited at the well until the arrival there of Rivkah. From that moment on Eliezer took over the task of the angel; hence he is referred to as האיש from that moment on. Support for this theory is found in the text near the end of the episode where the Torah said (verse 61) “they walked behind האיש, “and the עבד took Rivkah and he went.” This verse makes it crystal clear that the subjects איש and עבד respectively could not have been one and the same.

ותרד העינה ותמלא כדה ותעל. “She descended to the well, filled her jug, and she came up.” The crucial word “she drew water,” is missing in this verse. On the second occasion when Rivkah again descended (verse 20) to provide water for Eliezer’s camels the Torah does insert the words ותרץ עוד אל הבאר לשאב, ותשאב וגו’, “she ran to the well once more in order to draw water; she drew water, etc.” These fine differences in the text prompted our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 60,6 to say: “all the women go down to the well to fill (their jugs). This one, as soon as the waters saw her they rose up to meet her.” G-d said to her: “just as the waters have seen fit to rise in your honour so other waters will rise in honour of your children.” [The reference is to Numbers 21,17 אז ישיר ישראל את השירה הזאת עלי באר, “then the Israelites broke out in song: “rise up, O well,- sing to it, etc.”] This also explains the unusual verse 17 “the servant ran towards her, etc.” As soon as Eliezer had noticed the strange phenomenon that the waters rose to meet this girl, (verse 16) he hastened to meet her.

You ought to realise that here we encounter for the first time that the 72-lettered version of the 4-lettered Ineffable Name is alluded to. The first letters in the words כדה ותעל spell 26 in numerical value. The numerical value of the 4-lettered Ineffable name י-ה-ו-ה when spelled in letters only equals 26. When these four letters are spelled out as words i.e. יוד הי ויו הי, the result is 72. Such permutations of the holy name of G-d exert their influence on water and the waters which responded to the arrival of Rivkah did so as a result of being sensitive to such considerations. At a later time, when the Israelites were on the edge of the sea of reeds the water was able to rise in the form of walls to let the Israelites pass through in response to Moses’ staff which had this name of G-d (72 letters) inscribed on it. A similar consideration enabled Moses to strike the rock and to bring forth water from it (Exodus 17,6). [Rabbi Chavell cites Targum Yonathan on Exodus 14,21 as the source of our author.]

ותאמר גם לגמליך אשאב, she said: “I will also draw water for your camels.” The physical strength required for Rivkah to draw water for all of Eliezer’s camels could only be explained if she enjoyed divine assistance. This is all the more so if we accept the opinion of the sages in the Seder Olam that at that time Rivkah was only three years old. The whole matter can be viewed only as part of the success of which Avraham had assured Eliezer at the outset when he told him: “He will send His angel ahead of you and make your mission successful.” (24,7) This is the reason you find an allusion to G-d’s great name in our verse the name we have discussed in the previous paragraph. The fact that the letter ג in the word גמליך has a dagesh is additional evidence of an allusion to the attribute of גבורה being involved in what transpired at this well.

ויקח האיש נזם זהב בקע משקלו ושני צמידים, “the man took a golden nose-ring weighing a beka and two bracelets, etc.” Why did the Torah need to tell us the weight of these pieces of jewelry? We are dealing with an allusion to the fact that eventually Rivkah’s descendants, i.e. the generation who would contribute to the building of the Tabernacle in terms of shekalim. In Exodus 35,26 the Torah speaks of the weight of these shekalim also in terms of בקע לגולגולת, one “beka per person.” When the Jewish people received the two tablets with the Ten Commandments you will find that these comprised 172 words. This corresponds to the numerical value of the letters in the word בקע. This corresponds to what we read here ושני צמידים על ידיה עשרה זהב משקלם. The words עשרה זהב are an allusion to the Ten Commandments. We may also perceive the word שקל as an acronym describing אש קול, i.e. the ingredients most prominent during the revelation of G-d at Mount Sinai. We were told that on that occasion מן השמים השמיעך את קולו ליסרך ועל הארץ הראך את אשו הגדולה, “from the Heavens he let you hear His powerful voice, and on earth He showed you His great fire“ (Deut. 4,36).

This also leads us to examine the amount of shekels offered by Haman in order to secure permission from King Achashverosh to do to the Jewish people as he saw fit. He offered 10,000 talents of silver, or 600,000 shekels. (compare Esther 3,9) It was his plan to neutralise the 600,000 shekels the Jews had contributed at the time for the sockets of the Holy Tabernacle and to deprive them of any merit they might have accumulated due to that donation. In short, Haman wanted to neutralise the accumulated merit of the people who had embraced the Torah at Mount Sinai. He wanted to annul what had been acquired with fire and sound. This is what has been hinted at here in Eliezer’s prayer (verse 27) when he said: 'אנכי בדרך נחני ה’, “I was on the way when G-d guided me, etc.” He meant that the merit of the “אנכי” which the Jewish people would accept in the future was active on his behalf at the time he stood by the well.

All the details of what was happening with Rivkah at this time foreshadowed events of the future involving her offspring. Similarly, all that happened to the servant of Avraham on this mission foreshadowed events in Jewish history of the future when that people was in the desert. Just as an angel had been at his side through the efficacy of Avraham’s prayer who had said that “G-d will send His angel ahead,” so it happened to Avraham’s descendants in the desert. Seeing that the angel in question was not a regular natural phenomenon but one of the disembodied spiritual creatures, so the angel who accompanied the Jewish people was such a disembodied spiritual force who had been emanated by the merit of Avraham. This was whom the Torah had in mind when it quoted G-d as telling Moses in Exodus 23,20 הנה אנכי שולח מלאך לפניך. “Here I am about to send an angel ahead of you.” Just as Avraham in our chapter referred to this divine force as מלאכו, “His angel,” so G-d referred to the same divine force as מלאכי, “My angel,” (not just any מלאך, angel, in Exodus 23,23). Just as the waters had risen towards Rivkah, so the waters rose towards her “children” in the desert as we explained. The servant also alluded to such future developments when presenting her with the jewelry mentioned in our chapter. This mission was carried out by a trusted servant, i.e. Eliezer. The Jewish people in the desert were led by G-d’s trusted servant Moses. When the Torah wrote in this chapter that Eliezer had been equipped with all the “good” of his master Avraham, the Torah, in a parallel reference, tells us that G-d equipped Moses for his task by equipping him with all ‘His goodness.” This is what is meant by Exodus 33,19 “אני אעביר כל טובי על פניך, “I will let all My goodness pass before you.” Just as Eliezer gave gifts to Rivkah not only at the well but also in her father’s house (verse 53), so the Jewish people who received the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai again received the gift of a covenant shortly before they entered the Holy Land (Deut. 28,69). At that time many commandments which were applicable in Eretz Yisrael were revealed for the first time in detail.

This reflects the statement of our sages in Gittin 60 that “the Torah was given to the Jewish people in individual scrolls.” The sages meant that although Moses had received all 613 commandments while he was on Mount Sinai in the first year of their wanderings, he did not teach all of these commandments to the people at once. Just as the story of Rivkah and Eliezer at the well has been repeated in the Torah and the servant relates all that happened to him at the well, so Moses repeated many parts of the events the Jewish people experienced during their trek through the desert once more in the Book of Deuteronomy. Also, the Jewish people received both the first and the second set of Tablets.

ויאמר בת מי את, “he said: ’whose daughter are you?‘“ The true meaning of this verse is that the servant had asked this question already before he gave Rivkah the jewelry. It is quite inconceivable that Eliezer should have been handing out such expensive jewelry to a stranger he knew nothing about. This is not the only time that you find in this story that the Torah did not report it in the exact sequence in which the events occurred. You find proof that when Eliezer recounted in Bethuel’s house what had occurred, (24,47) he related that he gave her the jewelry after having ascertained who she was. In Leviticus 9,22 the Torah writes that Aaron raised his hands and they (Moses and Aaron) blessed the people, after which he (Aaron) descended from having performed the sin-offering.” The meaning there is clearly that Moses and Aaron blessed the people after Aaron had descended from the altar. Nonetheless, the Torah saw fit to describe this in a manner which could lead us to receive the wrong impression.

ללין, ”for an overnight stay.” The word is a noun, as opposed to ללון which would be the verb from the same root. The meaning is that there is accommodation for a single night’s lodging. This is the way our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 60,6 interpret this word. Rivkah had changed the word and had said ללון, implying that Eliezer would be welcome for a more extended stay although he had inquired only if he could stay for a single night. She used the word in its infinitive which does not carry any connotation of a limited time. The correct interpretation is that the word ללין is a transitive form of the verb, i.e. Eliezer asked whether lodging overnight could be provided in her father’s house. Whereas Eliezer had asked whether he and his entourage could be assigned a place in her father’s house to spend the night, Rivkah replied that he did not need to be assigned such a place but that he could choose where in her father’s house he wished to spend the night. By saying ללון, i.e. using the intransitive form of the word, Rivkah indicated that Eliezer would have the choice of a number of accommodations in her father’s house.

אנכי בדרך נחני ה’ בית אחי אדוני, “I was on the way when G-d guided me to the house of my master’s brothers.” It is possible to read into this wording that Eliezer had experienced that the earth miraculously telescoped beneath him while he was travelling, thus shortening his trip considerably, as our sages have explained in Sanhedrin 73. We would then have to understand the word בדרך, as if he had said: “I was on this long and tedious journey, and here G-d brought me to this well in one fell swoop when I had only just set out.” This would also be the reason he emphasized his arrival היום in verse 42, as if to say: “I started out today and I arrived today.”

ויפתח הגמלים, “he unmuzzled the camels.” Rashi comments that he unmuzzled the camels which he had muzzled before so that they would not graze in land owned by others. This is taken from Bereshit Rabbah 60,8. Rabbi Yirmiyah there asked whether the camels of Avraham were not as pious as the donkey of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair who would not eat grass in another’s field even without being muzzled. [In fact these donkeys were reported once to have remained without fodder for three days due to their piety.] The matter is raised in the Midrash as it was difficult for people at that time to imagine that the piety in the house of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair should have exceeded that in the household of Avraham. Keeping this in mind, Rabbi Yirmiyah interpreted the word ויפתח to mean that Eliezer loosened the yokes that these camels normally wore around their necks, and from which the bags they carried were suspended. A parallel of this expression is found in Isaiah 52,2 התפתחי מוסרי צוארך, “loosen the bonds from your necks!” The word ויפתח actually refers to Lavan who performed this task and provided the camels with straw to lie on, fodder to feed, and water to wash the feet of the men traveling with Eliezer.

ויושם לפניו לאכול, “food was placed before him.” There is a difference between the spelling and the reading of the word ויישם, which is read as if it had been spelled ויושם. According to ancient sources, including Yonathan ben Uziel, some poison had been placed in Eliezer’s food so that he would die and Bethuel and Lavan would appropriate to themselves all the riches he had brought with him. The attempt ended in failure, as a mistake was made and the plate with the poisoned food was placed in front of Bethuel. This is why the word was spelled with two letters י, the equivalent of the name of G-d. [When you combine the two letters י which are part of the written text, and you add the letter ו, which is read, you obtain the number 26, the same as the numerical value of the four-lettered ineffable name י-ה-ו-ה. Ed.] According to Psalms 124,2 [the psalmist reputedly had this incident in mind when he composed that hymn, Ed.] this was a hint that had it not been for the merit of Avraham Eliezer would have eaten the poisoned food. While he waited with eating until he had spelled out why he had come there, this afforded the angel the opportunity to switch plates. When the Torah says at the end of that paragraph ויאכלו וישתו הוא והאנשים אשר עמו, “they ate and they drank, he and the men who were with him,” this is to draw our attention to the fact that the members of Bethuel’s household did not eat as they were mourning the sudden death of Bethuel caused by his eating the poison he had prepared for Eliezer. This also accounts for the fact that in verse 55 only Rivkah’s brother and mother are mentioned as requesting a delay in her departure. Her father had died and thus could not offer an opinion.

ותאמר שתה, “she said: ‘drink!’” This is the version of Eliezer when he recounted what had happened at the well. Actually, for the sake of accuracy, he should have repeated Rivkah’s exact words which had been “drink my lord!” The reason he did not repeat that version in the house of Bethuel was one of etiquette. [I believe Eliezer, who was a slave, did not want to repeat that he had been addressed as “my lord.” Ed.]

ויען לבן ובתואל, “and Lavan and Bethuel responded, etc.” The fact that Lavan spoke before his father already indicated that he was wicked (based on Rashi). Another indication that Lavan was evil is discernible from the fact that in his remarks he first alluded to the negative when he said (regretfully) “we cannot speak to you negatively or positively.” A righteous individual would have reversed the order saying: “positively or negatively.”

מה’ יצא הדבר, “the matter originated with G-d.” Lavan meant that it was evident from the order in which matters had occurred that a higher power was involved here. They acknowledged that matchmaking was a preserve of celestial forces. Sotah 2. states that forty days prior to the development of the fetus a heavenly voice proclaims that the “daughter of X will be married to Y, even if the two people involved live on opposite sides of the ocean.” Solomon referred to this in Proverbs 19,14 בית והון נחלת אבות, ומה’ אשה משכלת, “whereas wealth may be determined by what one inherits from one’s father, an intelligent woman is a gift from heaven.” Clearly, parents are only able to bequeath you material riches whereas only G-d can provide you with the soul-mate you crave. Parents are unable to bequeath you the proper wife. In a manner of speaking, such sentiments are also reflected in Solomon’s famous poem about the woman of valour (second half of Proverbs chapter 31). In Midrash Tehillim the author writes: “come and note how difficult it is to match the proper people to each other in marriage, seeing G-d refers to this problem both in the Torah, the Books of the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. In the Torah we have our reference here when even a pagan such as Lavan acknowledged that bringing about optimal marriages was a task only G-d knows how to solve. In the Books of the Prophets, concerning the unfortunate choice of wives or female companions made by Samson, we read in Judges 14,4 ואביו ואמו לא ידעו כי מה’ היא, “and neither his father nor his mother were aware that this matter originated with a plan by G-d. We have just quoted the verse in Proverbs 19,14 to show that also in the Hagiographa the problem is referred to. We have another verse concerning this problem in Proverbs 18,22, where Solomon writes: מצא אשה מצא טוב ויפק רצון מה’, “he who found a wife has found a good thing; he will obtain favour from the Lord.” Some scholars interpret Isaiah 46,3 העמוסים מני בטן הנשואים מני רחם, to mean that even if the respective partners grow up on opposite sides of the universe, G-d arranges for them to meet in order that they can get married. [The verse refers to the passive role man plays in the matter of זווג, matchmaking, though he may fancy himself as totally active and the result as due to is own initiative. Ed.] This is what the Talmud meant when saying that long before the birth of an individual plans had been made in heaven who would become her partner in marriage.

A kabbalistic approach to the statement בת פלוני לפלוני, “the daughter of X will be married to Y.” The word בת in the statement בת פלוני לפלוני, is an allusion to the י (the tenth emanation), whereas the male, i.e. פלוני is a reference] to the ו, and the word לפלוני is an allusion to the א, (G-d) who is beyond the ocean of the emanation חכמה, wisdom. The reason the Talmud did not phrase this statement simply as פלוני ישא את פלונית, “X will marry Y,” was to show us hat the statement is not to be taken literally but that it applies to the relationships between different spiritual concepts. Such concepts too have to exist in a form of “marriage” to one another. This is also why the sages in the Talmud mentioned the female before the male in that statement [The “tenth”, i.e “lowest” emanation, is “lower,” hence female, when compared to the fifth emanation represented by the word פלוני. This emanation in turn is inferior to the emanation א which is deemed as “beyond” even the highest of the ten emanations. Ed.] The sages in that statement in Sotah paraphrased the meaning of Genesis 2,8 גן בעדן מקדם, that G-d had “planted” something in advance of creating a physical universe.

ויצחק בא מבוא, “and Yitzchak was in the process of coming from Be-er lachay Ro-i.” The plain meaning of the text is precisely what the sages wrote in Bereshit Rabbah 60,14 in answer to the rhetorical question where Yitzchak was coming from, that he came to bring Hagar who dwelled near the well mentioned in order for her to become the wife of his father. Hagar had named this well to acknowledge that G’d had seen her disgrace and had helped her regain her dignity.

This verse and the words בא מבוא may be a reference to the spiritual equivalent of the Jewish people, i.e Mount Moriah. Yitzchak had only now returned from a three-year stay at that holy site. He had been shown by G’d that this was the spiritual well of the Jewish people, the source from which they receive the water (i.e. Torah) which keeps them alive. During all this time when Yitzchak had lived in solitude his whole thinking had concentrated on the concept and eventual realisation of what the Jewish people are supposed to stand for in G’d’s scheme of things. We may view the words עם באר לחי רואי as support for our interpretation as otherwise the Torah should have written ב-באר לחי רואי, “at the well of Lachay Ro-i.”

לשוח בשדה, “to meditate in the field.” According to both Ibn Ezra and David Kimchi these words mean: “to stroll amongst the shrubs.” Yitzchak had gone for a stroll to enjoy nature.

A Midrashic interpretation based on Bereshit Rabbah 60,14. The word לשוח means “to pray,” as it does in all instances where it occurs. Well known examples are Psalms 102,1 תפלה לעני כי-יעטוף ולפני ה’ ישפוך שיחו, “A prayer of the lowly man when he is faint and pours forth his plea before the Lord.” Our sages in Berachot 26 have derived their view that Yitzchak inaugurated the daily Minchah prayer from this verse.

A kabbalistic approach: The words לשוח בשדהteach that when someone prays to the One and only G’d he employs a כנוי, “a pronoun” of G’d’s name. In other words, one is not to enunciate the four-lettered name of G’d י-ה-ו-ה. Having used a substitute name for G’d (out of reverence for the “real” name), one will “find” G’d. This is the mystical dimension of the words לשוח בשדה. We find something similar with Yaakov in Genesis 28,11 where the Torah describes such a prayer as occurring in the evening, ויפגע במקום, the word במקום being the substitution for the real name of G’d. We employ this substitute in the Haggadah of Pesach when we recite ברוך המקום, meaning “blessed be the Lord.” Whenever the verb פגע appears it occurs with the preposition ב such as in Jeremiah 7,16 ואל תפגע בי, or in Job 21,15 ומה נועיל כי נפגע בו. All the activities of G’d are ascribed to such substitute names, כנויים, when they are still in the theoretical stage, whereas they are ascribed to the “real” name of G’d when they have reached the operative stage. We find confirmation of this in Jeremiah 8,14 כי ה’ אלוקינו הדמנו וישקנו מי ראש כי חטאנו לה', “for the Lord our G’d has doomed us, He has made us drink a bitter draft, for we have sinned against G’d.” Significantly, the verse does not end with “for we have sinned against Him,” as we would have expected but the prophet says “against G’d.” This means that up until the moment G’d actually executed His judgment on us, a “substitute” attribute rather than His Essence was involved. It is worth reflecting on this.

ותפול מעל הגמל, “she fell off the camel.” Rivkah did not “fall”” off the camel she was riding on when she saw Yitzchak; rather, she inclined her head as one does prior to falling off an animal.” This interpretation is supported by the choice of the word מעל in our verse. Had she really fallen off, the Torah would have written: ותפול מהגמל. This is also why Onkelos translates these words as ואתרכנית, the same expression he used when he translated what Eliezer was going to say to Rivkah at the well, where the Torah wrote הטי נא כדך, “please incline your jug” (24,14). We have a similar example in Kings II 5,21 where Jeremiah wrote of Naaman ויראה נעמן רץ אחריו ויפול מעל המרכבה לקראתו, “when Naaman saw him (Gechazi) run after him, “he fell” from the chariot toward him, etc.” There too the meaning clearly is not that the general Naaman literally fell out of his chariot because he saw Gechazi running. The meaning is that he bent down, inquiring why Gechazi had run after him, etc. Ibn Ezra interprets ותפול literally, adding that she fell down deliberately, i.e. on her face and prostrated herself. It is similar to Numbers 16,4 where it says of Moses ויפול על פניו, “he ‘fell’ on his face.” Moses did not fall against his will but he prostrated himself deliberately. When the Torah here continues with: ותאמר אל העבד, “she said to the servant,” we must understand this as what she said prior to prostrating herself.

את כל הדברים אשר עשה , “all the things he had done.” This included the recourse to the “sign” he had asked from G’d to determine which was the right girl for him to approach at the well, when he had pleaded with G’d: הקרה נא לפני, “please let it happen before me this day, etc.” in verse 12. He told Yitzchak about the jewelry he had given to Rivkah on the way, and the gifts he had shared out when at her father’s house; he also told Yitzchak that he had experienced a miraculous telescoping of the earth under him so that he had arrived in Charan on the day he departed from Be-er Sheva.

ויביאה יצחק האהלה שרה אמו , “Yitzchak brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah.” Here the Torah first refers to Rivkah merely with the pronoun “her, whereas when the same verse continues to report that Yitzchak married Rivkah she is mentioned by name.” The normal procedure should have been to mention Rivkah by name at the beginning of the verse and to refer to her by pronoun when she becomes the subject again in the same verse. Why did the Torah depart from the norm? Perhaps the underlying consideration was to mention Sarah first as she had been her predecessor in that tent and Rivkah had only been born after Sarah had already died and Bethuel had fathered Rivkah (22,23). At that juncture the Torah had seen fit to report Sarah’s death (23,2) which meant that at the time Yitzchak was bound Sarah had already died. Bereshit Rabbah 55,4 said that Yitzchak was 37 years old at that time and that when Sarah heard what was going to happen to him her soul departed and she died. The Torah itself testifies that Yitzchak was 40 years old when he married Rivkah (25,20), which makes Rivkah 3 years old when she was married.

Keeping all this in mind explains why the Torah first spoke only about Yitzchak bringing Rivkah into the tent of his mother Sarah as at that tender age she was not yet a real soul-mate for him. Yitzchak’s love for Rivkah was kindled when he observed how perfectly she filled the role his mother Sarah had fulfilled in her tent. At that point, Yitzchak felt ready to complete the proceedings of marriage, i.e. ויקח יצחק את רבקה ותהי לו לאשה, Yitzchak married Rivkah and she became a real wife for him.”

וינחם יצחק אחרי אמו,,“he comforted himself over the loss of his mother.” Yitzchak did not accept the condolences of his peers for the loss of his mother until he was able to console himself with Rivkah.

The words: “Yitzchak brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah,” teach that if someone’s wife dies and he had (grown up) children from her he should not remarry until he married off his children first. Having done so, he should remarry. The Midrash derives all this from the sequence of what the Torah tells us here about the conduct of Avraham who waited with remarrying until after Yitzchak had a home of his own.