In order to mislead his father. Question: Why did Eisov not call Bosmas, [too,] by a good name in order to trick his father? In Parshas Toldos (26:34), it should have mentioned that name, if she had it. The answer is: Eisov indeed called her by another, non-idolatry name. But [in Parshas Toldos], Scripture itself calls her Bosmas, denoting idolatry. This is because Scripture goes on to say (27:1), “Yitzchok’s eyesight faded and he could not see.” Rashi there explains that this was due to the smoke of these wives [who burned incense to idols]. And if Scripture would have called her by a different name there, we would ask: Where do we find [any hint] that they burned incense [to idols]? Thus Scripture calls her by the name of Bosmas (incense), to indicate this. See there. (Maharshal) [You might ask]: Yehudis was the daughter of Be’eri the Chittite (26:34), while Oholivomoh was the daughter of Anoh the Chivite, [as it says here. How then could Rashi say that Yehudis and Oholivomoh are the same? The answer is:] Anoh and Be’eri is the same person with two names. Although Scripture connects him here to the Chivites and there to the Chittites, it is possible that his father was a Chittite, and his mother, a Chivite. You might ask: How does Rashi know that Yehudis is Oholivomoh? Perhaps Yehudis died, and Oholivomoh is another wife? Re’m answers: Because it is written, “Eisov took his wives,” rather than, “Eisov took wives.” This implies they were the same wives who were mentioned before.

This Korach was of illegitimate birth and was fathered by Eliphaz... Re’m asks: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps there were two Korachs. He answers: Korach is not mentioned among Eliphaz’s sons but among Oholivomoh’s sons, [implying he was not publicly known as Eliphaz’s son]. Yet later, he is mentioned among the chiefs of Eliphaz. This implies he was of illegitimate birth.

To reside wherever he might find. Otherwise, why does it not mention to which land he went?

Due to the shame that he sold his birthright. Rashi is saying: This is an additional reason [for his leaving].

She said: “I may not merit being married to you, but, if only I could be your concubine.” Otherwise, why does it say, “Timna became a concubine...”? It should just say that Amalek, too, was among Eliphaz’s sons. Why was his mother’s name mentioned, over and above that of Eliphaz’s other sons? Also, what difference does it make if she was Eliphaz’s concubine or his wife? Therefore Rashi explains, “This is to inform us... if only I could be your concubine...” And therefore Rashi explains [on v. 24] that this is why the Torah had to write the families of the Chorites in vs. 29—30. (R. Meir Stern)

Indicating that he came upon Seir’s wife... Re’m asks: How does Rashi know that Timna was an illegitimate child? Perhaps Eliphaz took Seir’s wife after Seir’s demise, and begat Timna from her. Maharshal answers: If so, how could Eliphaz’s own daughter publicly become his concubine? But it is understandable if Eliphaz illicitly came upon Seir’s wife, as people would not know that Timna was Eliphaz’s daughter. But it seems to me [that the answer is:] that if Timna was Eliphaz’s [legitimate] daughter, why does it say, “Lotan’s sister was Timna”? It is understandable if she was Eliphaz’s illicit daughter, as people would assume she was Seir’s daughter and thus Lotan’s full sister. And Scripture would be informing us of the greatness of Avraham, [for the sister of Chief Lotan became a concubine to Eliphaz]. But if Eliphaz legitimately begat Timna, and then took her as a concubine because a ben Noach is [technically] permitted to his daughter, why does the verse tell us she was Lotan’s sister? To inform us of Avraham’s greatness? [This cannot be,] because she anyway was known to all as Avraham’s descendant. For Eliphaz legitimately took Seir’s [former] wife and begat Timna from her. Re’m answers: All these families were written here only to tell of their shame and illegitimacy. So wherever the opportunity arises, we attribute it to [their] illicitness.

Heads of families. Rashi is saying they were leaders and heads, each over a different family, but not that the families were formed by them.

Indicating that Tzivon came upon his mother and bore Anoh. You might ask: How does Rashi know that Tzivon came upon his mother, Seir’s wife? Perhaps Seir, Tzivon’s father, came upon Tzivon’s wife and begat Anoh from her. And people thought Anoh was Tzivon’s son, but Anoh was in fact Seir’s son and Tzivon’s brother. The answer is: It is logical to attribute an act of corruption to one who is corrupt. And before we find that Tzivon was corrupt (Rashi, v. 2), as he came upon his daughterin-law, Anoh’s wife. But there is no reason to say that both [Anoh and Seir] were corrupt. You might object: And before, how did Rashi know that Tzivon was corrupt and came upon his daughter-in-law? Perhaps Anoh was the corrupt one and came upon his mother, Tzivon’s wife. The answer is: If so, there still would be two corrupt people—Anoh and Seir. And since we could rather attribute it all to Tzivon, we do so. (Re’m) Maharshal objects: Why should we consider two women corrupt—Anoh’s wife who was Tzivon’s daughter-in-law, and Seir’s wife who was Tzivon’s mother? [It is possible that Tzivon’s wife was the corrupt one in both incidents.] The answer is: Women are not called corrupt, because they are passive. The man, who does the act, is called corrupt. An alternative answer: Women can say they were forced to have relations. But a man cannot thereby exempt himself, since he is capable of having relations only if he is willing.

“No person has ever consulted me about a wound caused by a white mule and lived.” I.e., R. Chanina was a doctor, and said: “No one ever consulted me about a wound caused by a white mule and I gave him a cure.”

Yaakov established a corresponding number in whose days Eisov’s kingdom ceased... Rashi means: It is written [about Yaakov and Eisov], “One government will be mightier than the other” (25:23), implying they will not be simultaneously great [see Rashi there]. Thus, when the kings of Yisrael ruled, Eisov’s kingdom ceased that entire period, as Rashi proceeds to explain.

About the days of Yoram his son, it is written: “In his days Edom revolted...” Since Yoram was at the end, the kingdom of Eisov began immediately in his time. And so too in the time of Shaul who was the first king, the kingdom of Eisov immediately ceased.

Because it provided a king for Edom it is destined to be smitten together with them... Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse identify Yovav by his father, if it [also] identifies him by his place? [The place alone should suffice,] as with “Samlah of Masriekah” (v. 36), etc. Rashi answers: Yovav was not well known by his place. Scripture mentions his place only in order to teach, “It is destined to be smitten...” (R. Hendel)

Called by the names of their states... I.e., when the verse says, “According to their places, by their names,” it means they are named after their places. And lest we object that the chiefs of Eisov were listed before, and furthermore, other [chiefs] are also listed there, Rashi goes on to say: “The previous chiefs... are their family names.” The proof that the ones listed here are named after their provinces is that Magdiel is Rome [as Rashi says on v. 43]. For it says in Midrash Rabbah: “[The day that Lotianos became Caesar in Rome,] R. Ami was shown in a dream that today, Magdiel became king.” But from the other ones, such as Chief Kenaz, etc., [there is no proof.] It could be family names, since they were called by these same names even before. And Chief Oholivomoh and Chief Timna seem more likely to be family names, since we saw before that these are names of people. And nothing forces us to say that the others are names of provinces, either. Therefore Rashi brings a proof from Magdiel, which is the name of a place—and so they all are named after their provinces, because Magdiel serves as an example for the others. (R. Meir Stern)