Scott KarpandClaude Fable 5.1
5e325d36cc
Devarim 17:18 — the king writes his copy from before the priests, not from
memory. scripts/build_mesorah.py takes one open-licence version per work
per language from the Sefaria export (bucket sefaria-export, catalogue of
2026-10-02; Public Domain / CC0 / CC-BY / CC-BY-SA only, checked in every
file; no CC-BY-NC — the Bavli is Wikisource's) and lays it down beside
L1: mesorah/works/<slug>/{he,en}.json, index.json, integrity.sha256,
build_report.json. 128 works (Rashi, Onkelos, Ramban, Ibn Ezra, Sforno
on the Torah; all of Mishnah; 37 Bavli tractates; Bereshit and Shemot
Rabbah, Sifrei, Tanchuma), 256 files, 44.9 MiB, tree hash 7d5b3a6c…
computed as L1's (sorted relative path, then bytes; the two post-hash
files excluded). What is out, and why (licence), is in Terumah §E5.
Read, never fetched: korban_processor/mesorah.py finds citations as
written (Rashi on Devarim 6:5, Berakhot 2a, Mishnah Berakhot 1:1,
Bereshit Rabbah 1:1, Sifrei Devarim 32, Tanchuma Bereshit 1 …), resolves
each against the snapshot (complex works through their unnamed node,
Tanchuma by parashah), lists them as examination.mesorah_references, and
makes every passage found a given source for that examination — so a
claim about Rashi anchors in Rashi or does not. The Vav Pipeline couples
coupled(reference(R), mesorah(Work, [Address])) or not_in_mesorah; the
engine accepts mesorah/2 as a terminal and not_in_mesorah is Form 4.
VavPipeline.Mesorah pins the hash, re-reads the tree at startup and every
ten minutes, and /kodesh/health carries mesorah_hash. Mounted read-only at
/mnt/mesorah in the vav-pipeline and korban-processor images. L3
bedikot.mesorah (migration 20261013000002).
Also: the 1-in-12 Day6 serving failure of 2026-10-04 reproduced with seed
446116 — HaltMonitorTest left the system halted; it now resolves on exit
and the Day6 setup is defensive. Construction §3.11, Terumah §E5, Tamid
§1.1, bishearecha §IV, KOHEN, AGENTS. Doorpost 0638d4eb…. Elixir 604/0
(seeds 835592 and 446116), korban 294/1 skipped, Prolog bedikah 44/44,
L3 10/0.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
1 line
323 KiB
JSON
1 line
323 KiB
JSON
{"categories":["Tanakh","Rishonim on Tanakh","Ramban","Torah"],"heTitle":"רמב\"ן על בראשית","language":"en","license":"CC0","sectionNames":null,"text":{"":[[["<b>In the beginning, God created:</b> Rabbi Yitshak said: \"The Torah should not have been begun except from 'This month is for you,' (Exodus 12:2) which is the first commandment that Israel was commanded. And what is the reason that it opened with 'In the beginning?' So that if the nations of the world would say: 'you are thieves, since you conquered for yourselves the lands of the seven nations,' they would respond to them, 'all the earth is the Holy One's, blessed be He and He gave it to whomever it was fit in his eyes; and by His will He gave it to them and by His will, He took it from them and gave it to us.'\" And this is a tale in the words that our Rabbi Shlomo (Rashi) wrote in his commentaries. And one can question it, because there is great need to begin the Torah with \"In the beginning God created\" for it is the root of faith; and one who doesn't believe this and believes that the world is primordial is an apostate and has no Torah whatsoever. And the answer, it is because the work of creation - it is a deep secret - is not intelligible from the verses, and will not be understood by its students except through the received tradition up until Moses our Master from the mouth of God [lit. \"The Strength\"], and those who know it are required to hide it. Therefore Rabbi Isaac said that beginning of the Torah doesn't require \"In the beginning God created\" and the story of what was created on the first day, and what was done on the second day and the remaining days, and the lengthy telling of the creation of Adam and Eve, and their sin and punishment, and the story of the Garden of Eden and Adam's exile from it, for all this cannot be understood with full understanding from the texts. And all the more so the story of the generation of the Deluge and the Division, for there is not great need of them. And it would be sufficient for the people of the Torah without these texts, and they would believe in the general information that was mentioned to them in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:10): \"For in six days God created the heavens and the earth, the sea and all they contain, and He rested on the seventh day\", and the knowledge would remain to the few individuals among them, as 'a law given to Moses from Sinai\" (<i>halacha leMoshe miSinai</i>), along with the Oral Law. And Rabbi Isaac gave a reason for this, that the Torah began with \"In the beginning God created\" and the story of the whole topic of creation until the creation of Adam, and that He made him ruler over the work of His hands and all that was given over beneath his feet, and the Garden of Eden - which is the best of all the places created in this world - became established for his dwelling, until his sin drove him from there. And the people of the generation of the Deluge, by their sin were driven from the entire world, and the righteous one among them alone was spared, him and his sons. And their descendants, their sin caused them to be scattered in places and planted in lands, and they captured for themselves the places according to their families among their peoples, as the opportunities arose to them. If so, it is appropriate that when a people continues to sin, it will be destroyed from its place and another people will inherit his land, for this is the law of God in the world from always. And all the more so with what is told in the text that Canaan is cursed and was sold as an eternal slave, and it is not appropriate that he inherits the choicest places of settlement, but it will be inherited by the slaves of God, the seed of he who loved Him, like the matter which is written (Psalms 105:44), \"And He gave them the lands of nations and the labor of peoples they shall inherit so that they shall keep His laws and guard His instructions.\" That is to say, He chased out those who rebelled against Him, and settled in His servants, so that they would know that by serving Him they possess it - and if they sin against Him, the land will vomit them up as it vomited up the nation before them. And in order to elucidate the commentary that I have written [above, here] is the [Sages'] language in Bereishit Rabbah 1:3, who stated it in the following language: \"Rabbi Yehoshua of Sakhnin opened in the name of Rabbi Levi, '\"The strength of his actions He told His people\" (Psalms 111:6); what is the reason that the Holy One, blessed be He, revealed to Israel, what He created on the first day and what He created on the second day? Because of the seven [Canaanite] nations, so that they should not designate Israel and say to them, \"Are you not a nation of looting?\" and Israel will respond to them, \"And you, is [the land] not looted in your hands, is it not [written] (Deuteronomy 2:23), 'the Kaftorim that came out of Kaftor destroyed them and dwelt in their place.' The world and its fullness [belong to] the Holy One, blessed be He: when He wanted, He gave it to you; when He wanted, He took it from you and gave it to us. That is what is written (Psalms 111:6), 'to give them the inheritance of the peoples,' [and so, it is stated in the first part of the verse,] 'The strength of his actions He told His people.'\" [This means that, in order to give them the inheritance of the nations, He told them [about the] beginning. And the matter that I mentioned has already come from another source: about the hidden matters of the story of creation, our Rabbis, of blessed memory, have said (Psalms 111:6), \"'The strength of his actions He told His people;' to tell the strength of the story of creation to flesh and blood is impossible. Therefore, the verse is sealed to you [and only states], 'In the beginning, God created.\" If so, what we said about this is elucidated. ","<b>In the beginning (<i>Bereishit</i>), God created:</b> Rashi wrote, \"this text says nothing if not 'interpret me' - as our Rabbis expounded upon it; [God created the world] for the sake of the Torah which is called 'the beginning (<i>reishit</i>) of [God's] way' (Proverbs 8:22), and for the sake of Israel who were called 'the beginning (<i>reishit</i>) of [God's] grain' (Jeremiah 2:3).\" And this midrash of our Rabbis is very sealed and [obscure], since they found many things that were called <i>reishit</i> and about all of them are there words of midrash; and they are so many that [even] those of little [understanding] will speak about them. They said (Bereishit Rabbah 1:6), \"In the merit of three things was the world created: in the merit of <i>challah</i> (the portion of a batch of bread dough given to a priest/Kohen), in the merit of <i>ma'aserot</i> (the tithe of produce, which must be given to a levite) and in the merit of <i>bikurim</i> (first-fruits that must be brought to the Temple in Jerusalem and given to a priest/Kohen). 'In the beginning (<i>Bereishit</i>), God created:' there is no <i>reishit</i> besides <i>challah</i>, as it is stated about it (Numbers 15:20), 'the beginning (<i>reishit</i>) of your dough;' and there is no <i>reishit</i> besides <i>ma'aserot</i>, as it is stated about it (Deuteronomy 18:4), 'the beginning (<i>reishit</i>) of your grain;' and there is no <i>reishit</i> besides <i>bikurim</i>, as it is stated about it (Exodus 23:19), 'the beginning (<i>reishit</i>) of the first fruits of your land.'\" And they also said (Ibid.), \"in the merit of Moshe [was the world created], as it is stated, (Deuteronomy 33:21), 'and he saw a <i>reishit</i> for himself.'\" And their intention here is that the word, <i>bereishit</i>, hints that the world was created with ten mystical spheres (<i>sefirot</i>) and it hints to the sphere called 'wisdom,' which is the foundation for everything; as the matter is stated (Proverbs 3:19), \"the Lord founded the earth with wisdom\" - it is <i>terumah</i> (the portion of produce given to the priest/Kohen, a subset of which is <i>challah</i>), it is holy and 'it has no required amount,' due to the minuteness of its understanding by the creatures. And when a person counts ten measures and separates one part of the ten, it is a hint to the ten spheres; the wise will contemplate the tenth and speak about it. And <i>challah</i> - which is the only commandment in the dough - will hint to this. And Israel, which is [also] called <i>reishit</i> is the Congregation of Israel (<i>Knesset Yisrael</i>), which is compared in the Song of Songs to a bride, as the verses calls it 'daughter,' and 'sister' and 'mother' - and the Midrash has already come to [these ideas] (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 3:21), on [the verse] (Shir HaShirim 3:11) \"with the crown with which his mother crowned him\" and in many places. And so [too], \"and he saw a <i>reishit</i> for himself,\" [with] Moshe: they understood that Moshe, our teacher, gazed through the 'bright lens' and \"saw a <i>reishit</i> (beginning) for himself,\" and that is why he merited the Torah. All [of this] indicates one intention to [the Sages]. And it is impossible to expand on the explanation of this matter in writing, and [even] the hint brings much damage, since [the unknowledgable] will come to theories that are devoid of truth. But I have mentioned it to slow down the mouths of those of little [understanding] - of slight wisdom - that mock the words of our Rabbis.","<b>In the beginning:</b> Rashi wrote, \"If you are coming to explain it according to its simple meaning, explain it thus: At the beginning of the creation of the heavens and the earth and the earth was chaos and void and darkness, God said, 'let there be light'\" If so, everything follows the creation of the light. And Rabbi Avraham (Ibn Ezra) himself [also] explained it in this way; except he [added] that the letter, <i>vav</i>, in the word, <i>vehaarets</i> (and the earth) does not come to serve [what it introduces, as it generally does to indicate a sequence] and there are many [examples] of this in Scripture. And [its explanation according to Ibn Ezra] is that at the beginning of the creation of the firmament and the dry land, there was no habitation on the earth, but [rather] there was chaos and void covered in water, and God said, 'let there be light.' And according to his opinion, nothing [else] was created on the first day, only the light. And the difficulty for our teacher, Shlomo (Rashi), in this explanation is that he said, that if [the verse] is coming to teach the order of the creation with [the heavens and the earth], to tell us that they came first, it should have written, <i>barishona</i> (at first); as there is no [usage of the word,] <i>reishit</i> (beginning of) in the Bible except as a relational [term, and so it is indication that light was created at the beginning <i>of</i> God's creating the heavens and the earth]. And behold, \"He will tell the beginning (<i>reishit</i>) from the end\" (Isaiah 46:10) [is not relational to anything explicit]. And if he can make that relational to 'the word' (so that the verse would read, \"the beginning of the word from the end of the word\"), [which does not appear] (something which Rashi actually does), then he can make this relational [to a word which does not appear as well, in which case, the verse would read, \"In the beginning of everything, God created the heavens and the earth]. And also [the same applies to (Deuteronomy 33:21), \"and he saw a beginning (<i>reishit</i> ) for himself.\" And our teacher made more claims about this. And now, listen to a correct and clear explanation of the text according to its simple understanding (<i>peshuto</i>). The Holy One, blessed be He, created all of the creations from absolute nothingness. And we have no other expression in the Holy Tongue for bringing out something from nothing than \"<i>bara</i>\" (which is found almost exclusively in this verse). And none of all that which was made - 'under the sun' or above - existed [directly] from nothing. Rather, He brought out a very fine element from complete nothingness; it has no substance, but it is the energy that can create, that is able to accept a form and to go from the potential to the actual. And this is the first material [and] is called hyle by the Greeks. And after hyle, He didn't create anything, but [rather] formed and made [the creations]; since it is from it that He brought everything forth and clothed the forms and refined them. And know that the heavens and all that is in them are one material, and the earth and all that is within it is [another] material; and the Holy One, blessed be He, created both of them from nothing - and the two of them alone were created, and everything was made from them. And this material that they called hyle is called <i>tohu</i> (chaos) in the Holy Tongue. And the word['s definition is understood by looking at] the language of [the Sages] (Kiddushin 40b), \"with one that is <i>toha</i> (wonders) about the earlier ones.\" Since were a person to define a name for it, he would wonder and deliberate to give it another name, since it has not taken a form, such that a name would fit it at all. And the form that fashions this material is called <i>bohu</i> (void) in the Holy Tongue. And this word is [a] compound [that is made up of two words, <i>bo</i> (within it) and <i>hu</i> (it)], meaning within it, is it. [And even though it is missing the letter <i>vav</i> in the first part of the compound,] it is like the word, [<i>osehu</i> (to do it), in the phrase] (Exodus 18:18) \"you are not able to do it,\" which is missing a <i>vav</i> and an <i>alef</i>, [and fully spelled out would be the two words,] <i>oseh</i> (to do) and <i>hu</i> (it). And this is what the verse is stating (Isaiah 34:11), \"and He shall stretch upon it the line of <i>tohu</i> and the stones of <i>bohu</i>;\" since [this] is the line (<i>kav</i>) with which the craftsman will seal the plans of his building and that which he hopes (<i>yikveh</i>) to do - [and that word's] definition [is understood] from [the phrase], (Psalms 27:14) \"Hope (<i>kaveh</i>) to the Lord.\" And the stones are the forms of the building. And so it is written (Isaiah 40:17), \"less than nothing and <i>tohu</i> are they considered to Him;\" [such] that <i>tohu</i> is after nothing and [is also] not a thing. And this is what they stated in Sefer Yetzirah, \"He created substance from <i>tohu</i> and made 'it is not' [into] 'it is.'\" And they also said in the midrash of Rabbi Nechunia ben Hakaneh (Sefer HaBahir), \"Rabbi Berachia said, 'that which is written, \"and the earth was <i>tohu</i> and <i>bohu</i>,\" what is meant [by] \"was?\" That it already was <i>tohu</i>. And [if so,] what is <i>bohu</i>? Rather, it was <i>tohu</i> - and what is <i>tohu</i>? Something that makes people wonder - and it went back to being <i>bohu</i> - and what is <i>bohu</i>? Something that has substance to it, as it is written, \"in it is it (<i>bo hu</i>).\"'\" ","And it stated, <i>Elohim</i> (God), [which means] the master of all the forces, as the root word [here] is <i>el</i>, which is power; and it is a compound word, [made up of] <i>el</i> [and] <i>hem</i> (them), as if 'power' were relational (and would be understood as power of them), and 'them' refers to all the other powers; meaning 'the Power over all the powers.' And a secret will also be elucidated about this [later]. If so, the correct simple meaning of the verses is that its meaning is: At first, \"God created the heavens\" since he brought forth their material from nothing, \"and the earth,\" bringing forth its material from nothing. \"And the earth\" includes the four basic elements, as per (Genesis 2:1), \"And the earth and the heavens and all their hosts were completed,\" which includes the whole terrestrial globe. And so [too] (Psalms 148:7), \"Praise the Lord from the earth, the sea monsters and all the depths,\" and besides them, [there] are many other [such references]. And behold, with this creation, which was like a small [and] fine dot, and without substance, were created all of the creations in the heavens and the earth.<br>And the word, <i>et</i> [in the phrase <i>et hashamayim</i> (the heavens)] is like [saying,] the actual thing. And they expounded about it that it is always [meant to] include [something beyond what is written]; since its meaning [is understood from the phrase] (Isaiah 21:12), \"the morning has come (<i>ata</i>) and also the night.\" And so did our Rabbis state (Bereishit Rabbah 1:14), \"<i>et hashamayim</i>, to include the sun and the moon, stars and constellations; <i>ve'et haarets</i> to include the trees and the grasses and the Garden of Eden.\" And these included all the physical creations. And after it stated that at the beginning - with one word - God created the heavens and the earth 'and all of their hosts,' it went back to explain that after this creation, this earth was <i>tohu</i>, meaning material that has no substance; and it was <i>bohu</i>, since he fashioned it with a form. And the explanation is that in this form is the form of the four elements, which are fire, water, dirt and air; and the word, \"the earth,\" includes these four. And fire is called, \"darkness,\" as elemental fire is dark; and if it were red, it would redden the night for us. And the water, with which the dirt was kneaded, is called \"the deep.\" Therefore, the waters of the seas are the depths, as it is written (Exodus 15:5); \"The depths covered them;\" (Ibid., 15:8) \"the depths congealed;\" (Jonah 2:6) \"the deep surrounded me\" - and the floor of the sea is called 'deep;' (Psalms 106:9) \"And He rebuked the Reed Sea and it dried up and they walked in the depths like in a wilderness;\" (Isaiah 63:13) \"He led them through the depths like a horse in the wilderness.\" And the air is called \"spirit.\" And it is already know that the four elements are one [construct] and their axle is the planet Earth. And the waters encircle the earth, and the air encircles the waters and the fire encircles the air. And the verse states, that the earth took on a form, and the fire encircled above over the water and dirt - that were mixed - and the wind blew and entered the darkness (the fire) and hovered over the waters. And it appears to me that this dot - that with the fashioning of its form became <i>bohu</i> - is what the Sages called 'the Foundation Stone' (Yoma 54b), from which the world was set. And behold the structure of the verses is [as follows]; in the beginning, God created the heavens from nothing and created the earth from nothing, and when the earth was created it was <i>tohu</i> and [then] it was <i>bohu</i>; and in [the heavens and earth] were darkness (fire) and water and dirt, and wind was hovering over the waters. And behold all [of this] was created and made. And wind (spirit) was made relational to God (meaning \"the wind/spirit of God\"), because it is finer than [the other elements] and higher than all of them; only that it hovers over the water by the proclamation of the Holy One, blessed be He. And if you will seek [to find] the creation of the angels, which are not bodies, this is not explained in the Torah. And they expounded about them that they were created on the second day, that you should not say that they helped in the creation of the world. But if you merit and understand the secret of the word, <i>Bereishit</i> (In the beginning), and why it did not [have the word, God] precede to say, \"God created, in the beginning,\" you will know that according to the path of truth, the verse tells about the lower ones, but hints to the higher ones. And the word, <i>Bereishit</i>, hints to wisdom, which is the beginning of the beginnings, as I have mentioned. And for this reason, they translated it in the Targum Yerushalmi, as \"with wisdom.\" And the word is crowned with the crown of the house (<i>bayit</i>, which is similar to <i>bet</i>, the first letter of <i>Bereishit</i>)."],[],["<b>And God said, \"let there be light:\"</b> The word, saying, here is to indicate will; in the same way as (I Samuel 20:4) \"What does your soul say, and I will do it for you,\" [which means] what do you will and want; and so [too] (Genesis 24:51), \"and she shall be a wife to the son of your master, as God has said,\" meaning as He willed; since this is how will is in front of Him. Or [saying] is like thought, as per (Isaiah 47:8), \"who says in her heart;\" (Zechariah 12:5) \"And the captains of Yehuda said in their hearts.\" And the issue is to say that it was without effort. And so [too], our Rabbis called this 'thought.' They said (Bereishit Rabbah 12:14), \"The thought was at day, the act was with the dimming of the sun.\" And it is to indicate something thought out that has a reason, not just a simple want. And the word, being, indicates an act that is in the present time (tense), as per (Nechemiah 6:6), \"and you will be a king for them.\" And therefore the verse states that when He created the material of the heavens, He said that there would be a thing that shines [coming] from this material; He called it light. <b>And there was light:</b> It did not state, \"and it was so,\" as it is stated with the other days, since the light did not stand in this way all of the days, as [was the case] with the rest of the act of creation. And our rabbis have a midrash about this in a hidden secret. And know that the days that are mentioned in the act of creation were, in the creation of the heavens and the earth, real days - composed of hours and minutes - and they were six like the six days of the [week], like the simple understanding of the verse. And in the inner [understanding] of the matter, the spheres (<i>sfirot</i>) that are emanated from the Most High are called 'days,' since any proclamation that brings existence is called a 'day.' And there were six, 'because to the Lord is greatness and strength.' And the proclamations were ten, since the name 'day' does not apply to the first ones. And the explanation of the order of the verses in this [way] is elevated and hidden, and our knowledge of it is less than a drop in the Great Sea."],["<b>And God saw the light, that it was good:</b> Our Rabbi Shlomo (Rashi) wrote, \"Here too, we need the words of the Aggadah (homiletical teachings): He saw it, [and saw] that it was not proper for the wicked to use it; so He separated it for the righteous in the future. And according to its simple meaning, explain it as follows: He saw it, that it was good, and it was unseemly that [light] and darkness should serve in a mishmash; so He established for this one its boundary by day, and for that one its boundary by night.\" And Rabbi Avraham said, \"Like 'I myself saw' (Ecclesiastes 2:13); it is [seeing] in [one’s] thought. And the meaning of 'and He separated,' is [that they were separated] through the calling of [their] names.\" And the words of both of them are not correct - since; if so, it would appear to be a matter of new deliberation and counsel, that after God's having said, \"Let there be light\" and there was light, it would state that He saw it, that it was good, and hence, He separated between it and darkness; like the matter of a man who did not know the nature of something until it [existed]. But the order in the story of creation is that the taking of things into actuality is called 'saying,' - [as per] \"And God said, 'let there be light;'\" \"And He said... 'let there be a firmament'\" (verse 6); \"And He said... 'let the earth bring forth grass'\" (verse 11) - and their [continued] existence is called 'seeing;' as with the matter of \"I myself saw\" in Ecclesiastes; and so [too], \"The woman saw that the tree was good for eating\" (Genesis 3:6). And it is like the matter, [when] they said (Ketuvot 109a), \"I see the words of Admon;\" and similar to it is \"And the king said to Tsadok the priest, 'do you see? return to the city in peace.'\" And the matter is to show their maintenance in His will, and if the Will should separate from them for an instant, they would turn to nothing. And when it stated, with the act of each day, \"and God saw that it was good,\" and on the sixth day when everything was completed, \"And God saw everything that He had done, and behold it was good,\" so [too] did it state on the first day with the existence of light, \"And God saw... that it was good,\" [meaning] that He wanted its existence forever. And it added here, [the phrase,] \"the light,\" since had it simply stated, \"And God saw that it was good,\" it would have referred back to the creation of the heavens and the earth, and He had not yet decreed [continued] existence upon them; since they would not be maintained as they were, but [rather] from the material that was created on the first [day], the firmament was made on the second [day] and the waters were separated and the dirt was made into the dry land that He called earth on the third [day]; and then He decreed their existence and He said about them, \"And God saw that it was good.\" <b>and God separated between the light and between the darkness:</b> This is not the darkness mentioned in the first verse, which is fire, but [rather], it is the absence of light; since God gave a measure [of time] to the light, and that it should be absent after [that measure] until its return. And some of the commentators have said, that this light was created in front of the Holy One, blessed be He - meaning in the West - and He immediately had [the light] set for the measure of night; and afterwards, He had it shine for the measure of day. And this is the meaning of, \"and it was evening and it was morning\" (verse 5), that first was the night and afterwards the day, and both of them were after the coming forth of the light. And this is not correct at all, since they would be adding to the six days of creation, a short day (before the sun set completely and the first night began). But it is possible for us to say that the light was created in front of Him, may He be blessed, and it did not spread to the elements mentioned - but He separated between it and between the darkness, by giving them both a measure - and it stood in front of Him according to the measure of night; and afterwards, He made it shine over the elements. And behold, [this way] the evening was before the morning. And it is also possible for us to say, that time existed from when the heavens and the earth came out from the void into the existence mentioned in the first verse. Since even though our time is in minutes and hours, which are [dependent upon] light and darkness, once there is existence, it [is] within time. And if so, the heavens and the earth were created, and they stood like that according to the measure of the night - without light - and He said, \"let there be light, and there was light;\" and He decreed upon [the light] that it should stand like the first measure [of night], and afterwards, it should become absent from the elements; \"and it was evening, and it was morning.\" "],["<b>And God called the light, day:</b> It is saying that time was created and He made the measure of day and the measure of night. And the matter of God's calling is, that since man called the names [of things], it needed to say - about these that were made before he existed - that God called them names, and this is the opinion of Rabbi Avraham (Ibn Ezra). And that which is correct is that the matter of calling with these things here is their separation through their boundaries, after they took on forms; and they [also] said so (Bereishit Rabbah 3:6), \"day will be your area, and night will be your area.\" <b>And it was evening and it was morning, one day:</b> [This means that] it was evening and it was morning of one day. And the beginning of the night was called <i>erev</i> (evening) since the forms get mixed up (<i>yitarvu</i>) in it; and the beginning of the day, <i>boker</i> since a man can distinguish (<i>yivaker</i>) between them; thus explained Rabbi Avraham. And by way of the simple meaning, it is not possible to say, \"the first day,\" since the second one has not yet been made. As 'the first' is before the second in counting or in worth [only] when they both exist, but a \"one\" does not indicate a second. And there are those that explain (Guide for the Perplexed 2:30), that this is a hint to the movement of the [sun] over the entire face of the earth in twenty four hours; as in their every moment, it is morning in different places and evening in places opposite them; and if so, it is hinting to that which will be in the firmament after the placing of the luminaries in the firmament of the skies."],["<b>Let there be a firmament:</b> He said about the material that existed at the beginning when He created it from nothing, that it should be stretched out like a tent in the midst of the water and separate the waters from the waters; and perhaps they intended this when they said (Bereshit Rabbah 4:1), \"Rav said, 'the heavens were wet on the first day, and on the second day, they congealed,' Rav said, '\"Let there be (<i>yehi</i>) a firmament\" - let the firmament be strengthened (<i>yechazek</i>);' Rabbi Yehuda Berebi Shimon said, 'the firmament (<i>rakiya</i>) should form [like] a cloth, like you would say (Exodus 39:3), \"And they flattened (<i>yiraka'au</i>) the gold [into thin plates], etc.\"'\" <b>In the midst of the waters:</b> In the middle of the waters, between the higher waters and the lower waters; [just] as there is a division between the firmament and the waters that are on the earth, so [too] is there a division between the upper waters and the firmament. Behold you have learned that they are suspended by the [Divine] proclamation - Bereishit Rabbah 4:3 and Rashi [cited] it. And this is from the matter of 'Ma'aseh Bereishit' (a secret esoteric teaching), and do not hope from me that I should write something about it, since the matter is from the secrets of the Torah and the verses do not need this elaboration, since the Scripture does not protract the matter. And the explanation is forbidden [to teach] for those who know it, and all the more so for us."],["<b>And God made the firmament:</b> The expression making (<i>assiya</i>) in every place is the refinement of the thing to its [proper] design. <b>And it was so:</b> It wrote on the first [day], \"and there was light\" [immediately] after \"And God said, 'let there be light;'\" - after the saying, it explained that it was materialized, and it was as it had been decreed; but here after the saying of, \"let there be a firmament,\" it is written, \"And God made a firmament and he separated\" - and [so,] why did it add, \"and it was so.\" Rather, it is say that it was to be like this always, all the days of the world. And Rabbi Avraham (Ibn Ezra), explained that it is connected to that which comes after it; [meaning that] when it was so, He \"called the firmament, heaven\" - and this is not correct. And in Bereishit Rabbah 4:6, they said, \"'And God made the firmament;' this is one of the verses [about which] Ben Zoma 'shook' the world: '\"And God made, etc.\" and is it not in the statement (Psalms 33:6), \"By the word of the Lord were the heavens made?\"'\" And this 'shaking' is not from the [use] of the expression, \"and He made\" alone, since, behold, on the fourth and sixth [days], it is also written, \"and He made;\" but [rather] it was from that which I said - because on the other days, it is written after the saying, \"and it was so,\" to say that it happened like this immediately and promptly after the saying; but here, after \"And God said,\" it is written, \"and He made.\" This is [Ben Zoma's] difficulty and perhaps he had a hidden explanation [and] did not want to reveal his secret, and this is the issue of the noise ('the shaking'). "],["<b>And God called the firmament, heaven:</b> On the second day, He called them this name, when He clothed them with the form of the firmament; since on the first [day], the heavens were created but the name would not stick to it, until this form fashioned it. And the explanation of this name is that it is as if it is vocalized with a <i>segol</i> under [the letter,] <i>shin</i>, as in the [first] word [in the phrase] (Song of Songs 1:7), \"that-why (<i>sha-lama</i>) should I be be like a veiled one\" [is understood as if a <i>segol</i> is under the <i>shin</i> there]. It is [saying] 'that waters;' they were what became thin and stretched out like a tent within the higher waters and the lower ones. [And] it revealed with this name the secret of their formation. And in the Gemara in Tractate Chagigah 12a, they stated, \"What is <i>shamayim</i> (heavens)? It is <i>shem mayim</i> (the name of water).\" And, if so, it is missing one [letter,] <i>mem</i>, due to its connecting of two of the same letters, as in the word, <i>Yerubaal</i> (Judges 6:32 et. al.) [which only has one letter, bet, even though both the last letter of the first word and the first letter of the last word that form the compound, are the letter, bet]. And it said, there is water; that is to say, the name that He called the waters when they were clothed in a different form; and this is the simple meaning of the verse [according] to this approach that Rashi wrote, and it is also the opinion of Rav that we mentioned (in verse 6). And the name \"heavens\" and \"earth\" in the first verse is [relating to] what they would be called in the future, since it is not possible that they would be made known only with this [brief] expression. But it is more correct that we should say that, according to the simple meaning of the verses, the heavens that are mentioned in the first verse are not included in the [celestial] spheres, but [rather] they are above the 'chariot,' as [in] the matter of \"And over the heads of the <i>chayot</i> (a type of angel), there was the likeness of a firmament, like the color of the terrible ice, stretched forth over their heads above\" (Ezekiel 1:22). And from them is the Holy One, blessed be He, called, the \"Rider of the Heavens\" (Deuteronomy 33:26). And the verse does not recount anything about their creation, in the same way that it does not mention the angels and the <i>chayot</i> of the 'chariot' and any [other] rarefied thing that does not possess a body; it only mentions about the heavens that they were created, meaning that their were [created from] nothing. And it states on the second [day] that the firmament would be in the midst of the waters, meaning that from the waters that were mentioned - as their creation was mentioned - would exist something [like a] thin layer that would separate between them. And it also called these spheres [that form the firmament mentioned on the second day] heavens; and therefore they are called 'the firmament of the heavens' in this section [when it writes] (verse 17), \"and God placed them in the firmament of the heavens;\" [in order] to elucidate that they are not those that were mentioned with the name 'the heavens,' [but] only the firmament that was called heavens; and this is also the opinion of our Rabbis: they mentioned it in Bereishit Rabbah 4:2 [and] said, \"All the rabbis said it in the name of Rabbi Chananiah Berebe Pinchas and Rabbi Yaakov Berebe Avin [said it] in the name of Rabbi Shmuel Berebe Nachman: At the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, said \"Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,\" the middle drop congealed and became the lower heavens and the upper heavens of the heavens.\" And this statement is understood [to be referring] to the spheres, lower and higher, [the latter of which] are called the heavens of the heavens, as it is written (Psalms 128:3-4), \"Praise, O sun and moon; praise, O all the stars of light. Praise, O heavens of the heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens.\" However, the heavens that are mentioned on the first [day - which is the location of] the throne of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is written (Isaiah 66:1), \"The heavens are My throne\" - these are the ones that are mentioned in the beginning of the psalm (Psalms 148:1-2), \"Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise Him from the heights. Praise Him, all of His angels.\" And this [understanding] is correct in the simple understanding of the verse, even if there is a hidden and elevated secret to the name, 'heavens' and the name, 'the throne,' as there is a heavens to the heavens and a throne to the throne. And [based on] this, the Sages say (Berakhot 13a), \"in order to accept upon him the yolk of the heavens;\" and they [also] said (Ibid., 7b) \"the fear of the heavens;\" and the verse [also] states (Daniel 4:23), \"that the heavens rule.\" And they have a wonderful midrash (Sefer haBahir 100) on that which it is written (I Kings 8:32), \"And you, O heavens, listen;\" and all of this will be seen hinted to in the first verse, to the one that merits it. And behold, the verses have elucidated that the first creations were [created] from nothing, and the origin of the rest is from the first created substance. And let not the statement of Rabbi Eliezer the Great be difficult to you, when he said (Pirkei Derabi Eliezer 3), \"from whence did the heavens come from? From the light of the clothing of the Holy One, blessed be He.\" And so [too], it is [written] in Bereishit Rabbah 12:1. Since, because the Sages wanted to completely bring up the first substance and to make it the finest of the fine, they did not see [fit] that the heavens - which are moving physical bodies with forms - are created from nothing. But [rather], the light of the clothing is the first creation, and from it came out the physical substance of the heavens and gave the earth a different substance and it is not like the fineness of the first. And that [substance] is the 'snow' under the throne of glory - since the throne of glory was created and from it, the 'snow' underneath it - and from it, was made the substance of the earth, and behold it is the third in creation (meaning that it took three steps to create it). "],["<b>\"Let the waters under the heavens gather:\"</b> The deep was water and dirt, like the murky waters. And He decreed about the waters, that they should gather in one place around all of the corners [of the earth], and He decreed about the earth, that it should rise, until it be seen over the waters and dry up. And there would be contiguous dry land, that would be fitting for habitation, and so is it written (Psalms 136:6), \"To the One that has made the earth ride upon the waters.\" Or maybe, [the land] is spherical, some of which is exposed and the majority of which is submerged, which appeared [explainable] to the Greeks in their demonstrations, [both] plausible and imagined. But behold they were two [supernatural] decrees. That is to say, they were two matters that were done by the will of God, [which are] the opposite of what is appropriate for their nature, since it is fitting for the heaviness of the dirt and the relative lightness of the water, that the axis of the earth be at the center and the water cover it, surrounding it on all sides. And therefore [since it required Divine decrees], He said, \"let the waters under the heavens gather;\" which is to say to the lower place, and He said, \"and let the dry land appear.\" And He called them names when they were clothed in these forms, since from the beginning, their name was \"deep.\" "],["<b>And God called the dry land earth:</b> [While] it can be said that the name that would be fitting for it would be dry land - since when the waters were separated from the dirt, it was dry - yet He called it earth like the name of the general elements that were created on the first [day]. And the reason is that it is for its sake that [the elements] were created, in order that there be a habitat for man - since there is none among the lower ones that recognizes his Creator besides him. And He called the gathering [place] of the waters <i>yamim</i> (seas), as if [to say], it is a <i>yam mayim</i> (sea of water), as the floor of a gathering [of water] is called <i>yam</i>, as it is written (Isaiah 11:9), \"as the waters cover the <i>yam</i>,\" and also (II Kings 16:17), \"he brought down the <i>yam</i> from upon the cattle,\" as it is called thus because [the vessel described there holds] a large gathering of waters. <b>And God saw that it was good:</b> That is their continued existence according to His will. And the matter is that when He clothed them with this form, He wanted them [to continue to exist], as I explained (in verse 4). And this is what our Rabbis said (Bereishit Rabbah 4:6), \"Why does it not say, 'it was good,' on the second [day]? Since the work of the water was not finished - therefore, it is written twice on the third [day]; once for the work of the water and once for the work of the day.\""],["<b>And God said, \"let the earth bring forth grass:\"</b> He decreed that there should be in the propagation of the earth a potential to grow and to produce seed, so that the specie will exist forever. And it is likely that it is hinting to the earth that was mentioned in the first verse, [to say] that the power of growth comes from it, and behold, from its power emanated the elements according to their species, and from them grew grasses and trees in the Garden of Eden and in the world. And this is what they said (Bereishit Rabbah 11:9), \"On the third [day], He created three creatures: trees, grasses and the Garden of Eden;\" and they also said, (Ibid., 10:6), \"There is no single piece of grass below that does not have a 'constellation' above, and [the latter] strikes it and says to it, 'grow!' and that is what is written (Job 38:33), 'Do you know the laws of the heavens; did you place its dominion (<i>mishtaro</i>) on the earth?' [that is an expression of an] enforcer of the law (<i>shoter</i>).\" And He said that all of this should be \"according to their specie,\" and that is the prohibition of mixing species (<i>kilayim</i>); since the one who plants them [in a mixture], denies the power of the creation. And our teacher, Shlomo (Rashi), wrote, \"<i>desheh esev</i>: <i>desheh</i> is not an expression of <i>esev</i> and <i>esev</i> is not an expression of <i>desheh</i>; since <i>desheh</i> is an expression of covering the earth with grasses and [so] it is not common parlance to say a certain <i>desheh</i>.\" And every singular plant root is called [an] <i>esev</i>. And this [teaching] of his is not correct; for if so, <i>desheh</i> would never be [in plural form], and the Sages say (Chullin 60a), \"If one grafts two types of <i>deshaim</i>, what is [the law]?\" And [Rashi] himself mentions <i>deshaim</i>. But [rather], <i>desheh</i> is the small [plant] that sprouts from the earth and <i>esev</i> is the large [plant] that gives seed. And therefore it states, \"<i>tadshe haarets</i>; and it does not make sense to say <i>taasiv</i> (in the place of <i>tadshe</i> here). And every small [plant] that sprouts form the earth is called <i>desheh</i>, even with regards to trees; and therefore the [beginning of the] phrase extends [to also refer to the fruit trees as follows]: \"let the earth bring forth (<i>tadshe</i>)... fruit trees.\" As it does not state, \"let the earth bring forth grass and bring out fruit tree,\" (for if trees could never be considered <i>desheh</i>, there would be a need for a second verb to refer to them). And the explanation of the [verb, <i>tadshe</i>] is like 'to grow (or sprout);' and so (Joel 2:22), \"as the quarters of the wilderness sprout grass, as the tree bears its fruit.\" And I wonder, how it is that the verse did not mention fruitless trees, and how is it that He only commanded about fruit trees. And perhaps to this this did our Rabbis [respond], when they said (Bereishit Rabbah 5:9), \"Also fruitless trees gave fruit.\" And, if so, we shall say, that from the curse of \"cursed is the earth\" (Genesis 3:17), did they become fruitless. And it is possible that the explanation of the verse is: the earth should sprout plants, and <i>esev</i> that gives seed, and trees that make fruit; and behold at the beginning [of this verse], He decreed about fruitless plants and fruitless trees. And from that which it states, \"that makes fruit with its seed in it\" (verse 12),\" we learn that all trees [can] grow from their seed, even though with some of them, it is the custom to plant their branches. "],["<b>And God saw that it was good:</b> The existence of the species forever. And behold, a day was not designated uniquely for this proclamation [about vegetation], since it is not a special act, as it makes no difference to the earth if it is fertile or arid."],[],["<b>\"Let there be luminaries:\"</b> Behold, the light was created on the first day and shines over the fundamental elements, and when the firmament was made on the second [day], it blocked the light and prevented it from shining on the lower elements. And behold, when the earth was created on the third [day], there was darkness in it and not light. And now on the fourth [day], the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted there to be luminaries in the firmament that would have light reach the earth; and this is the reason [for] \"in the skies of the firmament to shine upon the earth;\" as the light was [then] above the firmament and did not shine on the earth. And the matter of \"let there be luminaries\" is that He decreed on the first [day] that there would be light from the substance of the skies according to the measure of the day, and now He decreed that it should become physical and that a body of great light should exist from it - that would shine during the day - and that another body of little light [should exist] - that would shine during the night - and He suspended both of them in the firmament of the skies, that they should also shine below. And it is possible that in the same way that He placed in the earth the power to sprout in [some of its] places, so too did He place in the firmament, places that are prepared and available to receive the light; and these bodies that receive light, sparkle, as do lenses and onyx stones. And that is why He called them, luminaries and not lights, even though it is called that in the psalm (Psalms 136:7). <b>\"To separate between the day and the night:\"</b> Rashi wrote, \"[This happened] after the first light was hidden away, but during the six days of Creation, the [first] light and darkness served, one by day and one by night;\" and I do not see that this should be the opinion of our Rabbis that mention the hiding away of the first light, but [rather] - according to their opinion - the first light served [for] three days and on the fourth day, these two luminaries were emanated and made from it then; as they stated (Bereishit Rabbah 17:5), \"an offshoot of the light is the sphere of the sun;\" since, because this world was not fit to use that light without an intermediary, He hid it for the righteous in the world to come; and they used that offshoot from the fourth day and onward. This is what they said in Bereishit Rabbah 3:6, \"It was taught: the light that was created on the six days of creation; it is not able to shine during the day because it would darken the sphere of the sun; it is not able during the night, since it was created to shine only during the day. And where is it? It is hidden. And where is it? It is arranged [away] for the righteous ones in the future, as it is stated, (Isaiah 30:26), 'And the light of the moon will be like the light of the sun, and the light of the sun will be seven-fold, like the light of the seven days.' Seven [days]? Were they not three? It is like a person that says, 'I will deposit it for the seven days of my party;'\" meaning to say that it is common parlance that one would say, 'I will deposit and save this meat for the seven days of my party,' and [not mean that] it will suffice him for all seven days, but that he will bring it out during [that time]. And this is what they [meant]: seven days [refers to] the light that existed in some of those days. And there (Bereishit Rabbah 3:6), they also said, \"'And He separated:' Rabbi Yehuda Berebi Shimon said, 'He separated it for Himself;' and the Sages said, 'He separated it for the righteous ones in the future.'\" And if you are able to know their intention in saying \"a crown of splendor for those carried in the womb\" in the blessing of Havdalah, you will know the secret of the first light and of the hiding and of the separation that [Rabbi Yehuda Berebi Shimon] said was separated for Himself, and the secret of the two kings that use one crown, when in the end, the light of the moon will be like the light of the sun, after the light of the sun will be seven-fold. <b>\"And they will be for signs:\"</b> The change[s] that they will cause, and from them will be made signs and \"wonders in the heavens and the earth, blood and fire and billows of smoke\" (Joel 3:3), as per the expression (Jeremiah 10:2), \"and from the signs of the sky do not fear.\" <b>\"And for appointed times:\"</b> \"The planting and the harvest and the coldness and the heat and the summer and the winter\" (Genesis 8:22). <b>\"And for days:\"</b> The measure of day and the measure of night. <b>\"And for years:\"</b> They will finish their paths and come back to return to the path that they went upon [previously]. And the year of the sun is in 365 days and the year of the moon is in 30 days."],["<b>\"And they shall be for luminaries in the firmament of the skies to shine upon the earth:</b> It added that their light should reach the earth, since it it possible that they should show light in the heavens and do all of the acts that are mentioned, without their shining upon the earth. And hence it stated that they would be for luminaries in the firmament of the heavens and look down on the earth and shine upon it. "],["<b>And God made... (17) And God placed them:</b> [This] teaches that these luminaries were not from the body of the firmament, but [rather] bodies that were implanted in it. "],[],["<b>And to rule over the day and over the night:</b> And the matter of ruling is something else, regardless of the light mentioned, since it includes what was stated at the beginning, \"and they will be for signs and designated times.\" As they have governance over the earth in the changes which are born through them, [as well] as over the existence and demise of all the lower things. Since the sun - during its governance over the day - makes sprout and gives birth and makes grow all things warm and dry; and the moon - in its governance - makes fruitful [the beings] in the streams and seas and in all [beings] wet and cold. And that is why it stated, \"and to govern over the day and over the night\" without distinction; since the governance over the lower things is [shared by them]. And it is possible that the governance also includes the power of emanation; since they are the leaders of the lower ones and through their power, every governor and 'constellation' governs; and the 'constellation' that makes grow during the day, governs it, and the 'constellation' that makes grow during the night, governs it, as the matter that is written (Deuteronomy 4:19), \"which the Lord, your God, distributed them to all the nations;\" and that is what the verse states (Psalms 147:4), \"He counts the number of the stars, to all of them He calls names,\" and so [too] (Isiah 40:26), \"to all of them, He calls by name,\" as the calling of names is the differentiation in their powers; to one is the power of justice and fairness, to another is the power of blood and the sword, and so on for all the powers, as is known in astronomy. And everything [happens] with the supreme Power and by His will, and that is why it states (Psalms 147:5), \"Our Master is great and of abundant power,\" since He is greater than all of them, and abundant in power over all of them; and so [too], it states (Isaiah 40:26), \"from abundant mights and courageous power.\" And according to the secret way that I hinted to you, there will truly be a complete governance. <b>And to separate between the light and the darkness:</b> Rabbi Avraham (Ibn Ezra) said that in the going out of the sun during the day and the light of the moon at night, [people] will distinguish between the light and the darkness. And according to my opinion, the light that is mentioned here is the day and the darkness is the night, since this is their name, as it is stated (above, verse 5), \"And God called the light day and the darkness, He called night.\" And behold, in all of the story of creation, the verse mentions the [Divine] command and then tells [of] the act. And here [too, we find this as follows]: He commanded, \"And they will be for luminaries\" (above, verse 15), and it told [of the act], \"And God placed them\" (above, verse 17). And it stated, \"and to govern over the day and over the night,\" that one should govern over the day and one should govern over the night; and the rulership is that which He commanded, \"and they will be for signs and appointed times\" (above, verse 14). And it explained that the rulership of the two will not be equal, but [rather] to separate between the light and the darkness; since the large one will rule over the day and it will be completely light - even in a place where the sun doesn't reach; and the small one will rule at night and it will be dark - except that the moon will temper its darkness; and that [corresponds to] the command, when He said \"to separate between the day and the night\" (Ibid.), as per \"and God separated between the light and the darkness\" (above, verse 4)."],[],["<b>\"Let the waters swarm (<i>yishretsu</i>) with swarms (<i>sherets</i>):\"</b> Rashi wrote, \"Every living thing that is not much higher than the earth is called <i>sherets</i>: among flying creatures, such as flies; among the insects, such as ants, beetles, and worms; and among the [larger] creatures, such as the weasel, the mouse, the lizard, and their like; and all of the fishes.\" And what will the teacher say about the verse (Genesis 9:7), \"And you shall be fruitful and multiply, swarm (<i>shirtsu</i>) upon the earth and multiply in it,\" that is spoken to Noach and his sons? And so [too in verse 21, regarding the phrase], \"that the waters swarmed,\" it would be [more] fitting that it should say - according to this opinion - \"that swarmed in the waters.\" And there are many flying creatures that are no taller from the earth than the height of the weasel [and] the mouse. And the bat has very short legs, and why is it not called a flying <i>sherets</i>? And the opinion of Onkelos is that the matter of <i>sheritsa</i> is rooted in movement [and he] said about [the terms] <i>sherets</i> and <i>remes</i>, [that it is] \"a moving thing that moves,\" and he explained it well. And creeping things (<i>sheratsim</i>) are called this because of their constant movement. And it is possible that it is a compound expression, [and] is called <i>sherets</i>, since it runs (<i>she'hu rats</i>). And a <i>remes</i> is [called that] since it crawls (<i>romes</i>) on the earth; it does not stop and does not rest. And know that every flying creatures that has four legs is called a \"flying <i>sherets</i>\" (Leviticus 11:20-23) - because it leans and moves on its legs like creeping things; and [every] one that does not, is called a flying winged thing - since its main movement is to fly. And the explanation of \"<i>shirtsu</i> in the earth and multiply in it\" (Genesis 8:17) is that they should walk in all of it and be fruitful and multiply upon it; [and of] \"<i>shirtsu</i> upon the earth and multiply in it\" (Genesis 9:7) is to move in all of it and multiply <i>on</i> it; and that is the reason for the repetition of the word, multiply, twice in the verse. If so, we will explain \"that the waters swarmed\" (below, verse 21) [to mean] that the waters moved and led forward, and so [too], \"and the Nile swarmed frogs\" (Exodus 7:28) [in the same way], and so [too], \"were fruitful and swarmed\" (Exodus 1:7) [to mean] that they were fruitful and multiplied and moved [about] because of their great number until \"the land became full\" of them. But Onkelos interpreted \"<i>shirtsu</i> upon the earth\" (Genesis 9:7) as a matter of reproduction, [and translated it as] \"give birth on the earth;\" since he understood the expression [here] as one borrowed from [the properties] of creeping things (<i>sheratsim</i>), [meaning that the verse is saying], \"and you shall be fruitful and multiply like the creeping things on the earth and multiply in it;\" and so [too], \"they were fruitful and swarmed\" (Exodus 1:7) [to mean] that they were like creeping things in reproducing so many. <b>\"And let fowl fly upon the earth;\"</b> On this day, the proclamation of creation was in the waters, and on the sixth day, it was in the earth. If so, the explanation of \"and let fowl fly upon the earth\" [is that the reference to the fowl] continues [from the beginning of the proclamation as follows:] \"let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures and fowl that fly.\" And the verse that states (Genesis 2:19), \"And the Lord, God, formed from the earth all the animals of the field and all of the fowl in the sky\" is as if it stated \"And the Lord God formed all of the animals of the field from the earth and formed all of the fowl of the sky.\" And there are many [verses that follow such a pattern.] And this is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer the Great in his Chapters (Pirkei Derabi Eliezer 9), who stated that, on the fifth [day, God] had all the winged fowl swarm from the water. But in the Gemara (Chullin 27b), they disagreed about it: some say this - that they were created from the water, and some say the fowl were created from both [the water and the earth]; the [latter] say that they were created from the swamp. And if so, because their generation was in the water - [as] the swamp is at the floor of the sea - as a result of this, the proclamation about them was on the fifth day. And so He said, \"let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures (souls),\" since the body and soul of fish [came] from the water with the word of God, who gave them their spirit from the elements. [This is] not like man, whose body, [God] separated from his soul, as it is stated (Genesis 2:7), \"And the Lord, God, formed man, dust from the earth, and He blew into his nostrils, a living soul.\" And it does not mention a soul at all, with plants on the third [day]; since the force of growth is not a soul, only with bodies that move is it [so]. And according to the opinion of the Greeks - that say that just like the [seat of] growth of moving bodies is in the soul, so too do plants grow through their soul - the difference would be that [the animals have] a living soul, meaning a soul that has vitality in it - as there is a soul that does not have vitality in it, and that is the soul of plant growth. And the rabbis mentioned (Bereishit Rabbah 41:1) desire with regards to date trees, and maybe it is the power in growth, [but it] is not called a soul. "],["<b>And God created the great sea monsters:</b> Because of the largeness of these creations - as there are some of them that are many parasangs long; the Greeks recounted in their books that they knew about some of them that were five hundred parasangs long, and our Rabbis also spoke about their amplitude (see Bava Batra 73b) - for this reason, it attributed their [actual] creation to God, since He is the one who brought them forth out of nothing from the beginning; as I have explained [that such is the understanding of] the expression, creation (above, verse 1). And so [too] will it do with man, due to his stature - to inform that he was brought forth from nothing with his intelligence and his mind. And I wonder why it does not state, \"and it was so\" on this day; and maybe it is not possible to mention, \"and He created\" after \"and it was so,\" since it is speaking about what was at the beginning. And our Rabbis said (Bava Batra 74b) that the great sea monsters are the Leviathan and his spouse - that He created male and female, and killed and cured the female for the righteous ones [to eat] in the future. And for that reason, it was not fitting that it state about them, \"and it was so;\" since they did not continue [ to exist in the same way as they had been created.]"],["<b>And God blessed them, saying:</b> He decreed blessing to them and said that they should be fruitful and multiply; which is to say that they should make many fruits - that one [of them] should bring out many like him. And the matter of blessing is about reproduction, as the matter that is stated (Genesis 17:16), \"and I have blessed her and she will become nations.\" And also about sprouting (and growth) is the expression of blessing found, [as in] \"And I have commanded my blessing to you on the sixth year\" (Leviticus 25:21). But it is not stated thus on the third [day], as [the plants did not need it, as did] all of the creatures that had souls, [which] were only two - male and female, according to their species - like the matter of man. And they required blessing to greatly multiply; but very many plants grew on the face of all of the earth, as they [do] today. And it did not state blessing about the beasts and animals, as the decree of proliferation that He decreed on the moving souls in the water, included the moving souls on earth also; as it is all one matter concerning the creation of living souls that do not speak. And our Rabbis said (Bereishit Rabbah 11:3) that because man hunts and eats them, the blessing of \"and fill the waters in the seas\" was needed. He blessed them that they should fill the seas due to their multitude; also the rivers and ponds. Or the [blessing of] their filling is [only] in the seas, as they are sparse in the rivers. <b>\"And let the fowl multiply on the earth:\"</b> Even though its creation is in the water, its blessing will be on the earth: that they will be fruitful and multiply upon it. As there is none among the fowl that lays its eggs in the water and nurtures it there; even the ones that are always dwelling in the water and deriving sustenance form it, [lay] their eggs on the earth and give birth there. "],[],["<b>Beasts (<i>behema</i>):</b> These are the types that eat grass, whether they reside in human settlements or in the wilderness. <b>The animals (<i>chayot</i>) of the earth:</b> Those that eat meat are called animals and all of them prey. <b>And crawling things (<i>remes</i>):</b> Rashi wrote, \"These are the creeping things, which are low and crawl (<i>romsim</i>) upon the earth; they appear as if they are dragging along.\" And behold, in this section (below, verse 28), it is written, \"and every animal that crawls (<i>romeset</i>) upon the earth.\" And it is written (Genesis 7:21), \"And all flesh that crawls on the earth perished, among the fowl and among the beasts and among the animals and among all the creeping things that creep on the earth,\" and it is written (Psalms 104:20), \"in it do all the animals crawl.\" (From these verses, we see that crawling - <i>remisa</i> - is not only relegated to lowly creatures.) But [rather], the explanation of <i>remisa</i> is like the notion [which is spelled] with the [letter,] <i>samech</i>, [an example of which is found in the phrase, \"the leg tramples (<i>tirmesena</i>)\" (Isaiah 26:6); and [in other] related examples. And with animals and with beasts, it states, \"crawl upon the earth;\" and with creeping things that drag [themselves on the ground], \"the crawlers of the ground\" (verse 25), because [the latter] tread on the ground with their entire bodies."],[],["<b>And God said, \"Let us make man:\"</b> A [separate] proclamation was designated for the creation of man, because of his stature - since his nature is not like the nature of animals and beasts that He created in the proclamation that precedes it. And the correct simple meaning of the word, 'let us make,' is that which you have already been shown, to know (above, verse 1) that God created something from nothing on the first day alone, and afterwards He formed and made [everything] from the fundamental elements. And when He gave power of swarming in the water to swarm living creatures, the proclamation was (verse 20), \"let the waters swarm;\" and the proclamation with the animals was (verse 24) \"let the earth bring forth;\" [and] with man He said, \"let us make.\" That is to say, I and the earth - that was mentioned - let us make man: the earth will bring forth the body form the elements as it did with the beasts and the animals, as it is written (Genesis 2:7), \"And the Lord, God, formed man, dust from the earth;\" and He, may He be blessed, gave him the spirit from the mouth of the Highest, as it is written (Ibid.) and He blew into his nostrils, a living soul.\" And it stated, \"in our image, in our likeness,\" since he would be similar to both of them: in the configuration of his body, to the earth from which he was taken; and he would resemble the higher ones in his soul, which is not a body and does not die. And the second verse (27) states, \"in the image of God did He create him,\" to tell of the wonder which separates him from all the creatures. And this simple explanation of the verse I found from Rabbi Yosef Kimchi and it is the most plausible of all that have been thought. And the explanation of [the word,] image (<i>tselem</i>), is like an appearance, [as in] (Daniel 3:19), \"and the appearance of his face changed,\" and also (Psalms 39:7) \"As an appearance does man walk,\" and (Psalms 73:20) \"in the city will You disgrace their appearance,\" [meaning] the description of what he looked like. And likeness (<i>demut</i>) [means] similarity in form or action; such that [things] that share a resemblance in a matter are called likenesses of each other. And behold man is similar to the lower beings and the upper beings in [his] appearance and his glory. As it is written (Psalms 8:6), \"and with honor and glory have you crowned him\" [concerning his resemblance to the upper beings], and this refers to the direction of his countenance towards wisdom and knowledge and skilled action. And in his likeness, his body completely resembles the dirt, and his soul, the upper creatures. <b>Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea:</b> Because of [man's] being male and female, it states, \"let <i>them</i> have dominion over the fish of the sea,\" in the plural. And in Bereishit Rabbah 7:5, they said, \"'let the earth bring forth living creatures (souls) according to their species' (verse 24), Rabbi Elazar said, 'living souls, this is the spirit of man.'\" And it is not at all possible that Rabbi Elazar would explain that \"let the earth bring forth...\" is to be explained as referring to the soul of Adam. But rather, he intended to say that which I mentioned: that the formation of the spirit of man which is in his blood was made from the ground, as per the proclamation for the animals and the beasts - as all souls of movement were made together; and afterwards, He made bodies for them - first He made the bodies of the beasts and the animals, and afterwards, the body of man and He put into him a soul; and after that, He blew into him a higher soul, [meaning that] it was that separated soul that had a different proclamation designated for it, by God who gave it, as it is written (Genesis 2:7), \"and He breathed into his nostrils a living soul.\" And the true way in this verse will be known to the one that understands the [next] verse and it is possible that Rabbi Elazar intended this and expounded [the verse], \"let the earth (<i>haarets</i>) bring forth,\" as the 'land (<i>erets</i>) of the living' which should bring forth a soul of its type that will exist forever. And so [too], what it stated (verse 27), \"male and female He created them,\" is because the creation at the beginning was from the male and the female and [man's] soul was included in both of them; but the [subsequent] formation was [only] a formation for the man and a building [from man's] side (rib) for the woman, as is told at the end. And for this reason, creation is mentioned here and formation in the section below. And the learned one will understand. And the [meaning] of \"and they will have dominion\" is that they should rule powerfully over the fish and the fowl and the beast and all that crawls. And the beasts [in this verse] includes the animals (which are not mentioned separately). And it states, \"and over all the earth,\" [to mean] that they should rule over the earth itself: to uproot and to smash and to dig and to quarry copper and iron. And the expression, dominion (<i>rediyah</i>), [is like the] rulership of a master over his slave."],[],["<b>And God blessed them:</b> That is a true blessing. Therefore, [here] it is written, \"and God said to them.\" But above (verse 22), it is written, \"And God blessed them, saying,\" [which] is explained as the blessing [only] being the [actual] proclamation by which he gave them the power to reproduce, [but] not a different proclamation through which they would be blessed (as was the case with man). <b>\"And fill the earth:\"</b> A blessing that they should fill the earth due to their great number. And according to my opinion, He blessed them that they fill all of the earth, [meaning] that the nations should separate into their families to the corners of the world due to their great number. And they should not be in one place, [such an idea being] the thought of the men of the Generation of Dispersion (at the time of the Tower of Babel). <b>\"And subdue it:\"</b> He gave them the power and rulership over the earth; to do whatever they wanted with the beasts and the swarming animals and all of those that slither on the ground; and to build and to uproot and plant and to quarry copper from its hills and [to do things] similar to this. And this is [all] included in its stating (above, verse 26), \"and over all the earth.\" <b>\"And have dominion over the fish of the sea;\"</b> He said that they should have dominion also over the fish of the seas that are covered by them and over the fowl of the sky that are not with man upon the ground and [even] also over all [dangerous] animals. And He sequenced them according to their creation: the fish and the fowl first and the animals afterwards; and so [too] does the verse state (Psalms 8:7-9), \"You have made him rule over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under His feet: Sheep and oxen - all of them, and also the beasts of the field; The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, etc.\" And our Rabbis differentiated between subduing and having dominion. "],["<b>\"Behold, I have given to you all of the herbs that gives seed:\"</b> \"He did not permit Adam and his wife to kill a creature and to eat its meat; only every green herb were they all permitted to eat together. And when the Children of Noach came, He permitted them to eat meat, as it is stated (below 9:3), 'Every creeping thing that is alive, for you is it to eat, like the green herb have I given to you every thing' Like the green herbs, which I permitted to the first man, I have given you everything.\" [These are] the words of Rashi. And so [too] did [Rashi] explain in Tractate Sanhedrin 59b (s. v. <i>lo hutar</i>), \"'And to all the animals of the land' - to you and to the animals have I given the herbs and the trees, and 'the green herbs to eat.'\" And if so, the explanation of \"all of the green herbs to eat\" would be [that it is a continuation of the previous idea as follows]: <i>and</i> all of the green herbs. And it is not like this, but [rather] He gave to Adam and his wife, \"every herb that gives seed\" and all the fruit of the trees; and to the animals of the field and the fowl of the skies, He gave \"every green herb\" - [but] not the fruit of the trees and not seeds; and their food is not equally for all. However meat was not permitted to him until the Children of Noach, as per the opinion of our Rabbis, and that is the simple meaning of the text. And [the original prohibition to kill animals to eat their meat] is because moving souls have a bit of stature to their souls: they resemble intelligent souls and seek their [own] benefit and their food and run away from pain and death; and the verse states (Ecclesiastes 3:23), \"Who knows the spirit of man whether it goes upward, and the spirit of the beast whether it goes downward to the earth?\" And when they sinned and all flesh corrupted its way upon the earth and it was decreed that they would die in the flood, and because of Noach, He saved some of them for the preservation of the species, He gave them permission to slaughter and eat [animals] since their existence was for [man's] sake. And in spite of all this, He did not give them permission with regards to the soul and forbade them a limb from a living animal. And He added commandments for us to forbid all blood since it is the support of the soul, as it is written (Leviticus 17:14), \"Since the soul of all flesh, its blood is in its soul; and say to the Children of Israel, 'the blood of all flesh do not eat, since the soul of all flesh, it is the blood.'\" [This is all] because He permitted the body of an animal that does not speak but not the soul itself. And this is [also] the reason for ritual slaughter (<i>shechita</i>) - and for what they said (Bava Metzia 32:), \"[the prohibition of causing] pain to living animals is from the Torah\" - and this is our blessing for it: \"who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us on ritual slaughter.\" And I will speak more about the matter of the commandment of blood when I get there (Leviticus 17:11-14) if God [permits]."],[],["<b>And behold, it was very good:</b> This is [referring to its permanent] existence, as I have explained (above, verses 4,10,12). And the explanation of \"very\" is like [when there is an] addition that is included (<i>ribui</i>). And it added to state this on this day (as opposed to the other days of creation, wherein we only find 'good' and not 'very good'), because it is speaking about the general [creation] and evil can be found in parts of it; and it states that it is very good, [as if to say] its 'very' (its addition) is [also] good. And this is [what they meant] in their statement in Bereishit Rabbah 9:5, \"'and behold it was very good,' 'and behold, it was good' [here] is [referring to] death;\" and so [too] did they mention, [that] it is [referring to] the evil impulse, and it is [referring to] the [Divine] attribute of punishment. And Onkelos also intended this when he said here, \"it is very orderly;\" meaning that the order [of the universe] is very well constructed; since evil is needed for the existence of good as the matter is stated (Ecclesiastes 3:1), \"For everything is there a time and for every matter is there a season under the heavens.\" And there are some that explain that it is because of man's stature that it adds praise to [the account of man's] formation, since he is very good. "]],[[],[],["<b>And he blessed [...] and he sanctified:</b> He blessed it with manna and sanctified it with manna - and the verse is written about the future - [this is the] language of our teacher, Shlomo (Rashi) from Bereishit Rabbah 11:2. And in the name of Rabbi Saadia, [some] have said that the blessing and the sanctification is on those that observe [the Shabbat]; that they should be blessed and sanctified. But the understanding of the verse is not that it is speaking about the future. And Rabbi Avraham (Ibn Ezra) said that the blessing is an addition of good - that there be generated greater power to multiply among bodies and greater intellectual ability for the soul; \"and He sanctified it,\" [means] that he did not do any work on it, as [He did] upon the other days. And his word about this is correct for those that believe in it, as this is not a concept that people can feel [with their senses]. And the truth is that the blessing on the Shabbat day is the source of blessings and it is the foundation of the world; \"and He sanctified it,\" that it should draw from the holy. And if you will understand this, you will know that which they said in Bereishit Rabbah 11:8, \"As it doesn't have a partner\"; and that which they also said, \"The Assembly of Israel will be its partner\"; and you will understand that there is an extra soul on Shabbat, in truth. <b>that the Lord created in making:</b> The work that was fitting to do on Shabbat, He doubled [up] and did on the sixth [day] as is explained in Bereishit Rabbah 11:9 - the language of Rashi. But [Ibn Ezra] says likes its simple understanding; \"[That His] work is the roots in all of the species, that He placed the ability to reproduce in them.\" But it appears to me, that its understanding is that He rested from all of His work that He had created, ex nihilo, to make from it all of the creations mentioned in the first six days. And behold, He said that He rested from the creation and from any action of the creation that He created on the first day, and from the acts that He did on the other days. And it is likely that \"making\" refers to that which is above: \"because He rested from all of His work that He created\" ex nihilo from making (<i>me'leaasot</i>, as if the prefix that means, from, were added). And like it is \"and they stopped counting\" (Genesis 41:49, which is as if it were written, \"from counting\"); \"and they stopped building the city (Genesis 11:8, which means, \"from the city\"); \"guard yourselves climbing the mountain\" (Exodus 19:12, which means \"from climbing\"); \"And they did not depart the commandment of the king\" (II Chronicles 8:15, which means \"from the commandment\"); and so [too] many [other examples of this]. And you should know that also included in the word, \"to make\" is that the six days of creation are all of the days of the world - since their duration will be six thousand years (Rosh Hashanah 31a) - as it is for this reason that they say that the day of the Holy One, blessed be He, is a thousand years (Bereishit Rabbah 19:8). And behold, on the first two days the whole world was water and nothing was completed on them, and they hint to the first two thousand years of chaos (<i>tohu</i>), in which there was not one who called in the name of God. And so did they say (Avodah Zarah 9a), \"Two thousand years of chaos.\" But as there was the creation of light on the first day, it corresponds to the thousand years of Adam - who was the light of the world, recognizing his Creator. And maybe Enosh did not worship idolatry until Adam died. On the second day, \"Let there be a firmament and let it divide\" (Genesis 1:6) - as on it, Noach and his righteous children became separated from the evildoers that were judged with water. On the third day, the dry land appeared and grew vegetation and produced fruit - that is the third millennium that started when Avraham was forty-eight years old (Bereishit Rabbah 48b) - and \"then began the calling in the name of the Lord\" (Genesis 4:26), and 'a righteous sprout' grew; since he pulled many to know the Lord, as they expounded [about] \"and the souls that they had made in Charan\" (Genesis 12:5). And he commanded 'his household and his children after him that they keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice.' And the matter advanced to the point that his seed received the Torah at Sinai. And the first Temple was built on that day, and they kept all of the commandments, which are the fruits of the world. And you should know that twilight is considered like the next day, and so the matter of each day begins slightly before it; as when Avraham is born at the end of the second day. And so you will see with each and every day. And on the fourth day, the big and small luminaries (the sun and the moon) and the stars were created. Its day hints to the fourth millennium, which is the one that begins when the first Temple was [already] built for seventy-two years until one hundred and seventy-two years after the second Temple. And behold, on this day 'there was light for all of the Children of Israel,' 'since the glory of God filled the House of the Lord' and the light of Israel was like a fire on top of the altar, crouching there like a lion eating the sacrifices. And afterward, their light diminished and they were exiled, [such] as [the light] disappears at the beginning of the [cycle of the] moon. And it shone for them all the days of the second Temple, and the fire on top of the altar was like a dog crouching. And the two luminaries set at the evening of the day, and the Temple was destroyed. On the fifth day, the waters swarmed with living animals and flying birds upon the earth. It hints to the fifth millennium that begins one hundred and seventy-two years after the destruction of Temple; since to it were the nations of the world compared, and man was made 'to be like the fish of the sea, like the crawling animals that none rules over - they bring it all up with a hook, they catch them with a net, and gather them with a drag.' And there is no one that seeks the Lord. On the sixth day in the morning, \"Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, animals and creeping things, and beast of the earth after its kind\" (Genesis 1:24) - and its creation was before the shining of the sun, as the matter that is written (Psalms 104:22), \"The sun shines and they gather, and crouch in their dens.\" And then man was created in the image of God, and that is the time of his rulership, as it states (Psalms 104:23), \"Man goes out to his labor and to his work until the evening.\" And that is the sixth millennium, since in its beginning, the beasts rule in it - these are the kingdoms that did not know God. And after its tenth - like the measure of the sunrise to the day (see Pesachim 94a)- the redeemer will come, as it states about him (Psalms 89:37), \"and his throne will be like the sun across from Me.\" This is the son of David, who is made in the image of God, as it is written (Daniel 7:13-14), \"and behold with the clouds of the sky, there was a man coming, and he came up to the One of Ancient Days and they brought him in front of Him and they brought him close to Him. And to him did He give dominion and glory and kingship.\" And this will be one hundred and eighteen [years] after the [first] five thousand, to complete the word of the Lord through the mouth of Daniel (Daniel 12:11), “From the time that the regular sacrifice was removed and the silent abomination was placed, there are one thousand two hundred and ninety days.” And it appears from the change of the days, from the swarms of the waters and the fowl, to the beasts of the land that at the beginning of the sixth millennium, there will arise the rulership of a controlling, fearful and violent nation, and one that comes closer to the truth than the first ones. The seventh day is Shabbat. It hints to the world to come, which is completely Shabbat and rest for eternal life. And may God guard us in all of the days and place our portion with His innocent servants (those do not try to divine the future).\n"],[],[],[],[],[],["...The commentators said that the fruit of this tree gave birth to the sexual desire, and this is why they covered their nakedness after they ate from it. They brought as proof a similar usage of language in the statement of Barzilai haGiladi “I am now eighty years old. Can I tell the difference between good and bad?” (Shmuel II 19:36) which indicates that he had lost the sexual desire. This is not correct in my eyes, because later in this story it says “…and you will be like divine beings who know good and bad.” (Bereshit 3:5) And if you want to say that the snake lied to her, it says further on And the LORD God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad…” (Bereshit 3:22) It has already been said (Pirke d’rabbenu hakadosh, Gate 3, 16) that there were three who spoke the truth and were destroyed from the world, and they are – the snake, the spies and Doeg the Edomite (the Beroti). It seems right in my eyes that the human did what came naturally, just as the heavens and all their host, which do only truth, whose acts are only truth and do not deviate from their appointed task. There is no love in their actions or hate. The fruit of this tree gives birth to the will and desire that those who eat it should choose a thing or its opposite, for the good or the bad. This is why it is called ‘the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,’ because da’at in our language refers to will or intention, as the Sages said ‘we only taught this in a case when his intention is to return…if it is not his intention to clear it out…’ (Pesachim 6a). This is true in biblical Hebrew as well - “what is man that you should know him?,” (Psalms 144:3) meaning that you should care about or desire him, or “I have known him by name…” (Shemot 33:12) meaning that I chose him from all other people. So too the statement of Barzilai haGiladi ‘between good and evil,’ meaning that he had lost his power of discernment and could no longer desire something or be disgusted by it, eating without tasting and hearing without taking pleasure in son. Here in the garden there was no desire for sexual intimacy between the man and his wife, rather at the proper time they joined together and gave birth. Therefore their sexual organs were exposed just as their faces and hands and they were not ashamed of them. After they ate from the tree, the choice was in their hands and they had the will to do evil or go to themselves or others. This is a divine quality from one perspective, just as it was bad for humanity as they now had lust and desire. It is possible that the verse intended this when it said “…God made men straight, but they have engaged in too much reasoning.” (Kohelet 7:29) ‘Straight’ means that one should seize on a single straight path and ‘engaged in too much reasoning’ means that one seeks various acts among which they can choose. When Gd commanded the man not to eat from the tree he did not inform him of this quality of da’at which it imparted, rather Gd simply said ‘from the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden,’ meaning the known one in the middle – don’t eat from it. This is what the woman said to the snake, and only in a later verse does it mention the tree by name “but as for the tree of knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it.” (Bereshit 2:17)"],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["<b>... but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him:</b> Quoting Rashi: \"When He brought them, He brought them before him male and female. He said 'Each has a mate, but I have no mate.' Immediately 'And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man.'\" And he explained well, for as the verses about assigning the names are inserted within the matter of the help meet, that and the assigning of the names are resolved according the understanding of the commentators (Rashi and Radak) like its plain meaning - that each one will have a name for itself, so that each will be known and recognized through its generations with the names that he will call them, for it will be its name forever. And now, the Holy One Blessed Be He, when He wanted to make the help meet for him, He then brought them before him, for He needed to bring them to him in pairs, to assign names also to their females - for there are those that he assigned one name, and there are those that are split, such as bull and cow, he-goat and she-goat, ram and ewe, etc. And when he saw them mated with each other, he became desirous of them, and when he did not find among them a help meet for himself, he became sad and fell asleep. And God dropped a deep sleep on him so that he wouldn't feel the removal of a rim from his body. And my understanding is that the assigning of the name is the help meet. And the issue is that the Holy One Blessed Be He brought every animal of the field and every bird of the sky before Adam, and he discerned their nature and assigned them names. That is, the name that is fitting for them, based on their natures. And through the names, it became clear which is fitting to be a help meet for another, that is, fitting to procreate together. And even if we believe that the assignment of names is by convention, not nature, we can say that the assignment of names is the division of the species. For they passed before him, male and female, and he pondered their natures, which is a help meet for another, that is, the one that procreates with it. And he let this be known through names: He called the light [ovine] animals with with one name, for they could each help each other with procreation, since they could all procreate with each other, and the heavy [bovine] animals with another name, and the wild animals with another name, for they cannot procreate with each other, and so with all of them. And he didn't find in any of them one whose nature was to be a help meet to him, to be assigned his name. For the assignment of the names was the division of the species, and the separation, like a seal between one and another, and I have explained above. And the issue was not that it was in the Man's hands to find within them a help meet for himself, based on the fact that they were created with their own natures. Instead, if he would see a proper nature in one of the species and choose it, the Holy One Blessed Be He would fix its nature to him, as He did with the rib, and He wouldn't need to build it as a new construction. And this is the meaning of \"and whatsoever the man would call every living creature, that was to be the name thereof,\" meaning that would be its name that the Holy One Blessed Be He would maintain that name for it, in the manner that I have explained. And what appears correct to me is that the desire was not before Blessed He to take the rib from him until Adam would know that there was not among the creatures a help meet for himself, so that he would desire to have for himself a help meet, like them. And because of this, He needed to take from him one of his ribs. And this is the meaning of \"but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him,\" meaning - but for the name of the Man, he did not finaed a help meet that would be fitting for him, to be assigned his name, to procreate with him. And there is no need here for the words of the commentators (Raava on verse 18 and the Radak) who said that the name will come through here in place of a nickname, and that he did not find a help meet opposite himself, in the manner of the wives of Lemech (Below, 4:23) and Jeftach and Samuel (I Samuel 12:11). And this is why he said \"This is now ...,\" meaning: This time, I have found a help meet for myself, which I have not found until now in all the other species, for she is a bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. And it is fitting that she will be assigned my actual name, for this one and this one can procreate together. (And in the word \"this,\" there is a secret, which will be known from our commentary on the Parasha of \"And this is the blessing,\" if my Rock blesses me to get up to there.) And therefore, he responded \"because she was taken out of Man.\" And understand."],[],[],[],["“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife...” The holy spirit says this to forbid I chest to the descendants of Noah. “'And they shall be one flesh'- the child is formed by the two of them and thus their flesh is made one', so Rashi. This is without reason, for domesticated and wild animals also become one flesh through their children. In my view animals do not cleave to their sexual partners; the male approaches any female it finds and then leaves. For this reason the text says since the female of the adam was a bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh, he cleaved to her and she was in his bosom like his own flesh and he desired her to be constantly with him. As this was so with Adam so was his nature transmitted to his progeny, to make the males, cleaving to their females, leaving their fathers and mothers and regarding their wives as if they were one flesh with them. Similarly, “you are our brother, our flesh (gen.37:27), “to the meat of ones flesh (Lev.18:6), those close in family are called “meat of flesh” and so will leave the “meat” of his father and his mother and their closeness and see that his wife is closer to him than they are."]],[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["\"And the reason for the words 'the woman you gave to me'-in other words, she gave me from the tree, and i figured that whatever she would say to me would be for my benefit and help. That is why in the punishment God says \"because you listened to the voice of your wife\", that you should not have listened to her advice in lieu of following my command. This is what the rabbis called 'ingratitude'. For we would want to explain that Adam answered God 'you caused me to fail in this area, that you gave me a woman to help and she ended up advising me to sin'. \""]],[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["<b>The forger of every cutting instrument of brass and iron:</b> And he would cut and forge all copper and iron; meaning that he would cut and forge all handiwork of copper and iron. And like it, is (Hosea 14:3), \"all who bear iniquity, and accept the good,\" [the meaning of which is likewise, \"bear all iniquity\"]."]],[],[[],[],[" For that Also He is Flesh - ...The correct interpretation in my eyes is that God said, \"My spirit will not dwell in man forever because man also is flesh. Like all flesh that crawls on the earth in the forms of birds, cattle and animals, it is not appropriate that the spirit of God dwells within him\". This means to say that \"God made man upright\" to be like one of the angels as a result of the soul He gave him. But, man was drawn after flesh and physical desires, \"he is like the beasts that will perish\", and therefore the spirit of God will no longer dwell within him, for man is physical and not godly. However, He will prolong [the departure of His spirit] if they repent..."],["And also after that - ...The correct interpretation in my eyes is that Adam and wife are called \"Bnei Ha-elohim\" because they were God's creation and He was their father, they had no father but Him. And Adam bore children as it says, \"And he bore sons and daughters\". Now these men, were the first to be born to a human mother and father, were perfect in height and strength because they were born in the likeness of their father. As it says about Shet, \"And he bore a son in his own likeness after his image\". And it is possible that all the children of the first generations - Adam, Shet and Enosh - were called \"Bnei Ha-elohim\" because these three mean were made in the image of God. But when the worship of idols commenced, men became weak and slack.... Now, when men began to multiply and bore daughters, the men of these first generations were strong and because of their great desire they would choose beautiful, tall wives who were in good health. Now, first the Passuk says that they took them as wives by force. After, the Passuk says that they came to women who were daughters of men who were not held in high esteem, and they bore children for them. Eventually, everyone recognised that they had been born to these \"Bnei Ha-elohim\" because these children were very tall. However, they were inferior to their fathers in terms of height and strength. This is the explanation of the word Nephilim - inferior. Still, they were strong men in comparison to the rest of the population. And the Passuk says that this happened in the first generation to those who were called Bnei Haelohim because they were absolutely perfect, and they caused the daughters of men to have \"nefilim\" - inferior ones..."],[],[],[],[],["אלה תולדות נח THESE ARE THE OFFSPRING OF NOAH- The meaning of the word תולדות (offspring)some explain it to mean \"the events of [Noach's] life\" like the meaning of a related word in the Passuk מה ילד יום (משלי כז א) \"what a day may bring about\"(ילד) consequently this introductory clause alludes to the entire portion that follows. But this is not pleasing in my eyes for the events of a man are not called his “offspring” which is the plain meaning of תולדות. the most satisfying explanation is that [תולדות] is to be taken in the literal sense like אלה תולדות בני נח (להלן י א) \"these are the descendants of Noach\" and \"these are the children of Yishmael.\" The verse is saying, These are the offspring of Noah (V.9) Shem, Cham and Jafet. The torah however repeats \"Noach had begotten\" [3 sons] because it interrupted the description by saying \"Noah was a completely innocent man\" to tell us why G'D commanded him about building the ark. Although the Torah already said above (ה לב) ויהי נח בן חמש מאות שנה ויולד נח את שם את חם ואת יפת it repeats their names again, to tell us that Noah was not like his forefathers who had “sons and daughters” (implying many children) and had only three. This is also why it says three sons (which is obvious). It mentions the amount to tell us 1) that these 3 were his only children and 2) it was from these 3 that the whole world spread out. [NOAH] WAS A COMPLETELY INNOCENT MAN-The Passuk mentions that Noah was free of guilt and complete in his innocence, to let us know that he deserved to be saved from the deluge because he didn’t deserve any punishment at all, for he was perfect in his vindication from crime. The word \"tzaddik\" refers to someone who is innocent in judgment the opposite of \"rasha\" a guilty individual, like it says “and they vindicate the innocent one (tzaddik) and condemn the guilty (rasha) one” and “You are blameless (tzaddik) for all that has come upon us for You have acted faithfully” and also “You shall judge your fellow fairly (B'tzedek)” concerning Avraham however who it says \"acting with righteousness (tzedakah) and justness (mishpat)\", the Torah praises him for the trait of justness (tzedek) [but calls it] mishpat and praises him for compassion and calls it tzedakah. Rabbi Avraham (Ibn Ezra) says \"tzaddik\" refers to his actions and \"tamim\" to his thoughts. But it says \"You were perfect in your ways\" meaning conduct! After telling us Noah was an innocent man, meaning that he wasn’t a man of “injustice” or one who \"corrupted his ways” like the people of his time the Torah then says that he “would walk with the Glorious Name,” meaning fearing G-D alone, and wouldn’t be deluded to follow stargazers, diviners or cloud readers, all the more so to follow idolatry. He wouldn’t listen to diviners at all. Only to cling to G'D at all times following the path G'D has chosen for man, or the path that he was instructed being that he was a prophet. This is in accordance with its meaning in the verse \"You should walk after GD your G’D and fear him,\" which is speaking about rejecting one who gives false prophecy trying to make people worship idol’s and gives a sign or performs a wonder, as I will explain there. I will also mention this interpretation on the Passuk walk before me and be perfect if the “One of Perfect Knowledge (G’D)” will be with me. Now since Noah was an innocent individual, and didn’t deserve to be punished, his sons and household also deserved to be saved in his merit, because it would be a punishment for him if his offspring were to be destroyed. Also, [the Torah] is telling us that he was a “perfectly innocent” individual and so were his sons and household- for he taught them to follow his footsteps, like what it says by Avraham, For I cherished him, for he commands his children and household… IN HIS GENERATIONS- some rabbis expound it as praise: All the more so if he would have lived in a generation that was righteous. And others who expound it as condemnation. This is the words of Rashi. In my view, the most satisfying explanation, according to the simple meaning is that he was the only innocent person in those generations; there wasn’t a innocent or perfect person in his generation besides him. Similarly, For it is you that I have seen to be innocent before Me n this generation – there was no one else that was worthy of being saved in that generation. It says “in his generations” (plural) because many generations had passed since the time people began to corrupt their ways, and there was no innocent person on earth except for him. And don’t allow the words of the sages about Methuselah (that he was righteous) present a question to you, because the Torah only says that there wasn’t a blameless person who was worthy of being saved from the Deluge during all those generations."],["SHEM, CHAM AND JAPHETH- It seems to me that Japheth was the oldest, as it says, \"The brother of Japheth the elder\"- And so [the Torah] lists Japheth first (Chap. 10) Ham was the youngest one as t says \"he realized what his youngest son (Ham) had done to him (9:24).\" However here it lists Shem first because of his importance. It lists Ham next because that's the order they were born. And Japheth last. the Torah] didnt want to say \"Shem Yafet and Ham\" for then all of them would be out of order of their birth, and Japhet was not important enough that the order should be changed for his sake. It did, however, place shem first because of his importance, although he's listed last (10:21) in the listing of the genealogy. We also find \"The sons of Avraham were Isaac and Ishmael (I Chronicles 1:28)\" and also \"To Isaac I gave Jacob and Esau.\""],[],["FOR ALL FLESH HAD CORRUPTED ITS WAY. If we explain \"all flesh\" in the literal sense and say tat even animals, wild beasts and birds corrupted its ways by mating with animals of other species, like Rashi explains, we will then have to say that \"for the earth filled with injustice [through them] (pas. 13)\" cannot mean \"through \"all\" of them,\" rather it means \"through \"some\" of them\" (humans) [the Torah] would be telling us only [the reason] for the punishment of the humans. Also, we can say that in this [subject matter of sinfulness] too, [the beasts] didn't follow their matures, for all the beasts acted like a predator and all birds acted as birds of prey, so that they also committed \"injustice.\" In the plain meaning \"all flesh\" simply means \"all mankind,\" [being that] further on, scripture it explains: \"all flesh in which there's a breath of life (7:15)\" or \"of all that lives, of all flesh (6:19)\" which means \"any life contained in a body\" (also beasts). But here, \"all flesh\" [without elaboration] means \"all mankind.\" And also \"all flesh will come to prostrate before me.\" (Isaiah 66:23) and \"if a person (lit., \"flesh\")will have [a burn] on his skin (Levit. 13:24).\"(\"flesh\" obviously means \"man\")"],[],[],[],[],[],[],["It is known that the very many creatures and from them very great elephants, antelopes(?) and additionally there are very many bugs that creep on the Earth also birds in the skies - many types - uncountably many. And concerning this, Chazal say (Chulin 63), \"120 species of impure birds exist in the East. Where are they all from? And for those that are pure, there are uncountably many.\" And so it will be required to bring from all of them that will be born ...."]],[],[["\"and Elokim remembered Noah and all the animals\" - The remembrance of Noah was because he was righteous and whole and God established a covenant to save him. And, Noah includes his offspring who were with him there, they (the offspring) were not mentioned because they were saved through his (Noah's) merit. However, the remembering of the domestic and wild animals is not because of some merit. This is because of all the possessors of souls, only mankind has merit and fault. Rather, the remembrance of them (domestic and wild animals)is that He remembered His own holy words that He spoke and the world came into being. Additionally, the desire to create the world which He had, came before Him and He desired the existence of the world and the species He had created in it. He therefore acted to take them out, as they could not persist in the ark. He did not remember the birds and the fish because the remembrance of the land mammals included them. "]],[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["\"This is the sign of the covenant that I am giving\": it seems from this \"sign\", that the rainbow was not in the cloud from creation and now God did a new act of creation to make the rainbow in the sky on a cloudy day... But we are forced to believe the words of the Greeks, that from the shining of the sun in moist air the rainbow will come to be as a result... And when we look again at the language of the text we will understand this, because it says \"I have put my rainbow in the cloud\", and it didn't say \"I am putting in the cloud\" when it said \"this is the sign of the covenant that I am putting\". And the word \"my rainbow\" shows that He already had a rainbow from the beginning. Therefore, we should explain the passage thus: The rainbow which I put in the cloud from the day of creation, should be from this point onwards a sign of the covenant between Me and you."]],[],[],[["\"Go, yourself\" - \"For your benefit, and for your own good, and there I will make you into a great nation. Here you will not merit children. And what's more, I will let the world know all about you.\" That's the language of Rashi. But there is no need, for the structure of the language is like that: \"The rain is over and gone (itself).\" (Songs 2:11); \"I will go (myself) to the mighty...\" (Jer. 5:5); \"Arise, and cross over (yourselves) over wadi Zered.\"; and many more like that. But our rabbis (in Talmud Yoma 3:, 72:) came up with an interpretation from what is written (in Deut. 10:1): \"Make for yourself an ark of wood,\" and \"Make for yourself two silver trumpets,\" (Num. 10:2). Since the work doesn't really belong to them, it should have said something like what it says about the tabernacle: \"Make the tabernacle.\" ( Exod. 26:1)","From your land and from your birthplace - Rashi wrote: But did he he not already leave from there with his father? And Rabbi Abraham explained that God already said to Avram, ‘Go forth from your land,’ and so this is restating what was already said in Ur Kasdim, and it was there that He commanded him to leave his land, his birthplace, and his father’s house there. And this is not correct. Because if this were so, the point of the journey would be Avram’s leaving his father’s house on God’s command, and Terach would just be accompanying him out of his own personal desire. But the verse says, “Terach took Avram his son” (Gen. 11:31), which shows that Avram was following his father, and it was his father’s idea that they leave Ur Kasdim to go to the land of Canaan. And furthermore, the verse (in Joshua 24:3) says, “I took your father, Abraham, across the river, and led him across the whole of the Land of Canaan,” where it should have said, “I took your father, Abraham, from Ur Kasdim, and led him across the whole of the Land of Canaan,” for it was from there he was taken and there he was commanded."],["<b>And you shall be a blessing:</b> You will be a blessing in that they will be blessed through you by saying, \"God should make you like Avraham.\" And He also added that all the families of the earth would be blessed through him, and not just the people of his land. Or \"and they shall bless themselves by you” [means] that they would be blessed on his account. And behold, this section did not elucidate the whole topic. As what is the reason that the Holy One, blessed be He, should say to him, \"Leave your land and I will do good to you, like there had never been [before],\" without prefacing that Avraham was a servant of God or perfectly righteous - or that He say a reason for his leaving the land, such that there would be in his going to another land, a coming close to God. And the custom of Scripture is to to say, \"Walk in front of Me and listen to My voice and I will do good to you,\" as with David and Shlomo; and like the matter in all of the Torah: \"If you will walk in my statutes\" (Leviticus 26:3); \"if you will truly listen to the voice of the Lord, your God\" (Deuteronomy 28:1); and with Yitzchak, it stated, \"on account of Avraham, my servant\" (Genesis 26:24). But to promise him [blessing] because of his leaving the land is not a reason. Rather, the reason is because the people of Ur Kasdim did bad things to him due to his faith in the Holy One, blessed be He; and [so] he fled to the land of Canaan, but delayed in Charan - [such] that He told him to leave [Charan] as well, and to do what he thought [to do] at first. This is so that he serve Him and call the people to the name of God in the chosen land. And there his name would grow and all of the nations there would be blessed - not like what they did to him in Ur Kadim, where they would scorn and curse him, and they put him in a pit or into a fiery furnace. And [so] He said to him that He would bless those that bless him; and if an individual would curse him, [the latter] would be cursed. And this is the reason of this section, but the Torah does not want to write at length about the opinions of idolaters and to explain the issue that was between him and the Chaldeans regarding faith; just like it was brief about the matter of the generation of Enosh, and their rationale for the idolatry that they developed."],[],[],[],["<b>And Avram passed through the land unto the place of Shechem:</b> I will tell you a general principle - understand it in all of the coming sections about Avraham, Yitschak and Yaacov, and it is a great matter. Our rabbis mentioned it in a brief way, and said (Midrash Tanchuma 9), \"Everything that occurred to our forefathers is a sign for the children.\" And therefore the verses will write at length in recounting the journeys and the digging of the wells and the other events. And one who thinks about them can think as if they were superfluous things with no purpose. But all of the events come to teach about the future, for when an event occurs to a prophet, [meaning] of the three forefathers, he will contemplate from it the matter that is decreed to come to his seed. And know [about] every 'decree of the wakeful ones,' that when it goes from a potential decree to a symbolic action, the decree will be realized no matter what. And therefore the prophets will do actions in prophecies, like the statement of Yirmiyahu that he commanded to Baruch (Jeremiah 51:63-64), \"And it shall be that when you finish to read the words of this book, you shall throw it into the Euphrates. And you shall say, 'So will Babylonia sink, etc.'\"; and so [too with] the matter of Elisha in the placing of his forearm on the bow (II Kings 13:17), \"And Elisha said, 'Shoot,' and he shot, and he said, 'It is the arrow of salvation of the Lord and the arrow of salvation from Aram,'\" and it is stated there (II Kings 13:19), \"And the man of God got angry with him and said, 'To strike five or six times, then you would have struck Aram to its end, and now three times will you strike Aram.'\" And therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, kept Avraham in the land (of Israel) and did to him simulations of all of the future that would be done to his seed. And understand this. And I am [now] beginning to explain the matters in detail in the verses, with the help of God: <b>And Avram passed through the land unto the place of Shechem:</b> It is the city of Schechem, that is the name of that place. And Schechem, the son of Chamor, was named after the name of the town. And Rashi wrote, \"He entered into it unto the place of Schechem to pray for the sons of Yaakov, when they would come from the field anguished. And this is correct. And I [would] add that Avraham held this place first, and before He gave him the land - it was [thus] hinted to him from this that his children would conquer this place first before they would merit [the land], and before the iniquity of the dweller of the land was complete to exile him from there. And therefore, it stated, \"and the Canaanite was then in the land.\" And when the Holy One, blessed be He, gave him the land in a statement, then he traveled from there and planted his tent between Beit El and the Ei, since it is the place that Yehoshua conquered first...."],["And the reason \"to the Lord who had appeared to him\" -- that he acknowledged honored God and offered a thanksgiving offering to him when He appeared to him, because until this point God had not appeared to him and had not acknowledged him in an appearance or vision. When it is said to him, \"Go for yourself from your land,\" [this is] in a dream or [through] the holy spirit......"],[],[],["And there was famine in the land (Gen. 12:10) – behold, Avraham went down to Egypt due to hunger, to live there temporarily in order to save his life in the days of drought, and the Egyptians exploited him without cause to get his wife, and the Holy One of Blessing avenged them with great afflictions, and brought him out from there with cattle, silver and gold, and Pharaoh had commanded men to send him. And it is a hint from (Avraham), since his children went down to Egypt because of hunger to live temporarily in the land, and the Egyptians did evil to them and took their wives, as it says (Exodus 1:22) And every (baby) girl you shall let live, and the Holy One of Blessing avenged them with great afflictions until they were taken out (laden) with silver and gold and sheep and cattle, with many possessions, and they (Egyptians) pressed them to be gone from the land. Not a single incident that befell the father didn't befall the children. And this matter is explained in Bereshit Rabbah 8:6: \"Rabi Pinchas said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya - The Holy One said to Avraham: ‘Go and conquer the way for your children.’ And you find that everything that was written regarding Avraham was also written regarding his descendants: regarding Avraham it is written and there was famine in the land, regarding Israel it is written (Genesis 45:6) this is already two years of famine in all the land.\" And you should know that our father Avraham committed a great sin unintentionally, in which he brought his righteous wife to stumble into transgression because of his fear of getting killed, and he should have trusted the Name to have saved him, his wife and all that was his, because Elohim has power to help and to save. Also his going out from the land - of which he had been commanded at the beginning - due to famine was a transgression that he committed, because Elohim would have saved him from dying (even) in a famine. And because of this deed it was decreed that his seed would be in exile in Egypt under the hand of Pharaoh."]],[[],[],[],[],[],[],["...AND THERE WAS A FIGHT... Rashi writes, because the shepherds of Lot were leading their flocks in other people's fields And the shepherds of Avram rebuked them for thievery and they said [to Avram's shepherds] the land was promised to Avram, and he has no children so Lot will be his heir. So it is not stealing. But it says \"THE CANANITES AND PERRIZITES WERE DWELLING IN THE LAND.\" And Avram was not worthy to own it yet. An aggadic Midrash says (Breshis Rabah מא ה) \"And I am confused because of the gift, Hashem said to Avram he would give to him in his generations to come. As it says (יב: ז) \"I will give to your generations the land.\" How then will Lot inherit?"]],[[],[],[],[],[],[],["TO EN-MISHPAT- Referring to the future, because Moses and Aaron were destined to be judged there over the affairs of that fountain. A quote from Rashi on the words of an Aggadah. But I don't understand this, for this Kadesh [identified here as En- mishpat is Kadesh-barnea, because its described here being in Eil Paran \"which is by the wilderness\" (pas. 6) It is from here where the spies were sent in the second year, like it says, [\"They returned from spying...] to the wilderness of Paran at Kadesh\" (Num. 13:26). And its written, and we came till Kadesh-barnea and you said, \"Let us send men ahead of us [and let them spy...\"] (Deuto. 1:19-22), and the Jews stayed there for many days. The Kadesh where the judgment of the righteous (Moses and Aaron) however, is in the desert of Tzin, where [the Jews] arrived in the fortieth year, like it states, \"The children of Israel, the whole assembly arrived at the desert of Tzin in the first month and the people settled in Kadesh\" (Num. 20:1), and so on, to the end of the section. Perhaps the Midrash [is discussing] only the name [\"Kadesh\" and not the location of the events]. I.e., the Passuk is saying that a place by this name, Kadesh\" will [one day] be [the place of] a \"wellspring of judgment.\" Onkelus says (\"the Plain of Pilug of justice\"), but I don't know what this [Pilug] is alluding to. Maybe it [means \"deep water\", and] is related to the phrase \"pools (\"pelagim\"), rivulets of water \" (Isa. 30:25) an \"who conveyed the water (\"pilag\") of the torrent into a channel?\" (Job 38:25), and also in the expression of the Rabbis \"the deep water (\"pilgo\") of the sea\" [Onkelus] is saying that on that that plain were [to be found] a \"wellspring\" of judgment and a depth of justice, because it was a nice plain that was designated for kings, where they would sit to judge all the nations of those lands. TERRITORY OF AMALEK: A quote from Rashi: Amalek hadn't been born yet, nevertheless it is called [\"the territory of Amalek\"] a reference to the future. I don't know if Moses referred to this place by the name which it was called in his day and if so there's nothing here referring to the future! Or, [if this isn't Moses' description, then] what is this \"reference to THE FUTURE\"- that the nations ad prophecy and called the place by this [name]?! The language of Breishit Rabbah (42:7) is: Amalek was not yet conceived , and you say \"all the territory of Amalek!?\" Rather He [G'D] \"tells the end outcome from the beginning (Isa. 46:10). This is a method of homiletical interpretation often used [by the Rabbis] in many places. Also, concerning the rivers of Eden [described as flowing near the lands of Cush, Chavilla, and Ashur- named after people not born yet] - they give a similar interpretation (Breshit Rab. 16:2). Their intention is that from the time [these] rivers emerged it was said by G'D that the river [Chidekel] flowed toward the east of the land that in the future would belong to Ashur. What appears most right to me concerning \"the territory of Amalek\" is that there was in the early days (I.e., in Avraham's days) a prominent man- one of the sons of the Chori citizens of the land who ruled over the area and went after the name Amalek. Years later] Elifaz, Esav's firstborn, called his son [Amalek] after that [distinguished] man. Maybe the first [Amalek] was from the family of Timna, who later became the second [Amalek's] mother, and ruled also in [Elifaz's] location and was an \"aluf\" (chief) over them there. "],[],[],["FULL OF SLIME PITS. There were many pits there, for they took earth from [that valley] for clay [used in] construction (leaving pits). And an aggadic Midrash (Breishit Rabbah 42:7) says that the clay was kneaded in [the pits], and a miracle took place for the king of Sodom in which he came out from there [the clay]. For some among the nations didnt believe that Avraham was saved from furnace of fire. Since [the king of Sodom] came out of the clay, they retroactively believed in [the miracle by] Avraham. A quote from Rashi. There is no question that בארות חמר means is \"pits in which there are slime and mud\" [and not \"pits formed by the removal of slime\"] Like what it says \"There was no water in the pit, but only mud and Jeremiah began to sink in the mud\" (Jeremiah 38:6) And it is also written \"He raised me up from the pit of raging waters, from the slimy mud\"(תהלים מ ג) But it is still possible that he came out naturally, not with a miracle. I am baffled by this aggadic Midrash. For the nations that didn't believe that G'D made a miracle from Avraham would not increase their belief in G'D upon seeing the miracle of the king of Sodom. Because the king of Sodom was an idolater, and a miracle that happened to him would either strengthen the position of the idolaters or [make] them believe that \"all\" the miracles were [through] black magic or were rare coincidences. A miracle done for the king of Sodom would only place doubt into the hearts of those who believed in the miracle of Avraham. Maybe [the Rabbis] interpret \"The king of Sodom \"went out\" to greet [Avraham]\" (Passuk. 17) to mean that he went \"out\" from the pit\" (was able to come out of the pit just) as Avraham passed by him, for a miracle was done to him in honor of Avraham, so that he should come out (of the pit) to greet him in his honor and bless him. It is also possible that Avraham, when he returned [from fighting the 4 kings,] looked into that pit [where king of Sodom fell,] because he wanted to rescue the kings and to return their belongings to them, and behold the miracle happened through him. [People would reason:] \"Now, if a wonder occurred to the king of Sodom [simply] to honor Avraham, then even more so [is it reasonable] to believe that a miracle should happen to Avraham, 'to save his soul from death'!\" We [must] say that the king of Amorah had already died when Avraham passed by him, or he fell into a different pit-for \"[they fell] there\" [doesn't] mean [the pit, rather] the valley[in general]."],[],[],[],[],["HE SPLIT UP AGAINST THEM... AT NIGHT. Rashi writes: According to the plain meaning [Avraham chased them] in the manner of pursuers, who split up [their troops to chase] after those who run from them, when they run in different directions. \"At night\"- means to say that, even after it became dark he did not stop chasing them. The right [explanation] is that [Avraham] chased them during the day as far as Dan with all his camp, and [after] when it became dark and couldn't see by which path they were fleeing, he split his people and servants into 2 or 3 groups, talking one group with himself, and they chased after them in \"all\" the [possible] directions, hey struck the \"as far as Chovah which is in the north of Damascus.\" [Only] then did he return from chasing them. [The wording] of the Passuk is equal to [when switched around] \"He split up against them- he and his servants- at night\". HE CHASED THEM AS FAR AS CHOVAH, WHICH IS TO THE NORTH OF DAMASCUS. It is known that there's a great distance from Elonei Mamre - which is in Chevron in the land of Judah (southern Israel) - and Damascus which is outside (the northern boundary) of Israel. If so [Avraham] chased them many days until he withdrew them from the Land. For they were returning, the Bavel, their land. Or, there was a great miracle (in which Avram was able to chase them to Damesek in one day) like our rabbis learn (Breishit Rabbah 43:3) \"He pursued them and passed on safely, on a path upon which he had not come with his feet\" (Isaiah 41:3)"],[],[],[],["MAKER OF HEAVEN AND EARTH. Rashi says: Acquirer is the same as עושה (Maker). [ which is to say:] Through His making he acquired them to be his These are 2 interpretations. Maybe it is so that the word קנין can mean \"making,\" and so [we find \"It was You who created (קנית) my kidneys\" (תהלים קלט יג) (seemingly קנית means \"You have made\") becayse [the verse] repeats \"You surrounded me [with flesh and bones] in my mothers womb\". Also, \"Is He not your Father your Maker? (קנך)He made you and firmed you\" דברים לב ו) Because Hebrew uses קנין to mean \"making\" And the opposite is also true, [as we see in the Passuk] \"[the souls] that they acquired (עשו) in Charan (לעיל יב ה)\" [where עשו means \"they acquired,\"] and \"and from what belonged to our father, he has amassed (עשה) [this entire fortune] (below, 31:1).\" The most correct is what [Rashi]states further: \"He acquires them to be His.\" Because everything one owns becomes his \"acquisitions.\" [For ex.,] flocks of sheep and goat are called מקנה (livestock, lit, acquisitions)for flocks were viewed as the main possessions of a person. In the language of the Rabbis \"if one picks up a found object on behalf of a friend, his friend acquired (קנה) it\" (B.M 8a) \"looking at am ownerless object acquires it\" (ibid. 118a), and \"a mans courtyard acquires for him (ownerless objects) without his knowledge\" (ibid 11a). And so, in many places, that [קניה] is used instead of the word זכיה meaning that it means that the [object] becomes his. This is what Onkelus meant he translated (\"Whose possessions are heaven and earth\"), and did not say (\"Maker [or Acquirer] of heaven and earth\")."],["AND HE GAVE HIM A TENTH OF EVERYTHING. Avraham did no want to take for himself \"so much as a thread or a sandal strap\" (v.23), but the portion to G'D he separated, to give to the priest. The king of Sodom went out to greet Avraham at the Valley of Shevah (v.17) to respect him. He then went with him to Shalem, where Malkitzedek brought out bread and wine for the people that followed him. [At this point] the king of Sodom did not request anything from him. But when he saw [Avraham's] generosity and kindness in giving a tenth [to Malkitzedek,] then he too requested [that he return the] human [captives,] by way of kindness. Avraham trusted in his G'D, that He would give him riche and possessions and honor, and did not want to take anything from him, so he returned to him all the possesions [looted from] Sodom- which belonged to [king of Sodom]- and all the property from Amorrah to return to its owners. Because it was regarding \"all\" the human [captives] (from Sodom and Amorrah) that [the king of Sodom] asked of [Avraham], and [also]it was regarding \"all\" (the spoils) [that] Abraham argued, \"Let them not claim, 'we made Avram rich.'\" As for the other places that are named above vv.5-7) (i.e., Ashterot- karnaim, Cham, etc.) [Kadarlaomer and his alies] struck them down by the sword. They took nothing from them [the 5 kings] besides from Sodom and Amorrah, for their kings were lost (fled) [and] the city was abandoned. it also] possible that this is what [Avram meant when] he said \"so much as a thread or a sandal strap\"- shall not remain in my hand from all the possessions that come to me [thru the 4 kings] from all of you [collectively,] \"Nor shall I take from anything of yours\"- ofyour own possessions you [want] to give me. "],[],["I HAVE LIFTED UP MY HAND — An expression signifying an oath: I lift up my hand to the Most High God (not, I have lifted up). Similarly, (Genesis 22:16) בי נשבעתי which means “By myself do I swear” A quote from Rashi. And I found the same in the Sifre: We find that all righteous people subject their impulses to oats not to do [evil]. By Avraham it says \"I lift up my hand to G'D, etc.\" It is like the expression \"and he raised his right hand and his left hand to the heavens, and he swore by the Life of the world\" (Daniel 12:7), [where \"raised up his hand\" mean swearing]. Onkelus, however, says (\"I have raised my hand 'in prayer' before G'D\"). [Accd. to Onkelus] Avraham as saying: \"I prayed to G'D , with my hands spread out towards heaven [in prayer]\" [Accd. to Rashi and Onkelus] \" if I shall not take from anything of yours\"- means, \"such may G'D do to me and such may he do further if I take.\" In my view the correct interpretation is that [Avraham] said, \"I lift up my hands to G'D [to] consecrate and designate as cherem for him if I take anything from you.\" Because this is how consecrated objects are called [in the Torah] \"an object raised by the hand\" as the expression \"Every man who separated (lit., \"who raised up\") a portion of silver or copper\" [brought it for G'D] (Exodus 35:24), \"and every man who raised up an offering of gold to G'D\" (ibid v.22). [Avraham] said this for he had given a tithe from [the spoils to Malkitzedek giving the impression he intended to keep the remaining.] [He therefore said to king of Sodom] that everything he took that belonged to him would be \"raised up\" (consecrated) to G'D, and he wouldn't benefit from anything. In Breishit Rabbah (43:9) it says: [Avraham] made[the spoils] a consecrated offering (terumah), as you say \"you shall lift up from it a portion (lit., raised item) to G'D. Num. 18:26)\""]],[["THE WORD OF G'D CAME TO AVRAHAM IN A VISION. Avraham now merited that the word of G'D should come to him in a vision during the day, for in the beginning his visions was only through nighttime visions. The explanation of \"The word of G'D came to Avram in a vision\" is [like] the explanation of \"The entire people saw the thunder (exodus 20:15)\" . [There too \"sound\" is being \"seen\"]. The mystical meaning [is known] to those who \"know grace\" (Kabbalists). FEAR NOT, AVRAM. [Avraham] feared 2 things: of the kings, that they might increase their armies against him- themselves or their successors- and [in the battle] \"he would go forth and perish,\" \"or, his day would come to die\" without children. G'D assured him [on both] 1) He would be \"a shield for him\" against [an attack by] the kings, and also 2) \"his reward- for \"walking with G'D- would be very great.\" "],[],[],["SUDDENLY, THE WORD OF G'D CAME TO HIM, SAYING, \"THAT ONE WILL NOT INHERIT.\" For he would have a son who would inherit after his old age, G'D reassured him only regarding the inheritance, that he shouldn't be concerned, because his children would inherit him. The meaning of \"'Suddenly' the word of G'D came to him\" is that while [Avram was saying] \"See, a member of my household inherits me\" [he barely finished saying them] the word of G-D came to him suddenly saying \"That one will not inherit you\""],["AND HE TOOK HIM OUTSIDE. According to its simple meaning, [G-D] took [Avram] from his tent outside to see the stars. However according to the Midrashic meaning, He said to him, \"Go 'out from your astrology, for you have seen by the signs of the zodiac that you won't have a son. Abram indeed may have no son but Abraham will have a son: Sarai may not bear a child but Sarah will bear.\" A quote from Rashi. But Avram begot Yishmael! Rather the midrash means Avram was seeking a son to inherit him as [seen by what] he said, \"see, my steward will be my heir.” so G-D said to him, “That one shall not be your heir; none but your very own issue shall be your heir.” And go out of your astrology- Avram shall not have a child \"to inherit him,\" [Ismael didnt inherit him, but] Avraham will have a child (Isaac) \"to inherit him.\" Its also possible that the astrological sign concerned [Avraham and Sarah] as a couple, that Abram and Sarah wont have a child \"together,\" (Ismael was from Abram and Hagar) but Avraham and Sarah \"would have a children. In my opinion, however, Sarah is an addendum in the Midrash, [the midrash means] to say that this also happened to Sarai. But G-D made no promise now regarding Sarah, for even at the prophecy regarding circumcision Avraham still had a doubt if Sarah would give birth. "],["And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him as righteousness. Rashi explains: The Holy One, blessed be He, accounted it to Abram as a merit and as righteousness for the faith that he believed in Him. But I don't understand what merit what merit this is [for Avram] Why should he \"not\" believe in \"the G-D of trust\" (Isaiah 65:16)! He himself was the prophet [that heard G-D's word!] How could someone who believed in G-D [to the extent that he was willing] to slaughter his only dear son, and the other tests, now not believe in [G-D'S] good news?! The most correct explanation in my view is that [the Torah] is saying that Avram] believed in G-D, but he thought that it would be because of G-D's righteousness (kindness) that He would give him children, anyway., and not because of Avraham's righteousness or his [deserved] reward although G-D told him \"your 'reward' is very great\" and he would not fear that maybe sin would cause [him not to have offspring]. Although he thought the first prophecy was conditional- in accordance with the reward for his actions, now that [G-D] assured him that he need 'not' fear because of sin, and He would give him a child [in any case] he believed that the matter was \"ready before G-D,\" as a true, fact from which He would not take back. Because being [the result of] the righteousness (kindness) of G-D, it would not be canceled, like what is written (Isaiah 45:23) \"By Myself I swore, righteousness emanated from My mouth, a word, and it shall not be retracted.\" Also, you could say the verse is saying Avraham believed that he would have descendants to inherit him in any case[through his merit]. G-D [however] further considered this promise that he promised him to be [based on] righteousness (kindness) because He would fulfil it through the righteousness of G-D. [the meaning of ויחשבה (\"He considered it\") [is] like \"G-d considered it for good\" (below 50:20). Likewise, [we see] by Pinchas, \"It was 'accounted' for him as kindness, [for generations, to eternity\"]. psalms 106:31) [meaning] G-D] counted for him the trust the had in G-D in that action [of killing Zimri] as a reason [to] show \"kindness( צדקה) for generations.\"[Meaning] that G-D forever would keep His compassion and kindness to [Pinhas] because of [his faith in G-D], like \"I will forever keep My kindness for him.\""],["\"I am the Lord, Who brought you forth from Ur of the Chaldees, to give you this land to inherit it.\" I have already explained this that G-D] was saying [a fact] \"From the time I took you out of Ur-kasdim and made a miracle for you, it has been My will to give you this land.\" Consequently, at this time [G-D] didnt decree that he would give [the land] to him; rather He said that He took him from Ur-kasdim with the intention of giving it to him. That is why Avraham was worried [that maybe] inheritance of the land depend on his deeds, although [G-D] told him twice, \"To your descendants I will give this land\". Because [G-D] at this time did not decree the giving [of Israel to Avram] the same way he decreed that [Avraham] would have children. That's why he said, \"how will I know that I will inherit it?\" His [question] wasn't like [chezkiah's question \"what's the sign?\" (II Kings 20:8), nor did G-D make for him a sign, by showing him a sign or wonder through a miracle. Rather, Avraham asked that he should know with total certainty that he would inherit the land, and that his sins- nor his children's sins-would cause it to be held back from them. Or maybe the Canaanites would repent and [G-D] would fulfil for them \"One instant I may speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to uproot and to demolish and to destroy,And when that nation repents of its evil...I will repent of the evil\" (Jeremiah 18:7-8). G-D therefore made a covenant with him that he would inherit [the land] in any case."],[],["A HEIFER OF THREE AND A GOAT OF THREE. Rabbi Avraham [Ibn Ezra] explains [3] means three years old. Onkelus, however, says \"three\" [ three heifers] And so it is [like Onkelus], because a three year old [cow] is not called a \"heifer\" [rather a \"cow\", as we see, (Parah 1:1): \"The Rabbis say that a 'heifer' is two years old [0r less]; a cow is three years old.\" Hashem hinted to [Avram] that his progeny would offer 3 offerings from [these animals] before him- the sin-offering, burnt-offering, and peace-offerings. [We don't count guilt-offering]because the guilt offering is like a sin-offering; there's no difference between besides the name. It could be that the meaning of משולשת is that Avram was to bring [all three of each animal] grouped together., with each specie by itself. like, \"for they were by three\" (Ezekiel 42:6), [meaning] that the chambers were [divided into sets]of lower, middle and upper ones."],["HE CUT THEM IN THE CENTER. [This was done so that] G-D can make a covenant with [Avraham] by walking in between the pieces. Its also hinted to [Avram] that all offerings of animals and birds would be from these. For the \"young bird\" is a young dove. G-D] called [the dove] young bird\" for it was only the young of that type [the dove] that were acceptable. Even though \"all\" young birds are called גוזלים like it says, \"like an eagle arousing its nest, hovering over its young\" (גוזליו ) Deuto. 32:11) Avraham understood on his own [which] designated specie. Also, [Avram] offered a young dove of his own will, and the Torah chose forever the species [Avram] offered. Now, Avram knew that these species were going to be offerings [in the future], and that all offerings would be cut up- the burnt- offering into pieces, the piece offering the breast and thigh and fats [cut away], and sin-offering and guilt offering their fats [cut off]. THE BIRDS, HOWEVER, HE DID NOT CUT UP. He put the turtledove and the young bird each one opposite its counterpart, for they too were part of the covenant. He did not \"cut them in the center,\" however, because regarding all birds brought s a sacrifice is states, \"He shall not sever it\"(Levit. 1:17). In Breishit Rabbah (44:14) we find: G-D , showed [Avram] that the bird burnt-offering is separated (at the head), while the bird sin-offering isn't separated (at the head)."],["AND (AVRAM) DROVE THEM AWAY. It was hinted to him that the nations would come to put an end to the offerings, but Avraham's descendants would drive them away."],["BEHOLD- A DREAD, A GREAT DARKNESS FELL UPON HIM. [The Rabbis] learnt this, saying its a hint to the subjugation by the Four kingdoms. For the prophet [Avraham] experienced a \"dread\" in his soul; after he entered into a [feeling] of \"darkness\"; then that darkness became \"greater;\" and then he felt as if [the darkness] was \"falling upon him\" like a heavy load to that's too heavy[to handle. [The Rabbis] said \"A dread\" refers to Babylonia. \"Darkness\" refers to Media, who caused the eyes of the Jews to become darkened from fasting. \"Great\" refers to Greece. \"Fell upon him\"-Edom. The relevance of this to Avraham was that when G-D made the covenant with him to give the land to his descendants as an eternal inheritance, He said to him, like one keeps certain rights when giving a present, that the Four kingdoms would rule over his descendants and rule over their land. This was conditional [only] if Avraham's offspring's would sin before Him. After this [hint of the exiles of the 4 kingdoms], [G-D] told him 'explicitly' of another exile that [his descendants] would go through before [the other] which had already been [decreed] as punishment to Avraham, as I explained."],["THAT YOUR OFFSPRINGS SHALL BE ALIENS IN A LAND NOT THEIR OWN. This is an inverted passuk. It is equal to saying \"that your offspring shall be foreigners in a land no their own four hundred years, and they will enslave them and oppress them.\" [The Torah] did not specify how many years the oppression and servitude would be. There are many inverted passukim in the Torah. like, \"He came to me- the Hebrew slave whom you brought to us to play with me\" (below 39:17); and \"And all [the inhabitants of] the land came to Egypt to Joseph to purchase ibid 41:57); and likewise, \"for whoever eats leaven from the first day until the seventh day that soul shall be cut off from Israel (exodus 12:15)\"; and likewise \"On that day, man will cast away his silver idols and his gold idols, which they made for him, [before which] to prostrate himself to moles and to bats\" (Isaiah 2:20); and likewise \"Come, hearken and I shall tell all you who fear God what He did for my soul (תהלים סו טז)\"; and likewise, \"To Me they should cry out: My G-d we acknowledge You, Israel!\"(Hoshea 8:2); and likewise, \"And they shall be Mine, says the Lord of Hosts, for that day when I make a treasure, And I will have compassion on them (Malachi 3:17).\" There are many like this. The point of this passuk is [that G-d told Avram] \"Although I tell you, 'To your offspring I have given this land', you should certainly know that before I give it to them they will be foreigners in a land not their own for four hundred years, and also [the host nation] will enslave and oppress them.\" Ibn Ezra says: \"Know with certainty that your descendants will be foreigners, under servitude and oppression, until the end of four hundred years from today.\" If so [G-d] told Avraham of a time limit for the redemption, but did not tell him how many years it would last. This too, is a correct interpretation."],[],["AS FOR YOU: YOU SHALL COME TO YOUR ANCESTORS IN PEACE. And you will not see all of these things [of \"being an alien in a foreign land\"] A quote from Rashi. But this is not right, according to his own interpretation, for he said [that the decree of\"[Know with certainty] that your descendants shall be aliens\" [begins]\"when you have offspring\"(when Isaac is born). Rashi cont.: And once Isaac was born it says about [Avram] \"Avraham sojourned in the land of the Pelishtim\" and [about] Isaac \"sojourned in Gerar.\" if so Avraham was included in the decree. Rather its explanation is: \"As for you: you should come to your ancestors in peace\"-because no manner of 'punishment' from Me will come to you, even though I am decreeing on your children punishments of servitude and oppression"],["AND THE FOURTH GENERATION SHALL RETURN HERE. After they will have been exiled to Egypt, they will be there for three generations,[and the fourth will return to this land]. Go forth and figure his generations: Judah, Perez, and Hezron, and Caleb the son of Hezron was one of those who entered the land. A quote from Rashi. But this is not correct at all. The right in my view is that \"the fourth generation\" [means] the Amorite nation, which completed [the full measure] of its sins. For, from the day of the decree [that Avram receive Israel] G-d gave an extension for the[Amorites], for He \"visits sins... upon the third and fourth generation (exodus 20:5).\" Because if they would repent He wouldn't eradicate them; rather they would be subjugated t [Jews] to be indentured workers, or go[to another land.] THE SIN OF THE AMORITE.[G-d] mentioned the strongest of [the Canaanite nations], \"whose height was like the height of cedars (Amos 2:9).\" [Since they were strong,[the Jews] wouldn't be able to overpower them until their full measure[of iniquity] would be complete, and \"their iniquities would defeat them\" Another reason, they were the first nation] conquered by the Jews that they evicted first."],["BEHOLD- THERE WAS A SMOKY FURNACE AND A TORCH OF FIRE. He saw something that looked like a furnace that was full of smoke, with a flaming torch in it. Like what it says (יחזקאל א ד) \"great cloud with flashing fire\" The \"smoke\" was the cloud and thick cloud mentioned by the giving of the Torah, and the \"torch of fire\" within [the smoke] was the fire mentioned there: \"You heard His words from the midst of the fire\" And it says \" And the appearance of the glory of G-d was like a consuming fire\". Thus, the Shechina passed between the parts. "],["ON THAT DAY G-D MADE A COVENANT WITH AVRAM SAYING... G-d promised Avraham the gift of the Land many times, but all of them were needed, for a purpose. When he first came to the Land, G-d said to him, \"To your offspring's I'll give this land\" but He didnt explain on His gift, for it implied only the land he [actually] walked on, \"as far as the place of Shechem until Eilon Moreh.\" After when his merits grew in the land, [G-d] added for him, \"Raise now your eyes and look out... north, south, east and west [for all the land you see to you I'll give it]\" [meaning] that he would give him all those lands [of the Cananim], in a general way. the explanation of \"[the land] that you see\" doesnt mean \"that you see 'with your eyes'\" [literally], for ones sight doesnt go far into the distance. Rather, that [He] would give him [land] in all directions that his eyes could see. Or, He showed him all of Israel (miraculously) as it occurred with Moses our teacher. He also added in the second blessing \"and to your descendants, FOREVER\" and also that he would multiply his children like the dust of the earth. The third time He elaborated to Avram] the [precise] borders of the land, and mentioned to him all the peoples- ten nations. He also sealed a covenant with him on those lands], so no sin can revoke it. When G-d commanded him about circumcision, He said to him, \"[And I will give you and your seed after you the land of your sojourning's, the entire land of Canaan] for an everlasting possession,\" meaning if they got exiled they would return and inherit it. He added further \"And I shall be a G-d to them\", meaning that He Himself, in His Glory, would lead them, and they wouldn't be subject to the rule of any star or constellation or any of the Heavenly ministers as will be explained in the Torah. The Torah says the first time, \"To your descendants \"I will give'\" in future tense. Also the second tome, for until now He hadn't given him the land in its entirety, and therefore said \"I will give it\". But the third time at the time of the covenant he said \"To your offspring's I have GIVEN\", meaning He sealed a covenant with him over a gift he had ALREADY given him, Likewise, at the time of the circumcision, when he said \"[And I will give you and your seed after you the land of your sojourning's, the entire land of Canaan] for an everlasting possession,\" He said to him \"I WILL give to you\" in the future. Rashi says: \"To your offspring's have I given\"- The statement of the One on High is considered done. But there's no need (for this explanation her). "]],[[],["\"And Avram listened to the voice of his wife\"- the Torah does not say \"and he did this\" rather that he listened to her voice, to hint to us that even though Avram wanted desperately to have sons, he would not act without the permission of his wife. Even once acting he would not plan on building a family with Hagar rather Sarah. All of his intent was to do Sarah's will so she would be pleased with her family and maidservants. And it said as well \"Sarah took\" to teach us that Avram didn't rush to take Hagar rather that Sarah took her and gave her to Avram. \"To Avram as his wife\"--to hint to us that Sarah never gave up from being with Avram, never removed herself from him--he is her husband and she is his wife, but she wanted the Hagara would also be his wife...this was done by Sarah to honor her husband (that he would not have a child just with a concubine rather a wife)."],["AT THE END OF TEN YEARS. Is the time which is set to a lady who waited ten years and didnt give birth to children for her husband. He is obligated to marry another lady. \"Of Avraham living in the land of Canan\"- This tells us that [his] living outside Israel is not included in the count, because \"And I will make of you a great nation\" was not said to him until he came to Israel. [This is] a quote from Rashi. This is not right however,for \"dwelling outside of the land\"[not counting toward the 10 years] is an established rule, that it doesnt count fo anybody, the Mishnah in which this is taught refers to \"all\" people, (not only Avraham). If it didnt count for him (the years outside Israel) because f G-d's promise to Avram it WOULD count for other people. There are some commentators (who made another error concerning this) and said that one living outside Israel doesnt have to divorce his wife who spent 10 years with and did not have children. The matter is not so. [The Rabbis] intent was that if a man spent five or ten years out of Israel with his wife and [then] came to Israel, they are given ten years time from the time they came to the land. Maybe through the merit of living in the land they will be able to become \"built up\" (have kids). And this is what Avram and Sarah did, they counted from the time they arrived there."],[],[],["And Sarai oppressed her and she fled from her presence (literally face): Our mother sinned in this oppression, and also Abraham in permitting her to do so. And Hashem heard her [Hagar's] oppression and gave her a son who would be a wild ass of a man to oppress the descendants of Abraham and Sarah in all kinds of oppression."],[],[],["RETURN TO YOUR MISTRESS, AND SUBMIT YOURSELF TO HER. [The angel] commanded her to return and accept the dominion of her mistress. A hint that [Hagar] would never become freed from her, because the children of Sarah would rule over her descendants forever."],[],["YOU SHALL CALL HIS NAME ISHMAEL. The angel told her that [the child's] name will be Ishmael, (but didnt tell her to name him), In the same manner as \"Behold, a son will be born to the house of David; Yoshiyahu will be his name (I Kings 13:2)\"[The angel] told her that she would call him [Yishmael] and recall that G-d heard her prayer. And Avram either on his own, called him Yishmael [to express hope] that \"G-d would hear [his prayers] and answer him\", or Divine revelation rested on him, as Rashi says: and he called him Yishmael for \"G-d heard his mother's prayer\", just like the angel said. The most correct n my view is that the angel told Hagar that \"she\" should name him, and she was afraid- being she was a [lowly] concubine- to give a name to the son of her master, so she revealed the matter [of the angel] to him, and Avram fulfilled G-d's word. But the passuk didn't find it necessary to go to length about this"],["A WILD-ASS OF A MAN. A quote from Rashi: A wild donkey of a man: who loves the wilderness to hunt beasts, as it is written (below 21:20):“And he was an archer; and he dwelt in the desert of Paran.” His hand will be upon all: [He will be] a bandit. —and everyone’s hand upon him: Everyone will hate him and attack him. The most correct is that \"wild-ass of a man\" is connected [to the words after it, meaning] that he will be a man [whos going to be like] \"a wild-ass accustomed to the wilderness\" an \" [as wild donkeys in the desert,]he'll go out to his work, seeking prey to tear apart (Job 24:5)\" [Meaning:] He would rip apart others and others would rip him apart. The intent was toward his descendants that they would become great, living in the wilderness like wild-asses, and have wars with all peoples. Ibn Ezra says \"his hand against everyone\" that he would first take over all nations, but after that \"everyone's hand will be against him\" he'd be defeated in the end. AND AMID ALL HIS BROTHERS SHAL HE DWELL. \"Amid all his brothers\", who are the children of Keturah, \"shall he dwell\"[means] Yishmael's descendants will be more numerous than them. "]],[["EL SHAKAI. These are 2 [distinct divine] names, each one being an independent descriptive term. \"El\" means \"Powerful\", like \"the powers (אלי) of Moav.\" Shadai means: Rashi says that שיש (there are) די (enough) means in His Divinity [to sustain] every creature. In Moreh Nevuchim, the Rambam explains [Shadai] That is to say that He has no need for the existence of any existing thing, nor for anything outside Himself or His own continued existence; rather, His existence is self sufficient. Ibn Ezra quoting the Nagid, may his memory be blessed explains [Shadai], from the root שודד (\"vanquisher\"), meaning the He triumphs over and vanquishes the Heavenly constellations. This is the best explanation, for it [refers to G-d's] Attribute of Strength, which guides the world, which the Rabbis call \"The Attribute of Justice of Below.\" The reason this name is written here is that it is through [this Name] that hidden miracles happen to the righteous, to \"save their souls from death and sustain them in famine\" and to \"redeem them from the sword in war,\" like all the wonders performed for Avram and the other forefathers, and like the other occurrences in the Torah, in the Torah-portion \"Im Bechukotai\" (Leviticus Chap. 10) and \"Vehayah Ki Tavo\" (Deuto. Chap. 28), in the blessings and curses [in those chapters] for all these are [hidden] miracles. Because its not natural that the rains should come at the right time when we serve G-d, nor the heavens [dry] as iron when we sow [produce] in the Seventh Year, and similarly for all promises in the Torah. Rather, all these are miracles, and in all these cases the array of the constellations is overpowered by G-d, except there is no [noticeable] change from the natural course of the world in these [miracles], like the miracles performed through Moses in the Ten Plagues and Splitting of the Sea, the manna, the Well and others, which were wonders that changed nature in an obvious manner. [Those miracles] are brought upon by the Unique Name (the tetragrammaton) which [G-d] told [Moses]. That's why [G-d] told Avram now that He is \"the Powerful One Who Conquers the Forces of Nature\" [The use of this name showed] that [Avram] would overcome his natural fat and have children, and there would be a covenant between [G-d] and [Avram's] descendants forever [to the effect] that His people (Israel) would be the portion of G-d, [meaning] He would guide them by His will that they too, wouldn't be in the control of the stars and constellations. WALK BEFORE ME. [Means:] \"to walk in the path on which I shall instruct you.\" Like the meaning of \"You shall follow the L-rd, your G-d, fear Him\" For the One Who commands to follow to His way before He instructs him, will say, \"Walk 'before' me\" [but when the demand for compliance] comes after he command, [He] says \"'After' Hashem, Your G-d you should walk\" The meaning of both is \"to follow G-d, to fear only Him and to do whatever He commands.\" AND BE PERFECT. [This is] a separate additional command in this matter. like the meaning, \"you shall be wholehearted (תמים )with Hashem your G-d\" (Deuto. 18:13) written after \"There shall not be found among you… a soothsayer, a diviner of [auspicious] times, one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer,\" The meaning of both these expressions is that one should believe in his heart that G-d alone is all-Powerful One at the beginning and end, He alone is capable of putting [events] into action and annulling [events], and not listen to cloud- readers, diviners, omen readers or sorcerers, and not believe that their words will surely come true. Rather he should conclude with certainty in his heart that everything's in the hand of the Most Superior One, Who is El (the mighty one) and Shadai (the One Who overrides natural fate) Who can do kindness even when not in ones fate, and bring evil when the persons fate is good and favorable, [all] in accordance with the extent to which the person has walked before Him. \"Who frustrates the signs of imposters, and diviners He makes mad.\" This is what the Rabbis meant \"Abandon your astrology, etc.!\" (Shabbat 156a). Rashi learns \"be perfect\" as, be complete in all your trials. Ibn Ezra says that He should not ask what the purpose if circumcision was. like the meaning of \"May my heart be innocent (תמים )in Your statutes.\" But the correct is what I have explained."],[],["AVRAM FELL ON HIS FACE. The explanation of \"Avram fell upon his face\" is] in order for him to direct his mind to receiving prophecy. And when the prophecy about circumcision was over, he got up and stood, and when the word came again from heaven and said to him \"As for Sarai, your wife...\", he again fell on his face to direct his mind to pray for Yishmael. Like \"They fell on their faces and said, G-D, G-D of the spirits, etc.\" and so too, \"I shall consume them in an instant.\" They [Moses and Aron] fell on their faces."],[],[],["I WILL MAKE NATIONS OF YOU. A quote from Rashi: [refer to] Israel and Edom, for Avraham already had Yishmael, so it cant be G-d is telling Avram about him. Its not sound in my view that G-d should tell [Avram] now by the covenant of circumcision, about Eisav (the father\" of Edom), who didnt fulfil circumcision and not commanded about it. As [the Rabbis] expound in Sanhedrin (59b) \"For in Isaac [will offspring be considered yours]\" \"in\" Isaac, but not \"all\" of Isaac. Rather, Israel by themselves are called \"nations\" and \"peoples\" as we see \"Indeed you loved 'peoples' greatly\" (Deuteronomy 35:11), \"Peoples will assemble at the mount\" (ibid. 33:19), \"after you came Benyamin with your peoples (Judges 5:14),\" Even after all tribes were born G-d said \"a nation and a congregation of nations shall descend from you\" and \"and I'll make you a congregations of nations\" (below 48:4)."],[],[],["AND AS FOR YOU, YOU SHALL KEEP MY COVENANT. Rashi says: And you: Heb. וְאַתָּה. This “vav” connects [this verse] to the preceding matter. “As for Me, behold My covenant is with you,” and you must be careful to observe it. Now what does its observance entail? “This is My covenant, which you shall observe…that every male among you be circumcised.” between Me and you: those living now. And between your seed: who are destined to be born. the explanation is right in the plain meaning. Some give a reason behind circumcision: that [G-d] placed a reminder in the organ of desire which is abundant in agitation and sin, that [one] should use it only for [following G-d's] command for permitted things. "],[],[],[],[],["AN UNCIRCUMCISED MALE. Here the [Torah] teaches you that circumcision is done on that place which is distinguishable between male and female. A quote from Rashi. The Rabbis (Shabbat 108a) also mentioned this, along with other reasons. Rabbi Avraham [Ibn Ezra] says ערלתו (his foreskin li., \"his uncircumcised part\") is a known entity being on the [male] genital; this isn't the case with \"the uncircumcised part of your heart\" (דברים י טז) or [\"uncircumcised] in the lip\" and [\"uncircumcised] in the ear\" (ירמיהו ו י) for all these [are in the construct state]. In my view, the matter is clear in the Torah, for it didnt say \"You shall cut off your blockage,\" in which case it still wouldn't be clear and also it doesnt say \"the blockage of your heart\" (דברים י טז) and \"the blockage of your lip\" Rather, it said \"your flesh of blockage\" (בשר ערלתכם) [meaning] you should cut off that flesh that's a blockage in you, that is, the flesh that's a seal on you. And there is no flesh on the body that seals off and covers over an organ such that when that flesh is cut off, it remains without a blockage except for \"the flesh that covers over the tip of the male organ\" as the Rabbis call it (Shabbat 137a). The expression ערל בשר \"one who is blocked in his flesh\" (Ezekiel 44:9), is a euphemism. Like \"who ere of great flesh\" and \"who has a discharge of his flesh\" (ויקרא טו ב)."],[],[],["AND [AVRAHAM] LAUGHED. Onkelus translates [this word] וחדי (\"he rejoiced) and so it is for צחוק (\"laughter\") is sometimes scoffing and sometimes rejoicing like, \"playing (משחקת) in the habitable world of His earth\" proverb 8:31) and \"And David and all the house of Israel made merry (משחקים) before G-d\" (II Shmuel 6:5). In my opinion, the intention in this expression is that whoever sees some wondrous that is for his benefit rejoices to the point that his \"mouth becomes filled with laughter\" this is what Sarah said: \"God has made joy for me; whoever hears will rejoice over me.\" like \"Then our mouths will be filled with laughter and our tongues with songs of praise;\" (psalm 126:2) Avram acted this way too, when this was told to him he rejoiced and his mouth filled with laughter. AND HE SAID N HIS HEART. [AVRAM MEANT]: this calls for laughter, because it is a very wondrous thing! \"Shall a child be born to a 100 year old man? And shall Sarah, a 90 year old woman, give birth\" without this causing laughter and joy?! The Torah shortens his expression of wonderment, for its connected with what it said earlier \"and he laughed\" like Hagar's rhetorical question, \"Could I have seen G-d even here?\" is connected to the beginning of the passuk [\"And she called the name of the Lord, Who had spoken to her, \"You are the God of seeing,\"] for she said \"Could I have seen G-d even here,\" [that is how can I behold the One] who revealed himself to me because He saw my misery and not call him 'G-d of seeing'\" and like \"Did I appear to your ancestors family\" (I Shmuel 2:27) is connected to \"Why do you scorn My sacrifice and My meal-offering?\" G-d was saying \"Did I choose [your ancestors] and you so that you should scorn My sacrifice and My meal offering?!\" Why [then] do you do so?!\" Also, \"Shall a child be born to a 100 year old man?\" is a question expressing amazement, not as an impossible thing. like will you rebuke, will you rebuke a city of bloodshed?\" which means \"Do you [really] want to rebuke it and inform it of all its abominations?\" similarly, \"Do you cast your eyes on wealth and it is gone?\" Also \"have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat\" meaning: did it [really] enter your mind to et from the tree!?\" likewise in this passuk \"Can it [really] be imagined that a child should be born to a 100 year old and Sarah a 90 year old woman should give birth?\" After Avram told G-d, \"May this miracle happen while Yishmael live\" SHALL A CHILD BE BORN TO A HUNDRED YEAR OLD MAN. The wonderment isn't that a 100 year-old man should father a child, for men can father children as long as they have moistness [even at] 90 years old, even in these [present]generations, and all the more so Avram, (when they lived longer), and he didnt reach two third of his years. Note that forty years after this he fathered many children with Keturah. Rather, he said, \"Shall a 100 year-old man who didn't father any children in his younger years with 'this' wife father children through her now, after a 10o years old, and the 'manner of women' ceased from her?\" for he knew that this was so. That's why he didnt say it at first, when it was told to him \"I will make nations out of you\" till [G-D] told him that it would be thru Sarah that he would have a child. G-D] commanded Avram \"and you shall call his name Isaac,\" because of the laughter Avram laughed, and that's proof it was laughter of joy and faith. After Avram called him thus, as G-d commanded, Sarah said \"Is it not that he called his name Isaac? For G-d has made laughter for me!\""],["IF YISHMAEL WILL LIVE BEFORE YOU. The meaning of this word (לו ) throughout the Torah is like the meaning of (\"if\"). Its [sometimes] combined with the word לא into the word לולי whose meaning is \"if not.\" the word לולי is sometimes with an alef. [people] also combine it and say אלו as in, \"if (אלו) we would be sold as slaves and maid servants\" (Esther 7:4). and \"And if (אלו) he would live a thousand years twice over\" the intent of the word [אלו] is אם and לו meaning the same as אם אם (\"if if\"). the doubling comes for emphasis like \"was it only (רק) only(אך) with Moshe?\" and \"is it because there are no (בלי) no (אין) graves?\" and others like these. Avram was saying, \"If(לו)Yishmael lives before You I will be pleased with this blessing that You have blessed me regarding Sarah [producing] offspring.\" For G-d promised Avram originally \"someone who shall come forth from within you shall inherit you\" Now [this implied] there would one person inherit him, and he always thought it was Yishmael. So now, when he was told he would father a child thru Sarah, and understood that this child would be the heir, he feared Yishmael would die. That's why he said this-[\"'m happy to hear about the birth of Isaac but only 'if Yishmael continues to live'\"]! WILL LIVE BEFORE YOU. Rashi explains: \"will live in fear of you\" just as \"walk 'before' me\" (which Onkelus translates \"serve before me\") This isn't correct, because of what G-d answered \"But concerning Yishmael I have heard you\" Rather, it means: \"May his offspring live and survive all the days of the world\"."],["NONETHELESS YOU WIFE SARAH. The word אבל is like \"However (אבל) she has no son\" (מלכים ב ד יד) like the meaning of רק (only\" however\") [G-d] said:\"[you may love your son Yishmael]'However', the son about who I have given you the good news [that I will establish my brit thru him and his offspring's] its your wife Sarah who'll give birth to him, and its 'with him and his descendants after him that I shall establish My covenant forever' as for Yishmael- I will bless [him] making his offspring numerous, but not because of my covenant, [which will be with Isaac]\""],[],[],["G-D ASCENDED FROM UPON AVRAHAM. An expression of respect to G-d. And it teaches us that the righteous are the chariot of G-d. This is a quote from Rashi. however the language of the Rabbis in Breishit Rabbah is: the \"forefathers\" are the chariot of G-d (not the righteous)"],[],[],[],["ON THAT VERY DAY. Rashi says: on the very day when 99 years were completed for Avram and 13 for Yishmael, they were circumcised. But what is the significance of mentioning this? Also it is impossible. for the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Eliezer's opinion that \"The world was made in Tishrei, the patriarchs (besides for Isaac) were born in Tishrei… and Isaac was born on Passover, and it was on the following Passover that Isaac was born.\" and the Torah says [\"Isaac whom Sarah will bear to you] at this time, next year\" Rashi says in Vayera that the good tides (of Isaac's birth) was on Passover, and that it was on the next Passover that he was born. Rather, it means \"on that very day\" on which [Avram] was told to do this mitzvah \"he was circumcised\" he \"and all those born in his household\"- 318 men. \"and all those purchased for money.\" The Torah is telling us of his greatness in [his] fear of G-d, and of the greatness of his household, for they were all dedicated and hurried to do [G-d's] commandments. now the meaning of [\"on that very day] was Avram circumcised [with Yishmael... and household] is not that Avram was circumcised first, rather Yishmael was circumcised first, and then all his household [and Avram was last.] For it says above, \"And Abraham took Ishmael his son and all those born in his house and all those purchased with his money, every male of the people of Abraham's household, [and he circumcised\" etc.] and only after it says \"And Abraham was ninety-nine years old, when he was circumcised\" the reason (he delayed his own circumcision) was that Avram hastened to their circumcision first, and he circumcised them, or he arranged many circumcisers for them and he supervised them, and after he circumcised himself. For if he gave himself first, he would become sick dangerously ill and would not be able to be involved in their circumcisions."]],[["<b>And He appeared to him:</b> The language of Rashi - to visit the sick man. Rabbi Hama the son of Hanina said, \"It was the third day after his circumcision and the Holy One, blessed be He, came and inquired [about the state of his health].\" \"And behold, three men came\" - the angels that came to him with the appearance of men were three - one to announce to Sarah [the birth of a son], one to cure Abraham and one to overthrow Sedom - and Raphael, who healed Avraham, went from them to save Lot, as this is not two assignments, because it was a different place and he was commanded afterwards or [because] they are both about saving (and therefore really one). \"And they ate\" - they appeared to be eating. <b> And in the book,</b> Guide for the Perplexed 2:4, it is said that the section is [presented in the style of] the general [followed] by the details: the verse first states that God appeared to him in prophetic visions and [then] how this prophetic vision was - that he lifted up his eyes in a vision and behold, three men were standing upon him. \"And he said, 'If I have found favor in your eyes'\" - this is the recounting of what he said in a prophetic vision to one of them, to the greatest one of them. And if in the vision the only thing that appeared was just three men eating meat, how could it state, \"And God appeared to him?\" As behold, God did not appear to him, not in a vision and not in thought. And it is not found like this in all of the prophecies. And behold, according to his words, Sarah did not knead cakes and Avraham did not fix the young cow, and also Sarah did not laugh. [Rather,] everything was a vision. And, if so, this dream came 'with much detail' like the false dreams, as what is the point in showing him all of this? And [the Guide there] also said about the matter of \"and a man wrestled with him\" (Genesis 32:25), that it was all a prophetic vision. And [if so,] I don't know why he limped on his thigh when he woke up, and why he said (Genesis 32:31), \"For I have seen God face to face and He saved my soul\"; as the prophets did not fear that they would die because of prophetic visions. And he already saw a greater and more glorious vision than this - as he even saw the glorious God many times in a prophetic vision (see further Genesis 28:13 and 31:3). And behold, according to his opinion, this would require [us] to say this in the matter of Lot - that the angels did not come to his house and he did not bake for them matsot and [that] they ate, but [rather] the whole thing was a vision. [But] how were the evil and sinful people of Sedom prophets? As [otherwise], who told them that people came to his house? And if it was all prophetic visions of Lot, [then] \"and the angels pressed, etc. 'Get up, take your wife'\" (Genesis 19:15), \"and he said, 'escape for your life'\"(Genesis 19:17), and \"Behold, I have lifted up your face\" (Genesis 19:21) and the whole section would be a vision. And Lot would have stayed in Sedom and [Rambam] would think that the acts would have been done on their own, and the statements in each and every thing were a vision. And these things contradict Scripture - it is forbidden to hear them, and even to believe them. And in truth, in all places in Scripture where the seeing of an angel or the word of an angel is mentioned, it is in a vision or in a dream - as the senses cannot perceive angels - but not prophetic visions. As one who [merely] perceives to see an angel or his word is not a prophet; as the matter is not as the teacher defines (Guide for the Perplexed 2:34, Mishneh Torah, Foundations of the Torah 7:6), that the prophecy of every prophet besides Moshe, our teacher, was through an angel. And they have already said about Daniel (Megilah 3a), \"They are better than he, as they were prophets and he was not a prophet.\" And so his book was not written together with the books of the Prophets, because his matter was with [the angel,] Gavriel - even though he appeared to him and spoke to him in a waking state, as it is stated in the vision of the Second Temple (Daniel 9:21), \"And I was still speaking in prayer and the man, Gavriel.\" And so [too], the vision of the final salvation was in a waking state, in his walking with his fellows \"alongside the river\" (Daniel 10:4). And [likewise] Hagar the Egyptian was not in the category of prophetesses, but it is also clear that her matter was not that of a <i>bat kol</i> (a sub-prophetic heavenly voice), as the teacher said (Guide for the Perplexed 2:34). And the verse distinguished between the prophecy of Moshe, our teacher, and the prophecy of the patriarchs, as it states (Exodus 6:3), \"And I appeared to Avraham, to Yitschak and to Yaakov as God Almighty\" - and this is one of the holy names of the Creator; it is not the appellation of an angel. And our rabbis also learned about the difference between them and said (Vayikra Rabbah 12:11), \"What is [the difference] between Moshe and all the prophets? Our rabbis said, 'All of the prophets saw through a lens that is not polished, such that it is written (Hoshea 12:11), \"and I increased the vision and through the prophets I appeared\"; And Moshe saw through a polished lens, such that it is written (Numbers 12:8), \"the picture of God does he see,\"'\" as it is explained in Vayikra Rabbah and in other places (Yevamot 49b). And in no place did they [attribute] their prophecies to an angel. And do not be astonished because it is written (I Kings 13:18), \"I am also a prophet like you and an angel spoke to me with the word of the Lord, saying\"; as its explanation is \"I am also a prophet like you, and I know that the angel who spoke to me was with the word of the Lord.\" And this is one of the levels of the levels of prophecy, as the man of God [also] said (I Kings 13:9), \"As so did He command me with the word of the Lord\" and (I Kings 13:17) \"as the word was to me in the word of the Lord.\" And our rabbis already said (Bemidbar Rabbah 20:3) about the matter of Bilaam who said, \"And now if it is bad in your eyes\" (Numbers 22:34), \"I did not go until the Holy One, blessed be He, said to me, 'get up, go with them' (Numbers 22:20), and you say that I should go back? Thus is His practice - did He not say thus to Avraham, to sacrifice his son, and afterwards, 'and the angel of the Lord called to Avraham a second time [...] And he said, \"do not send your hand upon the youth\"' (Genesis 22:11-12). He is accustomed to saying a thing and that an angel take it back, etc.\" Behold, the sages are bringing [it] up to say that the first prophecy that mentions God is not equal to the second prophecy, about which it says that it is through an angel. But rather, this is the way of prophets, that He will command [them] with a prophecy, and revoke the commandment through an angel, since the prophet knows that [the latter] is the word of the Lord. And at the beginning of Vayikra Rabbah 1:9, they said, \"'And He called to Moshe' (Leviticus 1:1), not like Avraham. With Avraham it is written (Genesis 22:15), 'And the angel of the Lord called to Avraham a second time from the Heavens' - the angel calls and the [Divine] speech speaks. However, here the Holy One, blessed be He, says, 'I am the caller and I am the speaker'\"; which is to say that Avraham did not perceive the prophecy until he prepared his soul first with the perception of the angel, and he [then] went up from that level to the level of prophetic speech. But Moshe was prepared for prophecy at all times and in all places. The sages saw fit to inform us [here] that the seeing of the angel is not prophecy and that those that see angels and speak with them are not in the category of prophets, as I mentioned with Daniel. [Rather], it is a vision called uncovering of the eyes, as in \"And the Lord uncovered the eyes of Bilaam and he saw the angel of the Lord\" (Numbers 22:31), and \"And Elisha prayed and said, 'O Lord, uncover his eyes and he shall see\" (II Kings 6:17). But in a place where it mentions the angels with the name, 'people,' like the matter of this section and in the section with Lot, and so [too], \"and a man wrestled with him\" (Genesis 32:25), and so [too], \"And a man found him\" (Genesis 37:15) - according to the opinion of our rabbis (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 2), it is the glory that is created with the angels - that is called by those who know, 'a garment - that is perceived by eyes of flesh, by those of pure souls; like the pious ones and the students of the prophets. And I cannot explain [it]. And about the place where you find in it seeing of the Lord and the word of the angel, or seeing of the angel and the word of the Lord, as it is written in the words of Moshe at the beginning of his prophecy (Exodus 3:2-4) and in the words of Zechariah 3:1-2, I will still reveal the words of the living God with hints (see Ramban on Exodus 3:2). And about \"and they ate,\" the sages said (Bereshit Rabbah 48:14), \"it is removed, one at a time.\" And the matter of removal you will understand from the matter of Manoach (Judges 13:19), if you merit it. And behold, the explanation of this section is that after it stated (Genesis 17:26), \"On that very day was Avraham circumcised,\" it stated that God appeared to him in his being sick from his circumcision, sitting and cooling off at the opening of his tent because of the heat of the day, which weakened him; and it mentioned this to inform that he was not intending prophecy - he did not fall on his face and he did not pray - and nonetheless, the vision came to him. ","At the terebinths of Mamre: this is to inform of the place that he was circumcised. Now this revelation of the Shechinah came to him as a mark of distinction and honor for him, "],[],["MY LORD, IF I FIND FAVOR IN YOUR EYES NOW. We find this vowelized in the Torah with a \"kamatz\" (אֲדֹנָ֗י ) (My L-ord, referring to G-d)Thus Avram referred to the angels by the Name of their Master by [the name beginning with]\" אֲדֹ\" for he realize they were angels of the Supreme One. This is like what we find that [angels] are called Elokim- and Elim (words used for G-d). That is why he bowed to the ground to them. PLEASE DONT PASS AWAY FROM YOUR SERVANT. (Why does the passuk use the singular?) Avram was speaking with each one [individually]. this is consistent with the style of the Torah, \"And you (sing.) shall observe all My statutes and all My ordinances, and fulfill them... You (sing.) shall not uncover the nakedness of your (sing.)father or the nakedness of your (sing.) mother\" When you (pl.) reap the harvest of your (pl.) land you (sing.) shall not fully reap\" \"And from there you (pl.) will seek the Lord your (sing.) God, and you (sing.) will find Him, if you (sing.) seek Him with all your (sing.) heart and with all your(sing.) soul.\" Most of Deuteronomy is written like this. The opposite of this is \"See (sing.), I present you (pl.) today.\" Our Rabbis said \"He was speaking to the primary one among them.\" This is also possible that Avram said to the primary one, \"Please don't go away, let you (sing.) and your (sing.) colleague's who will remain with you (sing.)- wash (pl.) your (pl.) feet.\" The best explanation in my view is that Avram called all of them \"lords\" Then he turned to each one. to the first he said, \"If I find favor in your (sing.)eyes now, please don't go away (sing.)…,\" and he said the same to the second one, and the same to the third one to each one he implored, \"My lords, if only I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass on from beside your servant. Please let a little water be taken, and 'all of you 'bathe your (pl.)feet.\" This was proper behavior and respect because of his great will to show generosity to them. Avram realized they were travelers on the road and would not want to spend the night there, that he offered them only that some water should be brought to wash their feet a bit because of the heat, putting \"cold water on a weary soul\" and that they recline beneath the tree \"in the daytime breeze\" [but] not for them to enter \"a tent of dwelling\" The meaning of \"inasmuch as you have passed...\" Avram meant, \"[I normally wouldn't hold you, but] since you passed my way it would not be proper if you wouldn't rest a bit by me\" DO SO, JUST AS YOU HAVE SAID.[This was the right response according to the]proper way of acting [telling Avram] that a morsel of bread is enough. [This is] a quote from Ibn Ezra. Also it could mean, \"So shall you do for us, i.e. [allow us] to lay under the tree and [then]leave immediately, for we are messengers [on a mission]; don't detain us [by asking us] to go into a tent or to spend the night with you.\""],[],[],["FLOUR, MEAL. \"Meal\" for the cakes, \"flour\" for the dough of cooks [that they use] to cover the pot to absorb the filth. A quote from Rashi and Breishit Rabbah. There they explain that there were three se'ah's for each one. Why don't know why he made so much bread for 3 people. Maybe he knew about \"the disappearance of the food one piece after the other\" [so by preparing a large amount of food] he was like he was like one who brings many burnt offerings on the altar. Also it could be the senior members of the housel ate with them, as an honor for them. "],[],[],[],["I WILL SURELY RETURN TO YOU. A quote from Rashi: The angel didnt tell him that he [personally] would return. Rather, he said [this] as the agent of G-D. like we find, \"A angel of Hashem said to her 'I will greatly increase your offspring'\" yet he (the angel) doesnt have the power to do that; rather, he said to her in the agency of G-d. Here too, he said to him in the agency of G-d. the rabbi (Rashi) was forced to say this for G-d said to Avram here, \"At the appointed time I will return to you\". But we don't find that the angel or G-d returned to [Avram] at His appointed time! Maybe [G-d's return] is included in the expression \"G-d remembered Sarah as He said; and G-d did for Sarah as He had spoken\". Rabbi Avram [ibn Ezra] says that G-d said to Avram [\"At the appointed time I will return to you\"] t is the word of the angel in the name of his Sender, and he 'did' return to [Avram] although its not written. The most correct explanation in my view is that [the word שוב ] is from לתשובת השנה (at the return of the year) [G-d]was saying, \"For I shall surely bring back this very season for you, and you (Avram and Sarah) will be alive [then] and Sarah your wife will have a son\" This [statemen] was the same as was said to Avram, \"[Isaac whom Sarah will bear to you] this time next year\"[Accd. to this explanation] אשוב would be like [the similar word in the passuk] \"then, the Lord, your God, will bring back [your exiles]... He will once again gather you from all the nations, [where the Lord, your God, had dispersed you].\""],[],[],["THOUGH I HAVE BECOME OLD. The phrase is an interpretation [paraphrase] of [Sarah's words] \"after I have withered\" so G-d's words were in fact truthful. However for the sake of peace, He did not want to reveal what she said [in her other statement] \"And my husband is old\" For it would have been fitting for Him to say, [\"why is it that Sarah laughed saying :'shall I bear a child] though, I and my husband have grown old'\" For she laughed concerning both of them."],[],["And Sarah denied, saying: I am astonished with the righteous prophetess [Sarah]. How could she contradict that which God had said to the prophet and also disbelieve the words of the angels of God? And it seems to me [literally, in my my eyes] that these angels who look like people came to Avraham, and he in his wisdom recognized them [as angels]. And he [one angel] gave the good news that \"I will [surely] return to you and Sarah will have a son\", and Sarah heard and she did not know they were angels from on high as with the wife of Manoach (Judges 13:6), and perhaps she did not see them at all. \"She laughed inside her\" - With derision like \"the sitter in the heavens will laugh, God will mock them\" (Psalms 2:4), because laughter in joy is with the mouth \"then our mouths will be filled with laughter\" (ibid 126:2). But laughter in the heart is not said with reference to joy. And the Holy One Blessed be He, accused her to Avraham, why should the thing [literally \"spoken word\"] be impossible in her eyes, and it would be fitting [literally \"seemly\"] that she believe or say \"Amen, let God do so.\" And behold Avraham said to her, \"Why did you laugh, is anything beyond God?\" and did not explain to her that God had revealed her secret to him. And she for fear of Avraham denied [it] for she thought Avraham recognized it in her face or because she was silent and did not offer praise and thanks about the thing and was not happy. And he said to her \"no, rather you laughed\" at which time she understood that it was said to him so, and so she was silent and did not respond any word to him. And it is fitting that we say further that Avraham did not reveal to her that which was said to him before (see above, 17:19) \"but Sarah your wife is bearing you a son.\" Perhaps he was waiting until until God would send her the good news on the next day, for he knew that the Lord God does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets (Amos 3:7) or because of his great alacrity in commandments he was preoccupied with his circumcision and that of a vast multidude of those in his house and after that in his weakness he sat by the entrance of the tent and the angels came before he had told her anything."],[],["AND HASHEM SAID. He said this, \"to the hosts of Heaven who stand before Him\" [i.e. to the angels] Or: to the angels who had been sent [to Avram and Lot]. Or: its possible it refers to thought, [meaning] that He thought it shouldn't be concealed from [Avram, what he was about to do] because of these reasons [mentioned in passuk 18-19] like \"I had said, With my days cut short...\" (where \"I had said\" means \"I had thought\") and \"He said that he would strike David\"(he said\" means \"he thought\") and likewise every \"saying\" next to \"the heart\"[means] \"thought.\""],[],[],["SO HASHEM SAID: \"THE OUTCRY OF SODOM AND AMORRAH for it is great.\" Quote from Rashi (Rashi: Bereshit 18:20) So Hashem said to Avraham; for He did as He said that he wouldn't conceal [his intentions] from [Avraham]. And Rabbi Avraham says (Ibn Ezra: Bereshit 18:10) that the passuk \"and the men turned from there\" interrupts in the middle [of G-d's conversation with Avraham] to tell that at the moment the men arrived in Sodom, G-d said to Avraham: \"The outcry of Sodom and Amorrah that has become great\". According to the opinion of all commentators that G-d was speaking to Avraham. According to this the best explanation of the passuk \"the men turned from there...\" is to say that when G-d said to Avraham [as the men were traveling away from him, [Avraham]: \"The outcry of Sodom and Amorrah that has become great\" Avraham stood in prayer and entreaty before G-d that He should forgive [Sodom and Amorrah] that he should grant Avraham permission to speak, and he prolonged his prayer until the men arrived in Sodom. And then Avraham came forward and said:\" Will You also stamp out...\" Alternatively the Torah goes back to explain [verse 22] \"Avraham was still standing before G-d\", that Avraham came forward and said: \"Will You also stamp out...\" And behold he prolonged his supplication before G-d every time saying \"Let not my L-rd's anger burn,\" Moreover, he prepared himself mentally for prophecy each time until he heard an answer to his words (prayers) from the mouth of the Holy One, may He be blessed, and drew out his (entreaties) the entire day. And G-d left in the evening, when He finished talking to Avraham and the two angels came to Sodom (concurrently). "],[],[],["AVRAHAM CAME FORWARD AND SAID, \"WILL AF STAMP OUT THE RIGHTEOUS ALONG WITH THE WICKED?\" The wrath of G-d is His Attribute of Strict Justice. Avram thought that it [the Attribute] would stamp out the righteous with the wicked, [for] he didnt know the thoughts of G-d, Who thought about them in His Mercy, as I explained above. Therefore, he said that it would be proper and good if He would spare the whole place for the sake of 50 righteous people. But its not appropriate, [Avram claimed] even under the Attribute of Strict Justice, \"to bring death upon the righteous along with the wicked\" for if such a thing [occurred] \"the righteous would [be punished] like the wicked\", \"and people would say 'its useless to serve G-D'\". All the more so under the attribute of Mercy, for G-d is the \"Judge of all the earth\": He is the One Who does Justice. like the idea \"Hashem Master of Legions, will become exalted through judgement\" (Isaiah 5:16) and what we say \"the King of Justice\" this explains why Avram repeated \"far be it from You\" G-d agreed to spare the entire place for the sake of the righteous for He was going to deal with them thru. Mercy. The thing that indicates to you all this is the fact it says \"Hashem said\" is spelled with yud, Heh (name associated with mercy) while each time Avram mentions its spelled Yud, Daled (ado-nai) Its thus clear."],["FIFTY RIGHTEOUS PEOPLE. Rashi writes: ten [righteous men] for each city... \"Will You destroy because of five:\" Will there not be nine for each city? And You, the Righteous One of the world, will be counted with them. \"Perhaps forty will be found there\": And four cities will be saved, and so thirty will save three of them, or twenty will save two of them, or ten will save one.... For fewer [than ten] he did not ask. He said, “In the Generation of the Flood, there were eight: Noah and his sons, and their wives, but they did not save their generation.” And for nine, together with counting [God] he had already asked, but did not find. All these are the words of the Rabbi (Rashi) of blessed memory. But I am perplexed. For if so, what was the purpose of this prayer and supplication that he prayed each time, \"Let not my L-rd be angry\" and \"Behold, now, I have undertaken to speak to my L-rd\"? After all, it only makes sense that 40 should save four [cities] and 30 and 20 should save a proportionate number just like 50 were to save five! Also, [I find difficulty] what rashi says, \"for nine through joining joining [G-d] he already asked for but couldn't find\" but it was for 45 that he asked for joining, but there wasn't 45, but maybe there would be nine! Now its [Rashi's] opinion that a big group is more capable of a big salvation than a small one is of even a small salvation, as [the rabbis] say \"A small group of people fulfilling the Torah cant be compared to a large group fulfilling the Torah\" Now G-d already agreed that 45 people- by joining with G-d- would save all the cities as if there were fully fifty [righteous people]. That being the case, when there would be 40 righteous people to save 4, these 4 cities should be saved [with 36] by joining with G-d. likewise, the 30, 20, and ten [should be saved by 27, 18, and 9] for G-d already agreed with this [idea] of \"joining.\" Now, you may argue that [G-d] only consented in connection with 45 which is a big group but maybe he wouldn't agree to \"joining\" with a small group as we said above. [the answer is] its fitting for G-d's righteousness to \"join\" and save [one city as much as \"joining\" to save 5] [since G-d already] agreed not to distinguish between many and a few. This is Rashi's opinion. but \"there's a smooth road\" to the simple understanding of the passukim: That Avram first said 50 to establish a round number of ten for each one. he then continued to diminish as much as he could and he was saying [all these numbers in order] to save ALL. I don't know who forced the rabbi (Rashi) to get involved in the matte he presents. "],[],[],[],["I WILL NOT DESTROY IF I FIND THERE. [G-d] assured him that He would not destroy [Sodom] if there would be [righteous men] there [like Avram said]. He didnt say to him \"You should know: There are not there as this amount you said!\" For their judgement wasn't over, [like G-d said] \"I will go down and see\". So Avram didnt know what would happen to them. that's why he \"arose early in the morning... and looked down at Sodom...\" And when he saw that [Sodom] was destroyed, he knew that [that amount of righteous men] weren't found there]."]],[[],[],["AND HE PLEADED WITH THEM VERY MUCH. It was a source of merit for Lot that he was insistent with them and he had a kind desire to take in guests. They declined in order to give him merit; that's why they agreed in the end. (some versions: for at first they didnt want to go to his house because he wasn't completely righteous) Our rabbis said: \"[from here we see] we may decline from a lesser person, but not from a greater person\" If so, their refusal was in accordance with the manners of human's."],[],["THAT WE MAY KNOW THEM. Their intention [in their immoral actions] was to stop guests from [coming] among them, like the rabbis say, for they thought that because the goodness of their land which was \"like the garden of Hashem\" many would come there [to settle and share their wealth] and they hated charity. However, Lot [was allowed to live there] for he came with wealth and money. Also: they accepted him out of honor for Avram (his uncle). The Torah testifies that their intent was selfishness [not perversity] as it says, \"Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom your sister: pride, abundance of bread, and careless ease were hers and her daughters', and she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.\" And that which the Torah say [about Sodom] \"wicked and sinful towards Hashem, exceedingly\" is because they angered and rebelled [against G-D] with regard to their tranquility., and with regard to paining the poor. this is what it says: \"And they became haughty and did abomination before Me, and I removed them when I saw\"(Ezekiel 16:50). In the opinion of the rabbis (Sanhedrin 109a) they had all kinds of evil character traits but their judgement was sealed off because of that offense, because they didnt strengthen the hand of the poor and needy- for they were constant in that sin more than all the others. Also, all the nations show charity to their neighbors and to their poor; there was no one among them that was equal in cruelty to Sodom. You should know that the judgment of Sodom was because of the lofty level of Israel because Sodom is included in the heritage of Hashem, and doesnt tolerate people that do abominations. And just as this land would throw out the entire [Canaanite] nation because of their abominations it precede by throwing out this people (Sodom), for they were more evil than all [the Canaanite nations], toward Heaven (G-d) and toward humans. Heaven and earth became empty for them, and land destroyed without remedy, forever, for they became haughty on account of prosperity, and Hashem saw fit that it would be \"a sign for rebellious people\" for Israel who were destined to take possession of Israel- as he warned them: \"[the later generations will say... when they will see the plagues of that Land,] sulfur and salt a conflagration of the entire land .. like the upheaval of Sodom and Amorrah, Admah and Tzvoim which G-d overturned in His anger and in His wrath\" there are among the nations (outside Israel) who are very wicked and sinful and yet G-d didnt perpetuate such destruction against them. However, it was because of the high level of this land that all this occurred, for the Palace of G-d is there. Ill explain this further in Acharei Mot if He Who brings death and brings life will grant ne life."],[],[],["I SHALL BRING THEM OUT TO YOU. From the praise of this man we see his reprehensibility. For he exerted himself a lot for the sake of his guests to save them for they have come under the shelter of his roof; but to appease the men of the city by giving away his daughters (for promiscuity) was nothing but evil heartedness, for [it showed] that promiscuity wasn't disgusting in his eyes, and in his opinion he wasn't doing a great injustice to his daughters. Our rabbis say: The custom of the world is that one gives himself over [to protect] his daughters and wife and kill or be killed, but this one (Lot) gives over his daughters to make sort with them. so G-d said to him \"[in the end you'll see] you are keeping them for yourself\"! Now Lot was afraid for [his guests] for he thought they were [ordinary] people. But, when \"they struck\" the men of the city \"with blindness\" and said to him, \"for we are about to destroy this place...and Hashem has sent us to destroy it\" he recognized who they are and put his faith [in them] doing all that they commanded. You should know and understand regarding the episode of the concubine in Givah, though its similar to our episode, its not comparable to it in [its] evil. Because it wasn't the intention of those wicked ones [of Givah] to get rid of wayfarers from their place; rather they were steeped in promiscuity, [to the extent] that they desired to have relations even with the man who was a guest, but when they brought his concubine out to them they were appeased with her. The old man (the host) who said to them, \"Here are my virgin daughter and concubine; let me bring them out... and you may do them whatever you want\" he knew that they wouldn't desire his daughter and not do anything wrong to her, and they therefore refused to listen to him. But when he sent his guests concubine by herself, they stopped demanding [his guest] from him. Now the man who was the master of the house and the guest- both of them- desired to save the man by [giving] the concubine instead. For she was a concubine not a married woman, and was unfaithful to him. Also regarding that breach [of morality]not all the men of the city were [part of] it as was Sodom, of which it says \"[the townspeople]…from young to old all the people from every quarter\" whereas as by Givah it says, \"behold, people of the city, lawless people\" [implying:] some of the people who were officials and strongmen in the as the [guest] said \"The 'masters' of Givah rose up against me\" (judges 20:5). That's why the other townspeople didnt protest against them. At this point, the chiefs of all the people, of all the tribes of Israel wanted to build a great fence (extra precautions) over the affair to put [the suspects] to death, as it says, \"Now turn over the lawless men who are in Givah and we will put them to death\" its clear that they didn't do anything to deserve death according to the Torah, for they did not do any act other than to violate the unfaithful concubine, and they didn't intend her death. Also, she didnt die directly at their hands, rather, they sent her away for them at daybreak, and she left them to her masters household, and [only] then died. Maybe she became from all the violation, and then overcome by the cold by the door till the [morning light, where she died. but, because they desired and acted indecently similar to the men of Sodom, the tribes [of Israel] saw fit to make a fence for the Torah that such things never be done or said in Israel, as they said \"we will eliminate the evil from Israel\" Such legal action is based on what the rabbis sad: \"the court [has the right] impose corporal punishment or [capital] punishment not specified by Torah not to override the words of the Torah, rather to make a fence for Torah\" the tribe of Benjamin didnt agree to this matter because the suspects hadn't incurred the death penalty by violating the concubine. Its also possible that the people of Benjamin were upset because [the other tribes] didnt sent [word] to the first but came to an agreement without heir knowledge. In my opinion this is the reason for the punishment of Israel why they were initially struck down because the war wasn't undertaken legally. And a fence itself was the responsibility of the tribe of Benyamin to make, not theirs. For its a commandment of the tribe to judge its [own] tribe. Thus both sides deserved to be punished: for Benyamin acted wrong by not punishing the evildoers and not reprimanding them; and Israel by fighting an illegal war. Also they didnt ask the word of G-d about their [plan], rather they sad \"Who among us should go up first to fight against Benyamin?\" For they agreed on their own to battle under any circumstances.Likewise, they didnt ask regarding victory, \"Will You deliver them into our hands\" They trusted in human might for they were very numerous they more than ten time the [Benjamites]. They asked only \"Who among us should go up first?\" and this was like a lottery among them. Maybe each tribe was saying \"I won't go up first!\" or \"I will be first!\" So G-d answered them accd. to their question \"Yehuda first\" meaning Yehuda should always be at the head., for \"G-d chose \"Yehuda to be the ruler\" Therefore he didnt say \"Yehuda should go up\" like we see elsewhere, for He didn't give them allowance. But he neither stopped them or said \"Do not go up and don't fight a war\" because of the punishment of Benyamin. So G-d dealt with both with indifference and left them to circumstance. The people of Benyamin where strong and their cities fortified, so they wreaked destruction among Israel who put their trust in human strength. the Benjamites added punishment to punishment. it would have been enough for them to repel the Israelites from Givah, but they struck against them \"with destruction of ceaseless hatred\" and struck down a great and large number of people, twenty-two thousand [men]. Now, the Israelites when stricken by this great blow, realized their mistake n waging war against their brothers without Divine sanction, and not in accordance with the Torah. Therefore they asked they asked on the second day \"Should I once again approach for war with my brothers, the people of Benyamin?\" This time they mentioned \"brotherhood\" to ask if that should forbid them [from going to]fight [with]Benyamin. And G-d allowed them this time on the second day and said \"Go up against him\" for now it was permitted for them to avenge their brothers blood that was spilled. They [still] didnt ask about victory, for they sill trusted in their own large numbers to win in any event. So G-d didnt clarify to them [if they'd win] and only allowed them to fight. And because[the guilt] of their first punishment still didnt atone for them many died on the second day- eighteen thousand [men]. Then, on the third day they made a fast day and fasted and cried before G-d, and brought burnt-offerings to atone for thoughts of their hearts, that they trusted their own strength; and peace-offerings for they considered themselves survivors of the sword of Benjamin, and this is the proper thing for anyone who escapes injury to bring a thanksgiving offering, like it says, \"They'll bring thanksgiving-offerings and tell his works with joyful song\" (psalms 107:22). And \"Now my head is raised above my enemies around me, and I will bring offering is his tent accompanied by joyous song; I will sing and chant praise to G-d\" Now the [number] of dead the two days from the Israelites was 40,000, and 25,000 from Benyamin, besides [the Israelites destruction of everything in Benyamin] \"from the people of the cities...to everything that was found in them\" And its possible that between the men women and children there were 15,000 so that the punishment of both sides were the same. How esteemed are the words of the Rabbis who say [the reason for G-ds]anger against everyone was because the idol of Micah: G-d said \"for My honor you didnt protest; for the honor of flesh and blood you 'did' protest?!\" (Sanhedrin 103b). Which means to say: \"For My honor you didnt protest against those who deserved death and who lifted their hands against the fundamental principle (belief in One G-d), yet for the honor of flesh and blood you protested beyond the letter of the law!\" Therefore He confounded the plans of both sides and emboldened their hearts [against one another]and \"they didnt remember the covenant of brotherhood\". [only] after they regretted as it says \"The people came to Bet-El; they sat there till evening before G-d, … and they wept bitterly they said, \"Why Hashem G-d of Israel, has this happened in Israel, that one tribe of Israel should be missing in Israel?\" For they recognized their mistake and their punishment. So there tangentially, we have explained a difficult and unclear topic and we mentioned its underlying causes. "],["THE PLEADED WITH THE MAN, WITH LOT. I haven't found this word except in instances of conciliatory request. If so, we must explain that the [sodomites] repeatedly requested politely that he should open the door for them, and when he didnt want to, the approached to break [the door]. Or: He was standing in front of the door and wasn't allowing them to go near it, and they asked politely that he move away from in front of them, for they didnt want to hurt him. This is the explanation of \"move away\"- that he should move over to a different place."],[],[],["A SON-IN-LAW, YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS. This is a quote from Rashi. [the angels asked Lot] Who else of yours is there in the city besides your wife and daughters who are at home? if you have a son-in-law or sons or daughters remove [them] from the place\" If so, the angels speech was in the manner of humans, for he had no sons only daughters. Rabbi Avraham [Ibn Ezra] said: A son-in-law and your sons, [means]: sons-in law who are like sons [to you]. Its possible that he did adult married sons, but spoke to his son-in-law first, for he thought that his sons would listen to him. Then when his son-in-law scoffed at him, an the words between themselves became drawn out, dawn broke, and the angels didnt let him take [anyone] except for those (wife and daughters)who were with him in the house. Thus, Lots merit was [enough] to save sons daughters and sons-in-law. not as Avram thought - that G-d would bring death on the righteous along the wicked. Its clear that the angels knew the intentions of G-d about this , for the even saved Tzoar because of [Lots] prayer. Its possible that this was out of consideration for the host for this is the manner of proper behavior that messengers should spare the host and all with him as the messengers of Yeshoshua did when they saved all their hostess' family. Breishit Rabbah says: Because Lot honored the angel, they showed consideration to him. "],[],[],[],["SO THE MEN GRASPED. Rabbi Avraham says that \"so they grasped\" means Lot was scared and didnt have strength to flee. But, the best interpretation is that the word ויחזיקו is like \"Egypt pressed the people to hasten to send them out of the land\" Here, too, they pulled them [Lot and family] away forcefully to hasten to end them away. IN HASHEMS MERCY ON HIM. It wasn't in lots merit that he was saved, rather it was in G-ds mercy and great compassion. Alternatively: The Torah is saying they grasped him to send him out while mercy was still upon him, lest \"fury go forth from the presence of G-d and he perish\" "],["DO NOT LOOK BEHIND YOU AND DONT STOP ANYWHERE IN ALL THE PLAIN. The passuk is equivalent to: \"don't stop anywhere in all the plain and don't look behind you after you have been saved\"; for until lot was in the mountain no evil would descend upon [Sodom]. Because of this lot said \"I cant escape to the mountain lest the evil attach itself to me\" while I am still in the plain., for [I fear] you'll not wait long enough for me as you said 'Quickly flee.'\" Rabbi Avraham says: don't look behind you\" means: \"you and all of yours\" the same as \"you may not eat of it\"(told to Adam). But what's the need for this explanation? The dire consequence here wasn't [a punishment] for transgressing the warning of the angel. Rather he warned them on his own that dire consequence would befall them as a result of such looking. He warned [only] lot because of his merit, but anyone who might have heard and was cautious would save himself. The idea behind the prohibition Rashi says: You did evil along with them and through Avram's merit your being saved. You are not allowed to see their punishment. There's another issue in the ban for looking at the air of a plague or any other contagious disease is very harmful and can transmit. the same is true for thinking about [such diseases] This is why a 'metzora' is quarantined and lives in solitude. Also, people who were bitten by rabid animals - such as a rabid dog or the like when they look into water or any reflective surface they see the animal that did the damage and they go insane and die, like it says in Tractate Yoma, and mentioned by those knowledgeable about nature. That's why [lots] wife became a pillar of salt because the plague entered her thoughts when she saw the sulfur and salt coming on Sodom from heaven and it infected her. However I prefer to say when G-d destroyed these cities the Destroying Angel was \"standing between the earth and the heavens\" appearing in a flame of fire similar to the Destroying Angel David saw and that's why the angel forbade them to look. Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer says: They said to them, \"Don't look behind you for the Shechinah of G-d as descended to rain sulfur and fire on Sodom and Amorrah\" the compassion that Irit lots wife had for her married daughters in Sodom stirred within her, and she looked back to see if they were following her. She saw the back of the Shechinah and became a 'pillar of salt'. "],[],[],[],[],[],[],["AND G-D RAINED DOWN UPON SODOM. Rashi says: wherever it says \"and Hashem\" its Him and His court... \"From Hashem\" the Torah didnt say \"from him\" its the way to speak in this manner [like \"Lemech said]: \"...wives of Lemech\" and he didnt say \"my wives\" And David said[ \"take with you the slaves of your master\"] and not \"my slaves\". Achashveirosh said \"...write...in the nam3e of the king\" and not \"in my name\" I'm perplexed at the rabbi (Rashi) of blessed memory for he records opinions from the Agadot that are conflicting and make them appear the same. because this is a dispute in Breishit Rabbah. And there's a third opinion there: Abba Chalfi son of Rabbi Samki, in the name of Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi Shimon says, \"And G-d rained down on Sodom\" refers to Gavriel; \"from G-d out of the heaven\" refers to G-d. Rabbi Elazar said: wherever it says \"and Hashem\" its Him and His court. Rabbi Yitzchak says: in the Torah, inn Prophets, and Writings we find that an ordinary person sometimes mentions his name twice in one sentence. in the Torah: \"Lamech said to his wives,\" etc. So you these are 3 distinct opinions. For Rabbi Yehudah son of Rabbi Shimon ascribes the first Name to Gavriel, who was the agent to destroy and the agent is called by the name of the Sender. And Rabbi Elazar said that He and His court agreed on the sentence, but the punishment came from G-d. And Rabbi Yitzchak says that is the manner of speech. "],[],["[HIS WIFE PEERED] BEHIND HIM. Behind Lot who was walking in back of them, bringing up the rear all his household."],[],[],[],["FOR HE WAS AFRID TO STAY IN TZOAR. Rashi says: because its near Sodom. but its not so. Rather because Tzoar was one of the place destruction was decreed, and only because of Lots prayer did the angel spare it, for he couldn't flee to the mountain that very day. [So] Lot thought t himself that the angel wouldn't postpone [the destruction of Tzoar] for him any longer, for he [now] had time to flee to the mountain. That's why his daughter said \"there's no man in the land\" for she thought when her father left Tzoar was destroyed."],["THE FIRSTBORN ONE SAID. Rabbi Avraham says: it is possible he had another wife who died previously (and the with him where from a second wife one of them firstborn to his second wife). But there's no need. For הבכירה means the opposite of \"the younger one\" for anyone older than some of his siblings may be called \"firstborn\" and anyone who is his junior is \"younger\" than him. likewise the first fruit of the tree is called בכורים \"first fruit\" (although its not the first) also בכורי דלים \"the foremost of the poor\" means: those who are first in poverty i.e., the poorest of the poor. And also, \"With his firstborn child he will lay its foundation and with his youngest he will set up its gate \"And this is how Onkelus translates [this word]: \"the bigger\""],["And the reason for \"and we will give life through our father's seed\" - maybe they said \"if we make the deed that is required of us, maybe God will have mercy, and we will give birth to a male and a female and the world will be established from them since \"Chesed will establish the world\" (Ps 89:3; see Leviticus 20:17), and God cannot have saved us without a reason.\" And behold, they were modest and did not want to say to their father to marry them, even though it is permitted for a Noachide to marry his daughter (see Sanhedrin 58a). Another possibility is that such a thing was already seen as disgusting on those generations, and it was never done, and therefore our rabbis deeply condemn Lot (see Nazir 23a)."]],[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["MOREVER SHES INDEED MY SISTER. I do know an explanation for this excuse. For even if its true that she was his sister in addition to his wife, still when they wanted for the woman [to be a wife for the king] he told them she's my sister\" in order to mislead them [and by doing so] he sinned against the bringing upon them \"a great sin\" and there's no difference or distinction whether its true or not! Maybe because Avimelech said \"What did you see that you did such a thing\" meaning \"what sin or wickedness did you see in me that you were afraid and acted this way? for I'm not accustomed from taking woman from their husbands!\" then Avram answered, \"I don't know you people, however I thought that maybe 'there's no fear of G-d in this place' for in most places in the world there isn't fear of G-d! Therefore from the time I left my land and started traveling among the nations as a wanderer, without my knowing to which place we would come, I made this agreement with Sarah that we should say this wherever we may be. for its true (she's my sister) and I thought by this I would save my life. I didnt start this practice in your land indeed I didnt see any 'iniquity which is a sin'\" \"moreover she's my sister my fathers daughter\" was a different argument. He was saying \"I, following this practice said this (she's my sister) which is true and thought that should people desire her, they would ask me if she's also my wife, Once they took her without asking, I said 'in this place, too, there's no fear of G-d' and I stayed quiet\" its possible this plan was made when the came to Egypt, even though he said \"When God caused me to wander from my fathers house\" Also, it could be he prompted her and reviewed in Egypt when it was time [to put plan] in practice, as I explained. According to ibn Ezra however is that all these words were to push Avimelech off. "],[],[],[],["BEHOLD, I HAVE GIVEN YOUR BROTHER A THOUSAND PIECED OF SILVER. The flocks and cattle and servants that [Avimelech] gave Avram were worth a 1000 pieces of silver. He said to Sarah, \"Behold I've given you a great deal of money to your brother. Behold this money shall be for you an eye-covering of all those who look at your beauty. for it will 'cover up their eyes their piercing heads' [and prevent them] from gazing at you and all with you, even maids and women servants. So you see it was for your good you were held in my house for now people will be afraid of you and cover their eyes from looking at you, saying 'the king [had to] give ransom for his life for having stretched his hand toward the wife of the prophet!'\" the Torah tells us that he appeased him with money and Sarah with words. And says that Sarah wasn't appeased toward him; rather despite it she contended with him diff arguments, saying she wouldn't forgive him. The Torah speaks of her praise. Avram [on the other hand] was appeased and prayed for Avimelech. [This word 've'nochachat'] is יתוכח in ועם ישראל יתוכח \"He has an argument with Israel\" (Micah 6:2) and \"Nevertheless I shall present my argument (אוכיח ) before him\" (Job 13:15) and \"there my uprightness would be argued (נוכח ) before me\" (ibid 23:7) its possible that a 100 pieces of silver means] 1000's (plural) of pieces of silver,\" a great deal of money \"in accordance with the kings wealth\" like we find \"the smallest will become a thousand [people]\" means \"will become a great nation [of 1000's]\" and likewise \"Give back at once their fields, their vineyards, their olive trees, and their homes, and [abandon] the claims for the 'hundred' pieces of silver, the grain, the wine, and the oil that you have been pressing against them!” [a hundred pieces means] many hundreds, i.e., \"a great deal of money\""],["AND THEY GAVE BIRTH. If this expression is in the literal sense and the antecedent (of \"they\") is the phrase \"his wife and maids, for G-d had completely restrained their wombs\" (v.18) its perplexing. for it seems that even on the first night that Sarah was taken to Avimelech's house, and had not yet approached her, G-d already came to him in a dream and the [next] morning Avimelech woke early and called his servants and Avram. When then did [his wife and maids] have a restraining of the womb? Maybe they arrived at their term [for birth] and got labor pains, but couldn't give birth. Or Avram delayed his prayer [for their recovery] a long time. Now, the healing process of Avimelech and illness aren't specified. A quote from Rashi: and they gave birth: As the Targum renders: and they were relieved. Their orifices were opened, and they expelled that which needed to be expelled, and that is their birth. בעד כל רחם means: opposite every opening. But this isn't sound. For [even] if we say וילדו (lit. they gave birth) [means] 'going out' as we find \"giving bith\" in many places like \"he conceives iniquity and gives birth (וילד) to falsehood\" and \"before the birth (לדת) of the decree\" and \"what the day may bring forth (ילד )\" means what the day will \"give birth to\" and bring about; still the word רחם (lit, womb)never means any other opening. And there's no argument from \"when [the sea] was brought out of its 'womb' from which it emerged\" For its a figure of speech like \"the belly of the earth.\" Also Onkelus's opinion isn't like Rashi said for Onkelus] who translated [וילדו ] as ואתרוחו \"they were relieved\" rendered רחם \"the opening for the baby\" except he also wanted to include Avimelech's [orifices] in the word וילדו. A quote from Breishit Rabbah: \"For G-d stopped up\" means stopping of mouth, throat, eye, and upper and lower part of the body. it learnt this from the double expression עצור עצר \"stopped up [with] stopped up.\" not because they learn \"every womb\" to mean \"every opening.\" the best explanation in my opinion is that from the day Sarah was taken Avimelech was stricken in his reproductive organs, and couldn't cohabit. And this is the meaning of \"I didnt permit you to touch her\" for \"touching\" and \"approaching\" by women means cohabitation, like the concept \"don't draw near a woman\" and \"I approached the prophetess\" G-d restrained opposite the womb of Avimelech's wife and maids who were pregnant, [and at the end of their terms] so the couldn't deliver For \"restraining of the womb\" refers to not being able to conceive, like \"G-d had closed her womb\" But \"restraining 'opposite' the womb\" refers to not giving birth, like \"he has fenced in opposite me so I can't escape\" (Lamentations 3:7) Sarah stayed in Avimelech's house several days but he didnt repent from his evil way, for he didnt understand (why he is being afflicted) until came to him in a dream and told him. it didnt specify his illness but only in an allusion in respect for Sarah. And after Avram prayed he was healed, along with his wife maids and they were able to give birth. "]],[["G-D REMEMBERED SARAH AS HE HAD SAID. remembered Sarah as He had said: Concerning [the promise of] conception. —as He had spoken: Concerning [the promise of] birth. [This is] a quote from Rashi. but [ פקד] represented by its gerund form] פקידה is nothing but \"remembering and turning ones attention to that which is remembered\" like \"G-d will indeed remember and turn his attention to you\" \"I have surely remembered you and what is being done to you\" and \"Samson remembered and turned to his wife with a goat kid\" Here too \"G-d פקד Sarah\" He remembered Sarah and did for him as he had spoken. And such is the expression for all barren women who [eventually] have children: by Rachel it says \"G-d remembered Rachel\" and by Chana \"G-d remembered her\" Likewise our rabbis say: passukim that have a word of the root פקד are equal to passukim with the word זכר. "],[],[],[],[],[],["WHO IS THE ONE WHO SAID TO AVRAM. This is an expression of praise and importance meaning: See Who He is and how He is great, keeps his promise and promises and carries them out! A quote from Rashi But we don't find the word \"who\" [in the Torah] in this kind of rhetorical context [with regard to] distinction and honor, but only for ridicule, like \"Who's Avimelech and who's Shechem?\" an \"who's David and who's the son of Jesse?\" the soundest in my opinion is that she said \"'G-d has made laughter for me; whoever hears will laugh for me' filling his mouth with laughter and gladness over the wonder that was done for me. for who was there who heard [about my childbirth] who would have said to Avram beforehand, 'Sarah would nurse kids?' there was no one in the world that would have told him such a thing, even to comfort him for this never entered anyone's mind\" The language of Onkelus is close to this [explanation] he says: \"Who would have believed if he had said to Avram and given an assurance that Sarah would have children?\" That is she said \"every one who hears will laugh at me, for there's no person who would have been believed even by Avram if he had told him about his wonder\""],[],["SCOFFING. This means idolatry… an expression of murder...an expression of sexual immorality... he would quarrel with Isaac regarding the inheritance and say,“ I am the firstborn and should take two portions,” and they would go out to the field, and he would take his bow and shoot arrows at him, as it is said (Prov. 26:18f.): “Like one who wearies himself shooting firebrands, arrows, and lethal objects, so is a man who tricks his fellow and says 'Behold I'm only joking\". And you can derive [the fact they were arguing over inheritance from] Sarah's reaction \"for the son of that slavewoman should not inherit\" All this is a quote from Rashi. Here again Rashi writes all the dissenting opinions (like they're one) For it was taught in a Baraita: Rabb Shimon ben Elazar said: There are 4 things Rabbi Akiva would expound, and I don't expound like him, and my word are more correct than his. Rabbi Akiva learnt \"Sarah saw the son of Hagar, the Egyptian, whom she had born to Avram scoffing,\" scoffing is nothing but idolatry, etc. But I say: G-d forbid that there should be such a thing (idolatry etc.) in the house of the righteous one (Avram)! is it possible that the one of whom its written \"\"for he commands his children in his household [after him that they keep the way of G-d]\" should have idolatry, sexual immorality, and murder in his house?! Rathe the scoffing spoken means inheritance. For from the movement Isaac was born everyone rejoiced. Ishmael said to them, \"Fools I'm the firstborn son, and I will take double share in inheritance!\" For from the reaction with which Sarah our mother spoke to Avram you can learn ('scoffing means inheritance) And my words appear more [correct] than his words. Likewise that language the rabbi (Rashi)used, \"he would argue with Isaac over the inheritance\" doesnt sound right. for is if this were so, it would have toke place many years later, (when Isaac wasn't a baby and able to argue) nd Yishmael would've been way too big for his mother to carry him on his shoulders. And in truth the Rabbis said that he was 17 years old. If it happened when Isaac was weaning. Rabbi Avram [Ibn Ezra] says by way of plain explanation ''playing'' the way all boys do. And Sarah was jealous of him for he was older than her son, (who wasn't old enough to play). The best in my view is that this occurred on the day of Isaac's weaning and Sarah saw [Ishmael] scoffing at Isaac or at the great feast (for Isaac). And that's why the Torah said, \"[Sarah saw] the son of Hagar the Egyptian- and not \"Ishmael\"-\"scoffing\". And likewise she said \"drive out this slavewoman and her son\" For she said [in effect] \"A slave who scoffs at his master should die of be flogged. But I want only that you should drive him away from me, and that he shouldn't inherit your property at all together 'with my son' who is the son of the lady of the house\" Sarah said that Avram should drive out [Ishmael's] mother as well, for \"the boy wouldn't be able to leave his mother , for, if he would he would die.\" "],[],[],[],[],[],["SHE CAST OF THE BABY. He was overcome with thirst and couldn't walk so his mother laid him down under the tree, \"cast off\" and forsaken. Also you could say, its like the idea, \"He cast them to another land\" and \"Don't cast me off from before you\" Meaning sending someone off. Rabbi Avraham [Ibn Ezra] says \"she cast off\" that she had taken him into her bosom when he became weak from thirst. Our Rabbis said that Yishmael was sick when he sent him away, so Avram placed the boy on her shoulder and this is the explanation of \"she cast him off''. The whole incident happened to Avram because he was commanded to do all that Sarah said and she said to send him out immediately, and by her he didnt give them silver, gold, slaves or camel to carry them. "],[],[],[],[],["A SHOOTER AN ARCHER. Because קשת is a descriptive [word] some] say that רובה is one that shoots arrows, from the expression \"His archers surrounded me\" and \"they embittered him and shot at him\" and a קשת is on who makes bow. But its sounder that refers to the shooter and can be used for one who shoots arrows or for one who casts stones and other such items, like it says \"which I have cast between me and you\" therefore it describes him another time [specifying] that he's an archer. likewise, we find, \"shooters men with bows, found him.\" "],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["AND THEY RETURNED TO THE LAND OF THE PELISHTIM. The meaning of this is \"and [Avimelech and Phichol] returned to their city, which was in the land of the Pelishtim.\" For they already were in the land of the Pelishtim, but they lived in Gerar, which was the kings province while Avram lived in Be'er Sheva, which was [elsewhere] in the Pelishtim in the valley of Gerar. "],[" And invoked there the name of the LORD, the Everlasting God. The Torah specifies tat he proclaimed the Name of Hashem, Who controls time thru His power. (אל =powerful עולם = time) Alternatively: Heaven and earth are called עולם 'universe', like the expression that's common in the words of our Rabbis. The Torah tells us thru this that Avram proclaimed and made known to the people the secret of the control of the universe as a whole, which is thru the Name of Hashem, the One Who is Mighty in power, Who has power over all of them. The rav (Rambam) says in Moreh Nevuchim that this expression alludes to the primordial existence of G-d, for he informed them of [G-d's] existing before time. Onkelus, however says that ויקרא is an expression meaning prayer."]],[["<b>And God tested Avraham:</b> The issue of this test is, in my opinion, shows that a person has the absolute authority to perform an action; one can do what they want, and not do what one doesn't want. It is called a \"nissayon\" [test] for the individual being tested [e.g., Avraham], but the blessed Tester will command him to bring out the thing from ability to actuality, giving a reward for a good action and not just a reward for a good heart. Know that \"Hashem trieth the righteous\" (Psalms 11:5): when He knows that a righteous person will act according to His will, but still seeks [that person to act with] their righteousness, He will command him to a test. But He does not test the wicked, since they would anyways not hear. And behold, every test in the Torah is for the good of the one being tested. "],[],["HE CHOPPED THE WOOD FOR THE OFFERING. [He did this] in his alacrity in [fulfilling G-d's] command. He thought he might not find wood there, so he carried them for 3 days. Alternatively: Avram considered wood which had maggots not qualified for offerings, in accordance with the Torah law, so he took good quality wood from his house for the burnt-offering. And so it says: \"he chopped wood of a burnt-offering "],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["FOR NOW I KNOW. At first Avram's fear was latent: [it had not yet] emerged into actuality by means of this great deed. But now it became known in deed, and his merit became complete and \"his reward was full from G-d, the G-d of Israel\" The concept [expressed in] this section, that it was G-d Who was testing Avram and commanding him regarding the binding [of Isaac] and it was \"The angel of G-d\" who was preventing it nd promising [him that he'd be blessed] it'll be explained in my commentary on the passuk \"the angel who redeems me\""],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["AND BETUEL BEGOT RIVKAH. The Torah doesnt mention Lavan, although he was older than Rivka, because the passuk doesnt come [to give any info] except for the 8 kids that Milcah bore to Nachor. However it did mention Rivka for [the main point] of this section is to tell us of Rivka's lineage. The reason it mentions Kemuel \"the father of Aram\" the Torah mentions Aram only in order to explain and identify Kemuel, for Aram was more esteemed than his father. Or, maybe there was another Kemuel and this one is [therefore] called \"the father of Aram\""],["AND HIS CONCUBINE, WHOSE NAME WAS REUMAH. The Torah relates the whole report that Avram was told regarding his brothers kids. its possible this was written to tell [us] the whole lineage of Nachor, intimating that all were fitting to be attached to the offspring of Avram. It was regard to all these people Avram said ''Unless you go to my fathers house and to my family...\"(below, 24:28)"]],[["ONE HUNDRED YEARS, TWENTY YEARS. A quote from Rashi. The reason that the word “years” was written after every digit is to tell you that every digit is to be expounded upon individually: when she was one hundred years old, she was like a twenty-year-old regarding sin. Just as a twenty-year-old has not sinned, because she is not liable to punishment, so too when she was one hundred years old, she was without sin. And when she was twenty, she was like a seven-year-old as regards to beauty. He writes the same concerning the years of Avram's life. But Rashi's Midrashic interpretation is not sound. For in [counting] the years of Yishmael's life the Torah uses the same expression as in the years of Avram's life although Yishmael's years were \"not'' all the same to each other in goodness f or at first he was wicked and repented at the end [of his life] Also the repetition of the word שנה implies [the 3 components of the number should be] \"distinctly separate\" entities and shouldn't be learnt [in aw way] that equates them. Rather the repetition of the word שנה is the normal manner of Hebrew. And when the Rabbis said in Breishit Rabbah that \"[when she was] one hundred years old, she was like a twenty-year-old regarding sin [etc.]\" they didnt derive this from the word שנה but from the extra expression [at the end of the passuk] when the Torah repeats \"the years of Sarah's life\" by which it combines y[her years] in one category and suggests an equivalence between them. And the Rabbis didnt expound like this in Avram's case."],[],[],["I AM A STRANGER AND A RESIDENT. It was customary that people would have [private] burial spots each person and his family and one cemetery they would bury all strangers. Thus Avram said to the children of Chet, \"I am a stranger from another land and [hence] I wasn't given a burial ground from my forefathers for this land. But now I'm a resident among you for I have desired to dwell in this land [permanently]. Therefore give me a burial place to be for me an everlasting possession, as though I were one of you\" Now, because Avram said \"Give me a burial site\" they though he wanted it as a gift. And they answered \"You are not regarded as 'a stranger and resident' in our eyes! Rathe you are a king who G-d has crowned over us, and we and our land are in your service, take any burial site you want and bury your dead there, and it will be a burial estate for you forever. for none of us will withhold it from you!\" "],[],[],[],[],["LET HIM GRANT ME THE CAVE OF MACHPELAH... LET HIM GRANT IT TO ME. The explanation of \"let him grant [lit. give] me\" and \"let him grant it to me\" is: \"I shall consider it a gift, [even] if I buy it full price.\" That's why he didnt use the word \"selling\". likewise we find \"Food you shall sell me and you will 'give' me water for money\" [He meant] that \"even for water which is [usually] given as a gift I will pay you\" Alternatively, its normal in Hebrew to use [\"giving\"] in sales. THE CAVE OF MACHPELAH. A quote from Rashi. A lower flor with an upper floor above it. Also, for its doubled with couples. But its not satisfactory. For the Torah says, \"Efron's field which was in Machpelah\" so its the name of the place oft he field, and there's no name to look for reasons of names of places. Breishit Rabbah says: \"because G-d folded over (כפל) the full length of Adam and buried him inside that field\" According to their opinion, the whole area was always called this but people didnt know the reason. For Efron sold it all to him for the price of a field for he assumed there's no grave there. Now Avram asked only to buy the cave for it was at the edge of the field and the [rest] would stay Efron's. But Efron said to Avram as courtesy or deceit that he would give him the field along with the cave, for its impossible that a distinguished man like Avram should own a grave for burial while the field belong to someone else. Avram in fact was happy about this and so he bought the whole lot for the price Efron mentioned to him. "],[],["IN THE VIEW OF THE CHILDREN OF MY PEOPLE. The meaning of \"in the view of the children of my people\" is to say \"Look! All the people are here they know [what I said] and are witness so don't be worried about me retracting or denying [this transaction] So you can bury your dead there as of now for its yours and I will be unable to retract it. Avram [however] didnt do so. For even after he paid full price, he first took ownership of the field and the cave and established them in his possession in full view of the people of the city and 'all' those who come to the city gate the merchants and strangers who happen to be there. And only after this did he bury her. "],[],["IF ONLY YOU WOULD HEED TO ME! This is equal to, \"if you, if you would listen it me\" but its meaning is as though its written with one \"if\" \"if you would listen to me\" The double expression comes to emphasize the matter. like \"turn aside, my lord, turn aside to me\" and \"Are you better, better [than Balak]\" Like ''saying about Him saying'' and \"And I where can I go?\" \"And I turned my attention and I saw\" and \"for the entire assembly all of them are holy\" All of these are a reiteration of the an idea. Likewise in my opinion \"'if' so much as a thread to a shoestrap or 'if' I shall take\" is equal to \"if so much as a thread to a shoestrap I will take from anything of yours\" [without the second \"if\"] Alternatively, he was saying \"if you are [in thought] as you have said\" meaning \"[if] your mouth and heart are consistent in this matter,\" \"and if you will listen to me\" Likewise, we find \"And their brothers said to them 'What are you?'\" [meaning: what are your true thoughts] Another similar expression is \"Why am I this?\" Perhaps this is also Onkelus, who translates \"if you will do kindness for me\" meaning: \"[if] you will do what I wand as you said\""],[],["LAND OF FOUR HUNDRED SILVER SHEKELS. The explanation of \"land of 400 silver shekels,\" in Onkelus's opinion is that the field was worth that amount. Maybe he wants to say that the price of the field was the norm in that place, for this is the usual practice in most countries, that there's a standard price for a field according to its size. According to our Rabbis Efron set a high price, yet Avram willingly accepted and did as he wanted- and more. The plain explanation is \"Land of 400 silver shekels\" means that Efron or his forebears had bought it for that [amount]"],[],[],[],["And afterwards, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah, facing Mamre, which is Hebron, in the land of Canaan. The explanation of \"And afterwards, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah,etc., which is Hebron, in the land of Canaan.\" is that the Torah returns to describe the field the place and land, for the whole section refers to the 'the children of Chet and Efron the Chiti; therefore the Torah mentions at the end that its \"in the land of Canaan\" which is Israel. Likewise, in the beginning it says \"in Kiriat Arba, -dwhich is Chevron in the land of Canaan\" And all this is to make it clear Sarah died in Israel and buried there fort the Chitim were one of the Canaanite families. In my opinion the reason for these passukim is only to note that this was the land of Canaan and not the land of Pelishtim. For the Torah says \"Avram dwelt in the land of the Pelishtim many years\" and all of his sojourning's were in that land- in Gerar, the Gerar valley, and Be'er Sheva, and from there to Chevron and from Chevron to there; therefore the Torah mentions that Chevron is in the land of \"the Canaanites who dwells in the mountain\" and not in the land of the Pelishtim which is [often] mentioned [in connection] with Avram. Then in the end The Torah adds [a description of where the cave was] to tell us that the cave which was in the field of Machpelah was \"facing Mamre\" for this name (i.e. Mamre) was better known at that time. This section was written to tell us of the many acts of kindness that G-d did for Avram. For ha became \"a prince of G-d\" in the land despite that he had come only to sojourn and he was a lone individual [without a following]. Also, everyone called him \"my lord\" though he didnt refer to himself this way [for he never said] to them he was a prince or important person. Also in his lifetime G-d fulfilled for him \"I will make your name great and you shall be a blessing\" [Another kindness G-d did for him] was that when his wife died she was buried in the \"heritage land of G-d.\" Also the Torah wanted to tell us of the place of our forefathers burial., being that we are obliged to honor the site of our saintly forefathers burial. Our Rabbis say this too was one of Avram's tests, that he sought a place in which to bury Sarah, and didnt find until he bought it. I don't know any explanation for the words of Ibn Ezra, who says \"[this section was written] to tell us of the eminence of Israel for the living and dead, and also to show the fulfilment of G-d's word to Avram that Israel would be his heritage land.\" For what eminence do we see here? For Avram wasn't going to transport her body to another place to bury her! Also G-d's promise is on the WHOLE land [not a single burial cave and its field like in tis case] so [its clear] the promise was fulfilled only for his future offspring."]],[["NOW AVRAHAM WAS OLD, WELL ON IN YEARS. The Torah repeats this to tell us the reason for which Avram instructed his servant to take an oath. It says that Avram viewed himself as very old and thought to himself if he were to send [a messenger] to his land of birth he might go to his eternal rest before the messenger can return. He therefore adjured his servant whose counsel Isaac would follow [if Avram passed away] for he was the one who \"who controlled all that was his \" making him swear he would take a wife for Isaac from Canaan. In Breishit Rabbah it says (on the Passuk, 'Avram and Sarah were old well on in years') 'Here it means old age that has [some] vitality [of youth] 'NOW AVRAHAM WAS OLD, WELL ON IN YEARS.' is old age without vitality\" Their intent is to explain באים בימים means \"beginning the days of ones old age\" for באים indicates present tense like \"who com באים thru these gates\" whereas here [the Torah] is saying that he was 'very' old, for he had already entered the days (of old age for בא here is past tense) as in \"your brother came [בא] with cleverness.\" HAD BLESSED AVRAHAM WITH EVERYTHING. With wealth, property prestige longevity and kids for this is all of a mans desires. The Torah tells us this to tell us that he was complete in every respect, not lacking anything except for seeing kids born to his son who would inherit is distinction and honor, and therefore he desired this [last thing as well- to ensure proper wife for Isaac] Our Rabbis expressed a remarkable idea regarding this. They said:\"And G-d blessed Avram with everything\": Rabbi Meir says: that he didnt have a daughter. Rabbi Yehuda says: that he did have a daughter. Others say he had a daughter and her name was 'Bakol'\" Rabbi Meir learns he didnt have a daughter ant this was a blessing for him for he wouldn't have been able to marry her to anyone but the cursed children of Canaan. And if he would send her to his homeland [to marry one of his relative] she too would worship idols like them, for a wife is under the jurisdiction of her husband. Avram wouldn't want his worthy offspring from his wife Sarah should go outside the land (Israel) and all the more so worship idols! And Rabbi Yehuda learns that Avram did have a daughter, meaning that G-d didn't cause him to lack even a daughter. And this was the blessing of \"With everything,\" that he had everything that people desire in life; he lacked nothing. Then the \"Others\" came and mentioned the name of the daughter. In truth the intent of \"others\" and their point of disagreement with Rabbi Yehuda isn't simply to tell us the daughters name. Far be it from them that they should exhaust Avram's blessing which was great and all-encompassing, in this matter that the Torah is saying that G-d blessed him with one daughter whose name was [Bakol]! Rather they introduced a very deep idea, and based on it they expounded one of the secret mysteries of the Torah. "],[],["AND I WILL HAVE YOU SWEAR BY HASHEM. It would have been fitting that Avram command Isaac directly not to take wife from Canaan, but his wish to send [a messenger] in his lifetime to his land and his family so he adjured his servant to do so, [whether] in his lifetime or after death. thus he had to in any event adjure his servant to go there, and he had to tell him, ''I command you that you not take a wife for my son from daughters of Canaan, and that you go to my land and take wife from my family.\" And once he adjured him about this it was no longer needed for him to command anything to Isaac, for Avram knew of Isaac that he wouldn't transgress his fathers wish and the oath he made his servant take. For the matter [of the servant takin a oath] was surely known to Isaac. its also possible that the servant was the trustee for Avram's estate so he commanded him to have Isaac marry accd. to his wishes, and that he should make Isaacs inheritance of his estate contingent on this [condition.] And this explains the phrase \"who controlled all that was his.\" G-D OF HEAVEN AND G-D OF THE LAND. G-d is called \"the G-d of the Land of Israel\" as it says \"the didnt know the law of 'the G-d of the Land'\" and it says \"They spoke of 'the G-d of Jerusalem' as of the gods of the peoples of the earth\" There is a mystical concept which I shall write about later, G-d willing. However in the passuk \"[The Lord, God of the heavens,] Who took me from my father's house [and from the land of my birth,] it doesnt say 'G-d of the heaven and G-d of THE LAND' for [that passuk G-d as Avram knew Him] in Charan or Ur-kasdim. And so the Rabbis said \"One who lives outside Eretz [Israel] is as if he has no G-d, like it says, 'for they have driven me away this day from having any connection to the heritage land of G-d saying: 'go and serve alien gods!(Shmuel 26:19)\" "],[],["The meaning of \"Maybe 'the' woman shall not wish [to follow me to this land]\" is \"the woman to whom I shall speak out of all the women that are there,\" or \"the woman who is found suitable for Isaac.\""],[],[],["YOU SHALL THEN BE ABSOLVED OF THIS OATH OF MINE. Avram wasn't allowing him to take a wife from Canaan. Rather, he would be absolved altogether, \"and G-d would do as He saw fit\" Rashi says: And take a wife for him from Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre. But if they were Canaanites it would be sacrilegious for Isaac to marry them! And the truth is they were' from Canaan for the Torah says \"Mamre the Amorite, the brother of Eshkol and the brother of Aner\" Breishit Rabbah says: \"That you not take a wife...\" \"Avram warned him 'against' taking girl from Canaan like Aner Eshkol and Mamre.\" For it was about them he said \"among who I dwell\" for he didnt dwell among 'all' Canaanites for the Canaanite's consisted of many people! Rathe he was warning about these [Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre] his allies and all the more so about the other [Canaanites]. Rather \"you shall be absolved of my oath\" means that he would be absolved [altogether]. And Avram knew concerning the righteous Isaac that he'd listen to his father and beware of marrying the Canaanites and go to Ishmael lot or other peoples. Its also possible \"from this oath of mine\" refer to \"and he will take a wife for my son from there\" for maybe the oath [extended] over all [Avram's instructions] and doesnt refer to \"you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of Canaan\" and this is the meaning of the word \"this\". that's why the servant said \"I will turn to right or left\" and didnt say \"I'll return home\" "],[],["A quote from Rashi: this is a gift-document for Avram had deeded to Isaac all that he had so people should be eager to send him their daughter. the same [is found] in Breishit Rabbah: \"[he went with him] a gift document [giving everything to Isaac]\"And according to this what is written that at the end of his life \"Avram gave all that he had to Isaac\" means to say just before his death he saw to it that [Isaac physically] take possession of the property so people wouldn't contest his ownership just as it says ''then he sent [the sons of his concubines] away from Isaac his son while he was still alive.\"[also] If this is so the verb of ''taking\" relates [to a second clause in the sentence as well] \"and all the bounty of his master 'in his hand'\" [should be understood as if written \"and all the bounty of his master 'hetook ' in his hand\" or, \"Then the servant took ten camels and all the bounty of his master in his hand and he went...\" Others explain that the servant as soon as he swore immediately went on his own and took 10 of his masters camels \"'because' all the bounty of his master was in hs hand\" since he was the administrator and trustee over all [of Avrams property enabling him] to take [any item] from it that he wished as it says \"who controlled all that was his.\" The best in my view is that the meaning of this passuk is the same as the passuk by Hazael: \"Hazael went to meet [Elisha] taking a tribute in his hand- all the bounty of Damascus, forty camel loads\" Here too it [means to] say that he took all the bounty of his master in his hand [along with him, a load for 10camels) The idea is that all the best and superior kinds [of food] - fruits and delicacies- from all that was found in Damascus (by Hazael) or in the house of his master (Avram's servant) the took [enough samples of those items to constitute] a load for the camels nd they brought tribute \"in their hands.\" Likewise \"ten he donkeys laden with the best of Egypt\" However the passukim keep their expression short in that which is self understood. "],[],[],[],["HER WILL YOU HAVE DESIGNATED FOR YOUR SERVANT FOR ISAAC. A quote from Rashi: she's fitting for him, for she does kindness and is worthy of entering the household of Avram. \"And may I know thru her\"- is an expression of supplication: \"Let me know thru her that you've done kindness with my master\" If so he's saying: \"I know in truth You have designated her for Your servant, for Isaac\" But the various parts of the passuk then do not go together well. Rather the correct explanation is he said: \"may You so arrange it for me this day this occurrence that the girl to whom I say... should be the one whom You have designated for Your servant for Isaac, and thereby do kindness with my master Avram for thru her I'll know that You have done kindness with him if she will be from his family and will be a girl of good sense and beautiful appearance\" And so he said (in his later recapitulation) \"Let it be that the young woman... she shall be the woman whom G-d has designated [for my masters son]\""],[],[],["THE SERVANT RAN TOWARDS HER. A quote from Rashi. For he saw the water rise to her And in Breishit Rabbah is says: \"she filled her jug and ascended- \"All the other women were going down and filling their jugs from the spring but Rivkah as soon as the water saw her it immediately rose. G-d said 'you are an omen of blessing for your descendant's'\" it appears they learnt this from \"she filled her jug and ascended\" for isn't say \"she 'drew' [water]' and filled...\" if this is so the miracle happened the first time only for after it 'is' written \"and she drew...\" but the servant when he told over he did say \"she descended to the spring 'and drew'...\" lest they not believe him (that the water came towards her)."],[],[],[],[],["The passuk is missing the act. for it should have said \"the man took a golden nose ring 'and placed it' on her nose and 2 bracelets, on her arms.\" Therefore I say the explanation of this passuk is \"The man took a golden nose ring and 2 bracelets 'to be' upon her arms\" and said to her \"whose daughter are you?\" Only then after she said to him \"I am the daughter of Betuel\" did he place the nose ring on her nose and the bracelets on her arms, as he said to Rivkah's family later. However, it omitted the giving here (v.22) [although mentioned there (v. 47) And so we find in many places in the Torah. "],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["Eliezer is the man that came into the home. The Pasuk switches the subject to Lavan. So Lavan unmuzzled the camels. Because Lavan is being a gentleman and feeds them and washes the men’s feet. It does not make sense to think Eliezer is the one who is doing all these things when he is a guest. An example from the selling of Yosef, later, The pasuk talking about the brothers and then about the buyers and then the brother’s again. (It keeps switching the subject.) AND HE UNTIED THE CAMELS. The idea of untying the camels was that he opened up the harnesses of their necks. For its common practice to lead camel when they are tied. Alternatively, the camels were walking with fastened saddle seats on them (and it was these seats that were untied.) Like the saying \"Let the one who girds [his sword] not boast like one unfastens [it]!\" and \"undo the straps of your neck\" But Rashi says: He untied their muzzle for he would muzzle their mouths so that they wouldn't graze in fields that were others. "],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["THEN RIVKAH AROSE WITH HER MAIDENS. The Torah relates that after Rivkah's family allowed her and her nursemaid and Avram's servant and his men to leave Rivkah got up and called her maidens and then \"they rode upon the camels and followed the man,\" for he lead the way before them. THE SERVANT TOOK RIVHAH AND WENT. The reason for stating \"the servant took Rivkah and went\" is to tell us about his vigilance. For after he left the city with all the woman following him, the servant took Rivkah with him, so that he shouldn't be separated from her to guard he from any hazard. Ibn Ezra says that the reason is to tell us that because he was walking with Rivkah was busy attending her and didnt notice [the length and difficulty of the trip] until Isaac came and encountered him. "],["CAME FROM HAVING GONE TO BEER-LACHAI-ROI. The Torah is saying that Isaac came now from having gone to Beer-lachai-roi, meaning that he returned from Beer-lachai-roi to where he had gone. For if it had said \"he came from Beer-lachai- roi,\" it would have appeared that he lived there. Therefore the Torah was obliged to specify that he 'returned' to his city from having gone to Beer-lachai for a short tome. For as the Torah says \"he lived in the south country\" [an area far from Beer lachai] and he was returning to his city. It is plausible because of the fact that \"he was 'coming'\" is a gerund (indicating repeated action) that Isaac would continually go to that place, for it was a place of prayer for him because of he fact that the angel came to Hagar there also \"he lived in the south country\" close to there [beer lachai]. And this is ow Onkelus translated as wel \"he came from his going\" And in his opinion Beer lachai is Beer Sheva, for he translates \"between Kadesh and Shur\" (location of Gerar) and \"between Kadesh and Bered\" (location of Beer lachai) both as \"between Rekam and Hagra\" If so that place was the place of Avram's Eshel and was fit for prayer. Now Isaac went from that well to another city that was on the way to his city, and went out towards evening to converse in the field with his friends that were there, and there he met the servant And Rivkah and they all went together to his city where he \"brought her into the tent of Sarah his mother.\""],[],["AND SHE SAW ISAAC.A quote from Rashi: She saw that he was resplendent and she was embarrassed before him. Ibn Ezra explains that the latter passuk should precede the former. for \"and she said to the servant\" means \"she had 'already said to the servant\" There are many examples like this in the Torah in his opinion. "],[],[],["AND ISAAC BROUGHT HER INTO THE TENT OF SARAH HIS MOTHER. The connecting word is missing and there are many like this. The reason for this passuk is that it tells us the honor that Isaac had for his mother, for it shows that during all the time since Sarah died they didnt pitch her tent, for they said \"let no other woman come into the tent of the esteemed mistress\" However when Rivkah arrived he brought her to that tent out of honor for her and there he took her for a wife. And this is the meaning of \"he loved her and he was consoled:\" it hints to the fact that he was sad over the [loss of] his mother and \"a comforter had been far from him\" until he found comfort with his wife in his love for her. for otherwise what reason would there be for the Torah to mention a mans love for his wife? Onkelus however translates it to mean \"Isaac brought her to the tent, and she was like Sarah his mother\" And this is why it mentions his love for her for it was because of her righteousness and fitting deeds that he loved her and found comfort in her. And so they mentioned in Breishit Rabbah: \"before Sarah had died blessing was found in the dough.\" "]],[[],[],["ASHURIM, LETUSHIM AND LEUMMIM. A quote from rahi. These are names of heads of nations. And as for Onkelus's translation I cant fit it in the passuk. It appears to me that regarding אשורים Onkelus held that they are camps of caravans of people traveling on the road from city to city, like it says \"a caravan of Yishmaelim\" he rendered אשורים from the word אשור in the passuk \"My foot has followed in his 'path'\" \"his footsteps אשוריו will not falter.\" And regarding לטושים he holds that they're people who dwell in tents who are \"spread out (נטושים ) upon the face of the entire land\" today living in one place and tomorrow in another. for \"lamed\" and \"nun\" are interchanged in many places like לשכה and נשכה (\"chamber\") in the verse \"on that day men were appointed over the chambers (נשכות)\" And from this we may understand the word נטושה in the passuk \"sharpened [נטושה ] sword\" as לטושה (sharpened). And Onkelus said for לאומים [the Aramaic word] ולנגון as a term for \"islands\" it was the word היו that made him say that. For it would have made more sense for the passuk to say [Dedan ''begot\" Ashurim, Letushim, and Leummim,] as it said above \"And Mitzraim begot Ludin, Anamin, Lehavim, and Naftuchim.\" in breishit rabbah we find: \"Rabbi Shmuel son of Rav Nachum said: Even though they translate and say that אשורים ולטושים ולאומים are 'merchants, torch like men, and heads of nations' [realy] they were ALL heads of nations\" The explanation of this Midrash is as I have just explained. For the [aramaic] translators used to render אשורים \"merchants\" people who travel on the road. And לטושים \"wicked men whose faces were aflame, burning like torches,\" from the word ללטוש in to shine [ללטוש ] his plow and his spade\" and \"he casts fiery glances [ילטוש]at me\" [About this] Rabbi Shmuel ben Rav Nacman commented that even though people were accustomed to translate in this manner these [3 people named here] were none other than progenitors of nations, and not descriptive terms at all. And so it is indeed. "],[],[],["BUT TO AVRAM'S KIDS FROM THE CONCUBINES. In the plain explanation : because its said to Avram \"since thru. Isaac offspring's will be considered yours\" and not of any other offspring, he considered all his other wives concubines. They weren't considered his wives for their offspring would not be among his heirs. For Hagar Sarah's maid servant, was his concubine; Keturah however he took as [a full fledged] wife. for if she would have been a maid in his house and he then took her as a concubine the Torah wouldn't have said \"And he took a 'wife' whose name was Keturah\" nonetheless she's called a concubine\" by the Torah for the reason I said. And in Chronicles its written \"And the sons of Keturah the 'concubine' of Avram\" Accordingly Avram took a wife from the daughters of Canaan! And if you should argue she was Egyptian or from philistine [and not Canaanite] we see that he didnt bother to send an emissary to his land and birthplace as he did with his son. This is because he wanted to protect only Isaac's offspring for it was with that that G-d's covenant has been forged. Also, the Torah didnt say, \"And he took a wife Keturah daughter of so-and-so the Chivi\" or \"Philistine\" or \"Egyptian\" or \"from the land of such-and-such\" as it said by the wives of Eisav and others. Rather it only said her name, for she was a Canaanite, and it was brief regarding her lineage. And this is what the Torah does in many places when its not particular about peoples lineage. Maybe she's called \"concubine\" because she was a maidservant from a family of slaves. So that if she 'was' a maidservant in his house and he had relations with her the Torah wouldn't mention her lineage, for its not the manner f the Torah to mention anything about maidservants other than their name as we see by Bilhah and Zilpah. Rashi writes: wives have ketubah but not concubines like the Talmud says about the wives and concubines of David in Sanhedrin. But the matter isn't so. for a lady isn't called \"concubine\" unless she lives with man without 'kiddushin' for Ketubah is only rabbinical. The correct reading of Sanhedrin is: \"a concubine is without ketubah and betrothal\" However its possible that Noahites as well when they married in accordance with the rule that applies to them- thru. marital relations - had the custom to write [documents attesting to] marriage endowments and gifts. But if they wanted a concubine with the understanding that he could send her away whenever he desires and that her sons would not be heirs he wouldn't write and document for her.in the rabbis opinion that Keturah was Hagar then she was for sure a concubine. "],[],["OLD AND CONTENT. This means he realized all the desires of his heart, and sated with all good things. And likewise by Isaac it says \"and sated with days\" -that his soul was sated with days, and had no desire for his days to provide anything new for him. like it says by David, \"he then died in a good old age sated with days wealth and honor\" this is an description of G-ds kindness toward the righteous and of His benevolence to them, that they shouldn't rave extravagances, as it says about them \"You have given him his hearts desire\" (psalms 21:3). Unlike what it says by other people \"he who loves money shall never be sated with money\" about which the rabbis said \"No man leaves this world with half of his desires fulfilled: if he has a 100 dinars he wans 200 if he has 200 he wants to make them into 400, like it says 'he who loves money shall never be sated with money.'\" Breishit Rabbah it says: \"G-d shows the righteous their reward that He is going to give them in the Next World, and their souls become content and they [go to their eternal] rest.\" The rabbis were stirred by this question [what was the cause of his contentment?] and explained the pasuk as saying \"satisfied through this vision.\" "],["HIS SONS ISAAC AND ISHMAEL BURRY HIM. A quote from Breishit Rabbah: \"Here the son of the maidservant shows respect toward the son of the mistress.\""],[],["AND ISAAC SETTLED NEAR BEER LACHAI-ROI. [With here means] 'close' to that place. Also, because [beer Lachai] wasn't a city[but a well] it says he pitched his tent next to the well. "],[],[],[],[],[],["THESE WERE THE YEARS OF YISHMAEL'S LIFE. The likely explanation accd. to plain meaning is that the Torah generally relates of the kids of the righteous the names of their offspring and the number of years of their life, in order to tell us that \"the offspring of the righteous shall be blessed\" it didnt tell us the number of days if Esav's life, for he lived longer than Yaakov, and [by then the Torah's] narrative [of the forefathers lives] ended with Yaakov's death, ant the Torah didnt want to go back to say \"these were the days of Esav's life...\" for it mentioned his offspring in the appropriate place. In the teaching of our rabbis many reasons are given for the reporting of Yishmael's lifespan. The most satisfying one is that he became righteous and repented and it recounted [his lifespan] as it does for other righteous men. AND HE EXPIRED. A quote from Rashi: 'expiring' is only stated by the righteous. In the gemara they ask \"But 'expiring' was said f the generation of the flood\" \"And all flesh that moves on earth expired and all mankind\" and \"All that's in the earth shall expire\" And it answers: \"we mean to say the expression 'expiring' and 'being gathered [to ones people]'\" is only said by the righteous. Their intention Is that \"expiring\" refers to death without painful sickness and suffering, and except for the righteous people don't merit this. Now the men of the generation of flood were \"overturned in a moment and no hands were laid on them.\" Likewise the jews in the wilderness [di: \" as our brothers expired\" Also, \"And he this one man didnt expire for his sin\" Meaning that his sin didnt bring about his death suddenly [and painlessly but violently and agonizingly]. However when Torah says this along with the mention of a word denoting \"death\" like \"he was gathered to his people\" or \"he died,\" this alludes to the death of righteous people. A quote from Breishit Rabbah: \"And Avram expired and died\" R' Yehuda son of Illai said: the righteous of ancient times would suffer stomach ailments for ten or twenty days [before death] which reaches that illness atones for sins. R' Yehuda said anyone of whom it says 'expiring' died from stomach ailments. And there they also said: :Everything that is in the earth shall expire\" this means \"it'll shrivel up.\" it appears that the word גויעה according to them refer to \"ones flesh melting away while he's standing on his feet\" i.e, wasting away until death. This is also the opinion of Onkelus for he transtes [גויעה ] as ואתנגיד and that word refers to becoming overcome with faintness like \"he fainted [ואתנגיד ] and recovered\" and \"I might think that he should pay five sickly [אתנגיד] animals\" This was appropriately said by the flood for it says \"he blotted away all existence.\" And it says by Avram and Ishmael \"he expired and died\" [for their death was like that of] a man who becomes feeble and dies [without suffering], and this I the death among the righteous. "],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],[["...Aside from the previous famine that had occurred in the days of Abraham: Perhaps there had not been a famine in the whole world until the days of Abraham (Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 26) and therefore the Torah counts from then. For what is the need to mention this? And the correct answer in my eyes is that they remembered that first famine and they told each other about it - that because of it Abraham went down to Egypt and God gave him great honor. And therefore Isaac wanted to go in the path of his fathers, to go down there until it was said to him, \"Do not go down to Egypt.\" And the reason he was prevented, our Rabbis say, \"You are the flawless offering and outside of the land is not appropriate for you.\"(Bereshit Rabba 64:3). And in my opinion this is a further hint to the future. For the exile of Abraham in Egypt because of famine was a hint that his children would be exiled there, and when he went to Avimelech, this was not an exile because he settled there of his own will. However, Isaac's descent there because of the famine hints at an exile, for he was exiled from his place against his will and he went to another land. And his exile from his place was to the land of the Philistines which was the land where his father lived. And it hints at the Babylonian exile for this is the place where their fathers lived for they came from Ur. And know that this exile hints at the story of Isaac when they didn't take his wife and he only had exile and fear. And from the beginning he said, 'The person who touches this man and his wife shall surely die,'(Bereshit 26:11) and after some days he took it back and said, 'Leave us.'(Ibid. 26:16) And then afterwords they came back to him and made treaties with him. And thus in the Babylonian exile, they were exiled there because of the fear of famine, and from the time they were there, they were not enslaved and not oppressed. Rather their great ones were ministers in the kingdom and afterwards they said, 'Who among you from all of his nation is his God with him and he will ascend.'(Ezra 1:3). And the ministers from across the river warned them and afterwards they nullified the building and it was nullified until a time afterwards when they came back and gave them permission to build. And they warned them and said to them, \"It is enough for the to offer sacrifices to the God of Heaven and pray for the life of the king and his sons.\"(Ibid. 6:10). To Avimelech the king of the Philistines: It is not know if this is the same Avimelech who was in the days of Abraham or if every king of the Philistines at that times was called that. For also in the days of David, he was called Avimelech. And the opinion of Unkelos is that it was his son. And the reason that Isaac went to Avimelech was that it was his idea to go down to Egypt and he went to Avimelech who had a treaty with his father, perhaps they would treat him well during the days of the famine and he wouldn't need to go down to Egypt. And, in fact, Avimelech did not touch him or his household at all because of the treaty with Abraham. However, the people of the place asked him by way of an innocent question about his wife and he said she was his sister. And even so, the king didn't touch her nor any man from his people because they remembered the issue with Abraham. And this is why he said that \"one of the nation\" almost slept with her. That is to say, 'I didn't touch her and I was careful of her but it almost happened that one of the people of the land made a mistake about her and you would have brought upon us guilt like the sin we had on us with regard to your father. "],["DWELL IN THE LAND THAT I SHALL TELL YOU. There's no reason that G-d should say at the same time [2 statements that either are repetitious or contradict each other] \"dwell in the land 'that I shall tell' you'' and ''sojourn 'in this' land!'' however its explanation is \"don't go down to Egypt\" rather dwell ''all your days'' In whichever land I shall tell you during each particular time in your life 'by the word of G-d you shall journey forth and by the word of G-d you shall encamp' but concerning the present you should sojourn now in this land in the philistines for to you and your children I shall give it\" as it says \"the 5 provinces of the Philistines are considered to belong to Canaanites.\" its also possible that the phrase \"G-d appeared to him and said '...dwell in the land that I shall tell you'\" refers to earlier. that is to say that before Isaac departed from his place it was said to him \"'don't ascend to Egypt dwell in the specific land that I tell you' when you will be there\" Then G-d added \"sojourn now in this land i.e. in the land of Canaan' which includes many peoples and lands for I'm commanding you now that you shall not leave I ever for all these lands I shall give to your offspring\" Isaac then traveled from his place because of the famine [affecting that area] to travel throughout the lands of Canaan and dwell in the land that G-d would tell him. And then when Isaac arrived at Gerar G-d told him \"reside here\" [although this command is not in the Torah] it wasn't necessary for the Torah to say it for its well known that Isaac didnt transgress G-d's commandment. the same with [g-ds command to Avram] \"...upon one of the mountains that I shall tell you\" "],[],[],["<b>And he kept My charge:</b> The language of Rashi: \"To My voice\" - when I put him to the test; \"My charge\" - precautionary decrees, for example, second degree prohibitions of [marriage between relatives] and the rabbinic prohibitions on Shabbat; \"My commandments\" -those matters which, had they not been written [in the Torah], they would [nevertheless] be fitting to be written, for example, robbery and murder; \"My ordinances\" - matters which the evil inclination and the idolaters argue against, for example the eating of pig and the wearing of garments made of a mixture of wool and linen (<i>shaatnez</i>) - for which there is no reason but that the King decreed His enactment upon His subjects; \"and My laws\" - to include [with the written Law also] the Oral Law, [and] the laws [given by God] to Moshe from Sinai. And if so, all [of Rashi's approach here], is built upon the opinion that Avraham observed and kept the Torah before it was given, and so did they say (Bereshit Rabbah 94:3) on the verse, \"and Yosef gave them wagons (<i>agalot</i>)\" (Genesis 45:21) - \"As he separated from [Yaakov, while studying] the section of the beheaded calf (<i>eglah</i>)\"; as he was occupied with Torah [study] in the same way as his fathers, and the Torah [however] was not [yet] given until now. And behold, it is written, \"My charge, My commandments, My ordinances and My laws\" - and there they said that he kept even the precise inferences of the Torah and he would teach it to his children, etc. And one can ask, \"If so, how did Yaakov set up a pillar (Genesis 28:18), and marry two sisters - and according to the opinion of the rabbis (Bereshit Rabbah 74:11), four sisters; and Amram marry his aunt (Exodus 6:20); and Moshe, our teacher, set up twelve pillars (Exodus 24:4)? And how is it possible that they should act [as if what is forbidden] in the Torah is permissible, which Avraham, their father, forbade upon himself, and that God [gave] him reward upon the matter, and that is 'that he commanded his children and his household after him to walk in His ways?' And with Yaakov, they expounded (Bereshit Rabbah 79:6), that he kept the Shabbat and established boundaries (within which he would be allowed to walk on Shabbat). And it is possible that this would be with Shabbat, because it is equal to the whole entire Torah (Yerushalmi, Berakhot 1:5), since it testifies to the story of creation. And maybe [the intention of the rabbis is as follows:] \"My charge\" - second degree prohibitions of [marriage between relatives] for the Children of Noach; and \"My commandments\" - robbery and murder; \"My ordinances\" - [the prohibitions of eating] a limb from a living animal and interbreeding animals and grafting trees; \"and My laws\" - civil laws and the prohibitions of idolatry, as about all of these the Children of Noach are commanded. And he kept and did the will of his Creator and kept even the precise inferences and the stringincies of their commandments, and as they mentioned (Avodah Zarah 14b), \"[The tractate of] Idolatry of Avraham, our father, was four hundred chapters,\" and they expostulated (Bereshit Rabbah 64:6) about, \"the hundred fold\" (Genesis 26:12), that the fathers were philanthropists of the peoples, to give tithes to the poor or to the priests of God, for example, Shem and Ever, and their students, like the matter of \"and he was a priest to the Highest God\" (Genesis 14:18). And what appears to me from the opinion of our rabbis is that Avraham learned the entire Torah from holy inspiration, and was occupied it its [study] and in the reasons for its commandments and its secrets, and he kept all of it as one who is not commanded and does. And his observance of it was only in the Land [of Israel]. And Yaakov married two sisters outside of the Land, and also Amram [was outside the land when he married his aunt], since the commandments are 'the law of the God of the land,' even though we are commanded [them] as an obligation on ourselves in every place (Kiddushin 36). And our rabbis already hinted to this secret (Sifrei, Devarim 43) and I will write about this at length (Ramban on Leviticus 18:25 and Ramban on Deuteronomy 11:18) with God's help. And the [prohibition of setting up a] pillar is a commandment that was innovated at a certain time, as they expounded (Sifrei) [on the verse], \"in that the Lord, your God, hated it\" (Deuteronomy 16:22) - \"He hated it after it was beloved in the time of the forefathers.\" And with Yosef, they expounded (Bereshit Rabbah 92:4), that he kept the Shabbat even in Egypt, because it is equal to all of the commandments, since it is testimony about the creation of the world. And he would do this to teach his sons faith in the creation of the world to expunge from their hearts intentions of idolatry and the opinions of the Egyptians. And this was the intention [of the sages]. And on the level of the simple meaning, we can say that \"My charge\" is faith in Divinity, that he believed in the unique God and that he kept this charge in his heart and he differed from the idolaters about it and called in the name of the Lord to bring back many to the service [of God]; \"My commandments\" is like all that He had commanded him, in 'Go forth from your land,' and with the raising of his son [for a sacrifice] and the sending away of 'the maidservant and her son'; \"My ordinances\" is going in the ways of God, to be 'graceful and merciful' and 'to do righteousness and justice' and 'to command his children and his household' about [these things]; \"and My laws\" is circumcision on himself and on his children and servants, and all of the commandments of the Children of Noach, as they are the law to them. "],[],["HE SAID SHE IS MY SISTER. They didn't ask isaac about the children for he would say that they were children from another woman."],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["IN THE NACHAL OF GERAR. \"In the nachal of GERAR\" means at a distance from the 'city' of GERAR \"and isaac dug anew the wells of water which they gf had dug in the days of Avraham his father\" which the philistines stopped up, i.e. before isaac traveled from the city of GERAR [to the nachal of GERAR] he dug them anew. A quote from Rashi. It appears from rashi words that these [wells of oassuk 18] are the same as the ones in pasuk 15 as it says \" the philistines stopped them up and filled them with dirt\" but this is not so for how could they give isaac permission [ to redig those wells] when they had argued \" they are a hazard for us because of invading armies\"? Rather these wells were other ones in a different place in isaac's new location for \"nachal gerar\" is a place name or because it extended from Gerar to another land. Now when the philistines ie. the officers who were in the king's city Gerar became jealous of isaac they stopped up the wells that isaac had as a inheritance from his father within the boundaries of the city of GERAR. Then the king sent him away from his throne city (Gerar) and Isaac went to a different city and maybe that city was not in Avimelech's realm even though it was in the land of the philistines. And there were other wells that Avraham who lived in that place \" for many years \" dug, and the philistines that lived there stopped up those wells when Avraham died when Isaac wasn't living there. Not out of hatred for Isaac rather in Avram's days they did not want to stop them up out of respect for they said \"maybe he will return to live in the land\" therefore Isaac dug them anew in the valley but the herdsman of Nachal Gerar argued with him \"saying 'the water is ours'\" The explanation is \"Look the well is alongside the brooks its the waters of the brook that seep there nd from the seepage the pit is filled and the water of the brook is diminished by these pits. thus the water is ours.\" This is why the torah mentions \"they found there a well of flowing water\" to say that the well was a fountainhead gushing with flowing water and its water did 'not' come from [seepage from ] the brook as Isaacs opponents said. "],[],[],["HE CALLED THE NAME OF THST WELL ESEK. The Torah relates and goes to great lengths about the matter of the wells even though the story simply understood serves no purpose and doesnt give great honor to Isaac and [furthermore] he and his father made these wells. In truth there is a hidden matter contained in this incident, for it comes to inform a future [us about] event. For a \"well of water\" is a hint to the temple of G-d which the offspring's of Isaac would build. This is why it mentions \"a well of flowing water\" as it says (Jeremiah 17:13) \"a source of flowing water Hashem\" And he called the first well Esek (contention) which alludes to the first temple, over which our enemies contended with us, engaging us in many conflicts and wars until they destroyed it. HE called the second Sitnah (hatred) a harsher name than the first one it allude to second temple which is called by that very name, for its written \"during the reign of Achashveirosh at the beginning of his reign they wrote a hateful accusation (sitnah) against the dwellers of Judah and Jerusalem\" and all its days the enemies were hateful to us until the destroyed it and we went into a terrible exile from it. he called the third well Rechovot an allusion to the future temple may it be built speedily in our days. it'll be built without conflict or dispute and G-D will ex[and our borders s it says \"When Hashem will ex[and your boundary's he swore\" which speaks of a future time. And concerning the third temple its written \"it broadened and expanded upward\". our pasuk concludes \"And we can be fruitful in the land\" [alluding to the fact] that [in the future] \"all the nations will serve Him with a single resolve\" "],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["<b>If you will do us no harm, as we have not touched you:</b> It is saying, \"If you will do us no harm,\" like \"we have not touched you, [...] you are now blessed by the Lord,\" and we do not have the power in our hand to do harm to you. But if the time changes because of the violent theft that you do and you will need to come to our land, we will pay you back your retaliation.... And the explanation of \"we have not touched you\": That our heart not seduce us about your wife, to touch one of you, as per the wording (Genesis 26:11), \"The one who touches this man or his wife will surely die.\" \"And we have done with you only good\": to guard all that is yours, in our commanding the people to guard themselves from [what belongs to] you..."],[],[],["And the servants of Yitzchok came and told him that they had found water in the well they had been dug.<br>This is what was mentioned earlier, \"And the servants of Yitzchok dug a well there.\" They began to dig and then Avimelech came, and on t he day of the (finalizing of the) covenant when they left, (the servants) reported that they had found water.<br>It seems likely to me that this was the same well which Avraham dug, and had given (Avimelech) seven flocks as proof. The Philistines filled it in together with the other (wells) and Yitzchok redug it and called it the same name as his father.<br>That is why the city is named Be'er Sheva, because of the well which both father and son called such, for both had sworn (a covenant) there..."]],[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["Maybe my father will touch me:[He wasn't worried that] the reason he would touch him would be to recognize him, but he said, \"Maybe he (Yitzchok) will draw me close to him to kiss me or to put his hand on my face in the way that a father expresses love for his son, and he will find by touching that I am smooth.\"And I wonder, why wasn't [Yaakov] afraid that he would recognize his voice? Since people are recognizable by their voices. This is what Chazal say in Gittin: How is a blind man permitted to be with his wife, and how are people permitted to be with their wives at night? ... And if regular people are able to recognize like this, how much more so Yitzchok who was wise, and expert at differentiating between his children, that he would certainly be able to differentiate between their voices?!Perhaps these brothers had similar voices...Or perhaps he changed his voice to speak like his brother because there are some people who are able to do this."]],[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["If God will be with me: The language of Rashi: If He keeps these promises He promised me. And the reason for the conditional is in the case that sin not interfere. And so they said in Bereishit Rabba (76:2) Rav Huna said in the name of Rav Acha: \"Behold I am with you\" and scripture writes \"If God is with me\"! Rather, form here [we learn] that there are no promises to the righteous in this world. Furthermore it would make sense to explain in a literal sense that here is no doubt in the thing, rather for all futures the text says thus like \"until I have done\" and similarly \"And if [or here: when] the Jubilee occurs (Numbers 36:4), if (when) the time comes that the condition is fulfilled, then the consequential action will be fulfilled, as if to say \"when it comes.\""],["And God will be for me the Lord: It is not a conditional as Rashi says. Rather it is a vow and its substance is \"If I return to my father's house, I will serve the special God in the chosen land at the place of this stone, which will be for me a house of the Lord, and there I take the tenth. And there is in this matter a secret from that which they said (Ketubot 110) \"whoever dwells in the land outside of Israel is like one with no Lord.\""]],[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["That Leah was hated: Behold Leah tricked her sister and also Yaakov. For if we say, that she was behaving respectfully to her father who grabbed her and brought her into him and she must not cross him, then she should have said or hinted that she was Leah. Rather, she disguised herself all night and therefore, he did not recognize her until he saw her in the morning. And therefore, Yaakov hated her. But God knows that she did it in order to be married to a righteous man, and He had mercy on her. And thus they said in Bereishit Rabba (71:2) \"When Yaakov saw the actions that Leah tricked her sister he intended to divorce her. And when God gave her children, he said 'shall I divorce the mother of these?'\"And this is the reason \"God saw\" that He had pity on her that he should not leave her. And there are those who say (the Radak) that two wives were one is very beloved, the second is called \"hated.\" As it says, \" he loved Rachel more than Leah\"--not that he hated her. And it was embarrassing and God saw her oppression. "]],[["<b>Yaakov became very angry.</b> See Rashi. According to the Sages (<i>Bereishis Rabbah</i> 71) it was wrong of him to become angry. After all, many great people prayed on behalf of barren women. His punishment was that in the end his other children were obliged to bow before her son Yosef."],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["DUDAIM. 'Sigalei' and in lang. of Yishmael 'Yasmin' I found in Rashi's commentary. but its not so for Yasmin (Jasmine) in Arabic is called the same in the words of the rabbis. As we say in the [tractate Shabbat] chapter Bameh Tomnin: The refuse of the 'Yasmin' is permitted [for washing the face on Shabbat] Some say 'siglai' is 'banafsaj' (violets) about which the Rabbis say: we say over them \"who creates aromatic plants\" However their season isn't in the time of wheat harvest (when Reuven found the \"dudaim\") Maybe he found them by chance. The most fitting is to accept The opinion of Onkelus who translates them as 'yavruchin'. Likewise it says in Breishit Rabbah: Rabbi Chiya says: ['dudaim are] yavruchin. They are 'yabruh' in Arabic (mandrakes). Ibn Ezra says: dudaim the translator into Arabic (Onkelus) says yavruchin, and so they're called in the language of Yishmael (Arabic). They have a pleasant smell like it says \"the 'dudaim' have given firth their scent\"(song of songs 7:14). they have the shape of a human being for they have a likeness of head and 2 hands. there are those who say their good for conception; but I don't know for they have a cold nature. These are [ibn Ezra's] words. The best inter. is that she wanted them to enjoy and take pleasure from their scent (not for medical reasons) . For it was thru prayer Rachel's [bareness] was alleviated not thru medical reasons. Reuven brought branches of the 'dudaim' or the fruit which resembles apples, and these have good smell. The root however which is formed in shape of head and 2 hands he didnt bring. And its root is good for conception. If this is true, its due to some mysterious property that they have not their nature. But I haven't seen in the medical books that speak of mandrakes. "],["WAS YOUR TAKING MY HUSBAND INSIGNIFICANT? The explanation is that Leah asked \"is it an small thing for you that you took my husband for yourself , as if you were his wife and I were the maidservant, that you now even make yourself a mistress [over me] to take the 'dudaim' whose smell I'm enjoying?\" its possible that Leah had wanted them [not for their smell] but for the sake of Yaakov, to freshen his bed, for \"the manner of woman were upon her\" Likewise it says ''I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon\" (proverbs 7:17) Therefore Leah said \"Was your taking my husband from me insignificant that you also want my sons 'dudaim' to entice him with them?\" Some say 'dudaim' are plants that increase [man's] desire for women, 'dudaim' is from \"a time of love\" (Ezekiel 16:8). And that's why Leah said \"was your taking my husband from me insignificant...,\" as I explained."]],[],[[],["Rashi says, these are the angels who minister in the Land of Israel came to meet him. מחנים, the two camps that were outside the land came with him until then, and from Eretz Yisroel they came to meet him. I am astounded at this. Indeed, Yaakov had not even gotten to the land, he was from from it, and he sent angels to Esau from far away, as it says in (Gen. 32:23) it says that he crossed the ford of Yabbuk, which was the stream of Yabbuk , which is on the border of the sons of Ammon. (Deut. 3:16), which is south east of Eretz Yisroel. And he hadn't crossed the border of the sons of Ammon or Moab, and after that is the land of Edom. The first instance of his entrance into Shechem was when it says in (Gen. 33:18), that Jacob came whole (or safely) to Shechem that is in Eretz Canaan. But this was shown to Yaakov when he came to the border of his enemy to announce to them that he had many with him, so they would be content. They called the place Machanayim because this was the path in Shemos or Machanayim their camps or the supreme camp, we learn because the camps in the land are like the camps of the angels. they are all Gds camps. We should bless them and give praise to them an bless his name forever, even if this Parsha was eliminated. But, this parsha is written to announce that Hashem saved his servant and redeemed him with a strong arm, and he sent an angel to save him. and we learn more that he was not confident in his deeds, and he made an effort to save all that he could. and here is another hint for generations to come, that all that happened to our fathers with Esau his brother, will happen with us every time with the sons of Esau. and its important for us to follow in the path of the righteous, who invite us for three things that he takes upon himself. Prayer for the generations, and saving us in times of war, and to escape and survive. and already our teachers hinted at this from this Parsha when it reminds us in Gen 32:9 and Gen. 33:15"],[],["This parsha is written to tell us that Hashem saved His servant and redeemed him from one stronger than him. And he sent an angel and saved him. It teaches us further that he (Yaakov) did not rely on his righteousness, and (rather) he put in all of his ability to work for his own salvation. And there is a further hint for the (future) generations, for everything which happened to our forefather with Eisav happens to us consistently with the children of Eisav. It is appropriate for us to hold on to the way of this righteous person and prepare ourselves for the three things for which he prepared: prayer, gifts, and salvation through fighting, to run away and be saved. Our Rabbis have see this alluded to in this parsha, as I'll mention further on.","To Eisav his brother in the land of Edom: Since southern Israel is near Edom, and his father (Yitzchok) was living in the south, he (Yaakov) would need to pass through Edom, or close by. Therefore he was afraid the Eisav would hear (that Yaakov was there), and he preemptively sent messengers to his land. Our Rabbis take him to task for this, as it says in (the medrash) Bereishis Rabba, \"'He who holds the ears of a dog...' Hashem said to him (Yaakov), 'He was going on his way, and you sent messengers to him saying, so said your servant Yaakov?'\" In my opinion, this also hints for us, that we began our downfall into the hands of Edom (when) the kings of the Second Temple Era entered into a covenant with Rome, and some even went to Rome. This was the reason for their downfall."],[],[],[],[],[],[],["<b>I am unworthy of all the kindnesses and of all the truth:</b> ... But rather \"<i>katonti</i>,\" is to say that he is small (deficient) from being worthy of all of the kindnesses that He did for him. And likewise, \"How will Jacob survive, as he is so small\" (Amos 7:2) - from being able to withstand all that is decreed upon him. And likewise did they say in Genesis Rabbah 76:8, \"'<i>Katonti</i>': Rabbi Abba said, 'I am not worthy.'\" And \"the kindnesses\" are the goodnesses that He did for him without a [promise], whereas \"the truth\" is the good that He promised him and [then] fulfilled His promise. [About this, Ya'akov] said that he was not worthy that He should have promised him and done those goodnesses for him, nor of the many other goodnesses that He did for him... And that which is correct in my eyes is that lasting kindnesses are called <i>emet</i> (truth), since it is from the root, \"<i>amana</i>\" - like the meaning of, \"Your house and your kingship shall ever be <i>neemanah</i> (steadfast) before you\" (II Samuel 7:16); and the sense of \"with his food supplied and his drink <i>neemanim</i> (assured)\" (Isaiah 33:16); and as it states, \"you have been to me like a spring that fails, like waters that cannot be <i>neemanu</i> (relied on)\" (Jeremiah 15:18)."],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["<b>Why then do you ask.</b> He said to him, \"There is no benefit in knowing my name because only Hashem has the power to answer your prayers. If you call me [by my name], I will not answer you, nor will I save you from your distress. But now I will bless you as I have been commanded.\""]],[],[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["<b>And the sons of Yaakov answered Shekhem and his father Chamor with guile:</b> Behold, Chamor and Shekhem spoke to her father and her brothers, but her father did not answer them anything, as his sons spoke in his place about this matter out of respect for him. Since the thing was a disgrace for them, they didn't want that he should open his mouth to speak about it at all. And there is a question here, as [it] appears that they answered with the agreement of the their father and with his counsel, as they were in front of him and he knew that their answer was spoken with guile. And if so, why did he get angry [with Shimon and Levi]? And also, it is not plausible that his will would be to marry his daughter to the Canaanite that defiled her. And behold, all of the brothers answered with guile, [even if] Shimon and Levi did the deed and [yet] the father only cursed their anger. And the answer is that the guile was in telling them to circumcise all their males, since they thought that the people of the city would not do this. And if maybe they would listen to their prince and they would all be circumcised, they would come on the third day when they were hurting and they would take their daughter from the house of Shekhem. And this was the counsel of all of the brothers and it was with the permission of their father. And Shimon and Levi wanted to take revenge upon them and killed all of the men of the city. And it is plausible that Yaakov's anger that cursed them was because they killed the men of the city that had not sinned against him. And what was appropriate for them was that they would kill Shekhem only. And this is what the verse states, \"And the sons of Yaakov answered Shekhem and his father Chamor with guile, and they spoke since he defiled Dinah, their sister\" - since they all agreed to speak with guile because of the villainy that he did to them. And many will ask, \"And how is it that the righteous sons of Yaakov did this act to spill innocent blood?\" And the teacher (Ramabam) answered in the Book of Judges (Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 14:9) and said that the Children of Noach (gentiles) are commanded about laws (<i>dinim</i>), and that is that they set up judges in each and every town to judge about their six commandments. And a gentile who transgresses one of them is killed by the sword. [Likewise] if one sees someone who transgresses one of them and [that a court] did not judge him to kill him, behold, this observer should kill him with the sword. And because of this, all the men of Shekhem were liable for [the] death [penalty]. As behold, Shekhem had [kidnapped] and they all saw and knew [it] and did not judge him (and since they did not enforce civil law, their punishment was death). And these words are not correct in my eyes. As, if so, Yaakov, our father, was obligated to be prior and merit [to be the instrument] in their deaths. And if he was afraid from them, why did he get angry with his sons and curse their anger several times and punish them and divide and scatter them? Did they not merit and do a commandment and trust in God, and He rescued them? But according to my opinion, the laws that were counted [as one] of the seven commandments that the Children of Noach were commanded is not only to set up judges in each and every town, but [rather] He commanded them in the laws of theft and fraud, abuse, fair wages, laws of guardianship, rape and seduction, the main categories of damages, injury to ones's fellow, laws of the borrower and lender, laws of purchase and sale and similar to them - like the matter of the laws that Israel was commanded. And he is killed for them if he steals or abuses or rapes or seduces the daughter of his fellow, or if he burnt his hedge and caused injury with it, and similar to this. And in the category of this commandment is also that they set up judges in each and every city - like Israel. And if they do not do so, they are not killed; as this is a positive commandment. And they only said (Sanhedrin 57a), \"Their warning is their death penalty\" - and only the prevention of a negative commandment is called a \"warning.\" And this is the way of the gemara in Sanhedrin 59. And in the Yerushalmi, they said about the laws of the Children of Noach, \"If he swayed the judgement, he is killed, if he took a bribe, he is killed. With the laws of Israel, all laws that you know you would pay for [if you misjudged the case], you are not permitted to run away from [adjudicating] it; but all laws that you know that you would not pay for it, you are permitted to run away from it. But with their laws, even though you know that you will pay for it, you are permitted to run away from it.\" From here [we see], that a gentile is permitted to say to the litigants, \"I am not obligated to you\" - as it is an addition to Israel that, \"You shall not fear a man\" (Deuteronomy 1:17) - [meaning,] do not hold your words because of a man (Sanhedrin 6b). And all the more so is he not killed when he does not make himself into a captain, an officer and a ruler to judge his master. And [for] what is the teacher seeking their liability [for the death penalty]? Were the men of Shekhem and all of the seven nations not idolaters, sexually immoral and doing all of the abominations to God? And Scripture yells out about them in several places: \"whether on lofty mountains and on hills or under any luxuriant tree\" (Deuteronomy 12:2); \"you shall not learn to do, etc.\" (Deuteronomy 18:9); and concerning sexual immorality, \"For all those abhorrent things were done, etc.\" (Leviticus 18:27). But rather [the reason that Yaakov did not want to kill them is that] the matter is not given over to Yaakov and his sons to enforce the law upon them. But the [actual understanding of the] matter of Shekhem is that since they were evildoers and their blood was considered like water about them, the sons of Yaakov (Shimon and Levi) wanted to take vengeance upon them with the vengeful sword, and they killed the king and all of the people of his city, since they were his servants and submitted to his directive. And the covenant that they should be circumcised was not considered anything in their eyes, as it was to flatter their master. But Yaakov said to them about this that they brought him into danger: \"You have brought trouble on me, making me odious,\" and then he cursed their anger, as they did violence to the men of the city. Since [the brothers] said to them in his presence, \"and we will dwell among you and become as one nation,\" and [the men of Shekhem] chose them, and [yet Shimon and Levi] upended their words - and perhaps they would have repented to God. And [if so] they killed them for nothing, as they did not do any evil to them at all. And this is what [Yaakov meant] when he said (Genesis 49:5), \"their weapons are tools of violence.\" And if we are to believe the Book of the Wars of the Sons of Yaakov (which is Sefer HaYashar), the fear of their father came upon them, as the neighbors of Shekhem gathered and made three great wars against them. And were it not for their father who also girded his tools of war and fought against them, they would have been in danger, as it is recounted in that book. And our rabbis (Bereishit Rabbah 80:10) mentioned [something] of this on the verse \"which I took from the Amorites with my sword and bow” (Genesis 48:22). They said, \"All those around them gathered to confront them - [so] Yaakov girded tools of war against them,\" as Rashi writes there. But Scripture is brief about this - since it was a concealed miracle, as they were strong men and it as is if their [own] forearm saved them - like it was brief about the matter of Avraham in Ur Kasdim, and did not mention the war of Esav with the Churi at all. And it mentioned it here because 'there was a terror from God that fell on the cities round about' and they did not all gather to 'pursue the sons of Yaakov,' and they were falling upon them like the sand that is on the shore of the sea, since they were so many. And this is the explanation of \"a terror from God,\" as dread and fear fell upon them from the strength that they saw in war. And hence it states (Genesis 35:6), \"And Yaakov came to Luz, which is Beit El, in the land of Canaan, he and all the people who were with him,\" to inform that not a [single] man was [taken] from them or from their servants in war."]],[],[],[[],["THERE ARE THR OFFSPRING OF YAAKOV. It means and these are the settlements of kids of Yaakov. that is these are their settlements and the events that took place with them until they arrived at stage of settlement. The first factor was \"Yosef at the age of 17 years...\" thru this they went thru a chain of events and descended to Egypt. this is resolving the plain meaning of the Torah so that it be \"each word spoken in its proper place.\" A quote from Rashi. But there's no connotation to the word תולדות that it should be referring to their settlement. Ibn Ezra says: The offspring of Yaakov refer to events that happened to him and the occurrences that befell him like the meaning of \"what a day may bring about [ילד] But a person doesnt give birth to his events, rather its to \"days\" that events can be attributed, for the [days] produce [the events]. Maybe the Torah's saying \"These are the offspring 'of the days' of Jacob\" the best is in my opinion is that \"these are the offspring of Yaakov\" refers to Yosef and his brothers whom the Torah's about to mention. The Torah took a brief approach regarding their names for it already mentioned their names above. Instead it says \"These are the offspring of Yaakov: Yosef and his brothers to whom the following occurred....\" Its also possible that \"these\" refers to all those mentioned in the remainder of this book [namely] the 70 souls with which your ancestors descended to Egypt.\" Just like the Torah mentioned \"these are the offspring of Esav Esav's kids and grandchildren as well as kings and chiefs all those that were among the Edomites down to the time of the writing of the Torah so too it lists \"the offspring of Yaakov\" his sons grandsons and all his descendants, except that it mentions the details [of events that happened to] their offspring "],["He was born to him in his old age. And Onkelos translated it as, \"A son of wisdom he was to him\". What he had learned from [the yeshiva of] Shem and Ever, he handed over to him. This is the interpretation of Rashi. And said Rabbi Abraham [ibn Ezra], a son of old age that was born to him in old age, at the age of ninety-one years, and his brother Benjamin [was also] called a \"little child of his old age\" (Genesis 44:20). But this is not true to me, because Scripture said (above) \"and he loved Joseph more than all his sons for he was a child of his old age\", but all of his sons were born in his old age, and Issachar and Zebulun were not one year or two years older than Joseph. And seems to me that the custom of the elders was that they take one of their young sons to serve them, and he would lean on his arm and would never be parted from him, and he called him \"a son of his old age\", for he served him in old age, and here Jacob took Joseph for this thing and was always with him, and therefore he did not work with the sheep when they grazed in far away places. And Onkelos said \"A son of wisdom\". He wanted to say that he was a wise and knowledgeable son to his father, and he had understanding like elders. In the case of Benjamin, where is says] \"child of his old age\", [Onkelos] translates as \"son of his old age\" that it was not written here that said \"he was a son of his old age,\" but [rather] it said \"he was to him\", which means in his eyes [i.e. that this was the way he perceived him as being wise]. As our sages say (Genesis Rabbah 84:8), what he had learned from [the yeshiva of] Shem and Ever, he handed over to him. This is to say that he [Jacob] told him [Joseph] the wisdom and secrets of the Torah and found him to be an intellectual and a master of the secrets [of the Torah] as if he was an elder and had many years."],[],[],[],[],["Would you surely rule over us as a king? Would you surely govern among us? Rabbi Avraham explains this as, \"Will we set you up as king over us, or, do you presume to possess the right to govern us?\" Further, Onkelos is correct in translating this as \"will you be a king over us or a governor ruling among us?\" because a man prostrates himself before these two. \"We will never have a king or a governor over us!\" The meaning of \"because of his dreams and because of his words\" is that they hated him because of his dreams and because of his tale, for he told it to them in a boastful manner, as he said, \"Pray, listen to this dream which I have dreamt.\""],[],[],[],[],[],["<b>And he sent him from the vale of Hebron:</b> The verse mentions the place from which he was sent, to say that there was a long distance between them. And hence they did evil to him, since they were far from their father. And [this is also] to say that Joseph exerted himself to honor his father, to walk far to them; and he did not say, \"How should I go, as they hate me?\" And our Rabbis also have a midrash about this: [It was] to fulfill the deep counsel [given to] the fine colleague buried in Hevron."],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["..When they raised their eyes and saw from afar men coming from the road from Gilad, they recognized that they were an Ishmealite caravan on the camels and they knew that they were going to Egypt, since from Gilad comes <name of=\"\" road=\"\" #1=\"\"> and <name of=\"\" road=\"\" #2=\"\">, and this was the way people went to Egypt. <loose translation=\"\"> Therefore, Yehuda said to them, 'These men are from a far land and going to a far land. We will sell him to them and the matter will not become known.' When they came closer, they found that they were merchants who travel those roads, Midianite merchants who leased the camels from the Ishmealites and they sold Yosef to the Midianites, who bought him in order to trade him, for the Ishmealites, the lessors of the camels, did not purchase merchandise for themselves. It says in 37:28, \"They sold Yosef to the Ishmealites\" because they gave him to them while they were carrying the merchandise to Egypt , and that is the meaning of the phrase \"from the Ishmealites who brought him down there,\" because he had been in their hands (=in their custody) even though the Midianites were his owners and they traded him, like it says in 37:36, \"The Midianites sold him to Egypt,\" for any action in the Chumash will once be told with [the name of] the one who commanded it and once will be told with [the name of] the one who carried it out. For example, in Devarim 11:7, it says \"...all the actions of Hashem, the greatness that He did,\" and later it says in 34:12, \"that Moshe did in from of all of Israel.\" And so it says in Melachim 1 7:51, \"the work was completed that was done by the king Shlomo,\" but Hiram did it, like it says, \"And he [Hiram] came to King Shlomo and did all the work for him.\" About Yosef himself it says in 39:22, \"all that was done there [in the prison], he would do it. It gives [credit for] the action to the commander of it and to the doer of it. Rabbi Avraham [Ibn Ezra] says in 37:28 that the Midianites were called Ishmealites, (i.e., these two groups are really the same group) like it says in Shoftim 8:24 that the kings of Midian were Ishmealites. It is not like he thought, becaue the Torah says in Shoftim 8:24 \"for they had gold nose-rings, for they were Ishmealites,\" this is hinting at 'Bnei Kedem', for this war was for them, like it says in Shoftim 6:33"]],[],[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["The Hebrews were hated by the Egyptians and they would not eat together, for it was an \"abomination for them\" (Genesis 43:32). They would only buy from them for their vineyards and wine production (cf. Jeremiah 52:16), and they would not allow them in their houses. Therefore she said that her husband had done wrong by bringing in a Hebrew man and giving him a position of authority, while by rights he should have only been there for entertainment. This is implied in the verse, \"A slave pampered from youth Will come to a bad end\" (Proverbs 29:21). This is the meaning of \"that you have brought in for us\" - having [Joseph] in the house was troubling for them, and she did not mention her husband by name out of deference, or perhaps it was an implicit rebuke to the other women, or perhaps it was simply obvious who she meant. "]],[],[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["The giving of the ring of the king, it is a sign, to who had received it, to be second in command, as Rashi says. And the correct answer, the ring is like the signature, like Megillah Esther, that the ring means he has power, he gave him the signature, to \"rule\" the kingdom, and to use it how he sees fit."]],[],[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["“He has given you a treasure in your sacks.” Rabbi Abraham (Ibn Ezra) says: It’s possible that someone had a treasure in his house and forgot about it, and it happened to fall to your lot, “for your money came to me.” These are words of comfort, for how could each one’s exact weight of money come out [in their sacks]? However, anything that is hidden is called a “matmon” (treasure), as in “A lazy person buries his hand in the dish” (Proverbs 19:24), and “We have treasures in the field” (Jeremiah 41:8). And he [the steward] told them that it is the way of merchants who buy grain to put each one’s money in his sack, and behold, the provider took from those who came their sacks and filled ten sacks with grain with the money hidden beneath the grain, and his master came and commanded him to pour them into the vessels of Jacob’s sons, because he wanted to hurry to send them away, or because the money had not come to him. And behold, each one had his exact weight of money at the mouth of his sack, for each man would bring money worth a donkey-load of bread. And this commonly happens in marketplaces and storehouses that sell amid the great commotion of people."]],[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["This is to say that [Jacob]will descend to \"Sheol\" on account of [the loss of Benjamin], for even with all we have said he still did not wish to send [Benjamin] until I swore that I would guarantee his safety, and he relied on me. Therefore \"let your servant stay in his stead\". And if we understand \"and your servants shall bring down\" in a straightforward manner (i.e. that the brothers would be the cause of Jacob's death), then it must mean that we are the real cause of Jacob's death as I (Judah) guaranteed [Benjamin's safety]. "]],[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["By way of respect. As to his brothers, he said, \"it was to sustain, that God sent me here before you,\" and \"to have you survive.\" But he did not want to speak like this to his father. So he said that if you will delay in the Land of Canaan, you will become poor. For I cannot send bread to you in the Land of Canaan from the treasuries of the king. As they will suspect me, that I am selling it there to make myself storehouses of silver [in order to] return to my land and to my birthplace. But in your coming, when they know that you are my father and brothers, the king will give me permission."],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["<b>And they told him all the words of Joseph:</b> It appears to me according to the simple meaning that throughout all the days of his life, Jacob was never told that the brothers sold Joseph. Rather he thought that he got lost in the field and that the ones that found him took him and sold him to Egypt. For the brothers did not want to tell him their sin, especially since they feared for their lives, lest he get enraged and curse them.... And Joseph did not want to tell him because of his good ethics. And it therefore states (Genesis 50:16-17), \"Your father commanded before his death, saying... 'Please now forego the sin of your brothers.'\" And if Jacob had known about this matter, it would have been fitting for them to beseech the face of their father at his death to command Joseph from his [own] mouth - as he would not raise [himself against his father] and violate his words. And [then] they would not have been in danger, and they would not have needed to make up words from their hearts (that he had not said)."]],[],[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["...When Israel's time to die drew near, he called his son Yosef which was in the final year of his life, for he felt in himself the exhaustion and increasing weakness, and though he was not ill he knew he would not live long and there for he called his son Yosef..."],[],["\"Swear to me, and he swore\" - Jacob was not suspecting that his righteous beloved son would defy his father's word, about which [Joseph] already promised that \"[he] would do according to [Jacob's] word\". [Jacob] did this in order to strengthen his position versus Pharaoh, for he might have not given permission Joseph to depart and say, \"take your brothers and servants, and go [to the land of Canaan]\"; or he might have wished for the prophet [Jacob] to be buried in Egypt as an honor and merit. Therefore, [Jacob] adjured [Joseph] so that [Pharaoh would feel] it was improper [to make Joseph] violate his oath. (Also, because of the oath, Joseph would put extra effort into it.) And so it happened, as [Pharaoh] said (50:6), \"Go and bury your dead, as you have sworn\"."]],[[],[],[],[],[],["And Those Born to You After Them-- \"If you have other children, they shall not be in the count of my children, but rather they shall be included in the tribes of Ephraim and Menashe, and they shall not have a [specific] name like the other tribes regarding inheritance. And even though the Land of Israel was divided according to population, as it is written, 'To the many, increase his inheritance (Numbers 26:54),' and every man took equally, except for the firstborn (who received a double portion), nevertheless, only these (Ephraim and Menashe) were called 'Tribes'\"-- these are the words of Rashi. And this is incorrect, for if so, the birthright is only given to Yosef regarding honor, so that his sons would be called tribes [but no extra inheritance is given to him]. And the verse says, \"In their inheritances (Genesis 48:6),\" and in the Gemara the [Sages] say, \"For the inheritance it has compared them to Reuven and Shimon, and not for any other purpose (Horayot 6b).\"...\n"]],[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],["<b>Its matter</b> is not that it should never depart, as it is written (Deuteronomy 28:36), \"The Lord will drive you, and the king you have set over you, to a nation unknown to you or your fathers\" - and behold [according to that], they and their king are in exile, [and] they do not have a king and ministers; and for many days, there is no king in Israel. And the prophet did not promise Israel that they should no go into captivity in any way, so that Yehudah will reign over them. But [rather] its matter is that the scepter should not depart from Yehudah to one of his brothers; since the monarchy of Israel that rules over them will be from him, and none of his brothers will rule over him. And so [too], \"nor the law-inscriber from between his feet\" is that any law-inscriber that has in his hand the [signet] ring of the king will be from him, since he will rule and command all of Israel, and his is the seal of the monarchy. \"Until Shiloh arrives and to him all the nations will gather,\" to do with all of them as he desires - and that is the messiah; as the scepter hints to David, who is the first king who has the scepter of monarchy, and Shilo is his descendant to whom the nations will gather. And the statement of Rabbi Avraham (Ibn Ezra), that Shilo is David, is not likely, as there was no scepter to Yehudah before David. As even though his tribe was honored and journeyed first, a scepter only belongs to a king and ruler, as it is written (Psalms 45:7), \"your royal scepter is a scepter of equity\"; \"the scepter of rulers\" (Isaiah 14:5); [and] \"the scepter of the ruler\" (Ezekiel 19:14). And this verse hints that Yaakov coronated the tribe of Yehudah over his brothers and bequested the government over Israel to Yehudah. And that is what David said (I Chronicles 28:4), \"The Lord, God of Israel, chose me of all my father’s house to be king over Israel forever; for He chose Yehudah to be ruler, and of the family of Yehudah, my father’s house; and of my father’s sons, He preferred to make me king over all Israel.\" And it states, \"not depart,\" to hint that another tribe will reign over Israel, but [that] from the time that Yehudah begins to have the scepter of monarchy, it will not depart from him to another tribe - and that is what it states (II Chronicles 13:5), \"that the Lord, God of Israel, gave David kingship over Israel forever, to him and his sons.\" And the matter of Shaul was that because the matter of the request for monarchy at that time was disgusting for the Holy One, blessed be He, He did not want to crown [someone] from the tribe that has the monarchy that should not depart from it forever; and He gave them a temporary monarchy. And the verse hints to this when it states (Hosea 13:11), \"I give you a king in My ire, and take him away in My wrath\"; as He gave him [a king] against His will, and therefore took him away in His wrath - as [Shaul] and his sons were killed and the monarchy was interrupted. And all of this was because Shmuel was the judge and prophet and the fighter of their wars according to the mouth of God and [he was] delivering them [from their enemies], and [so,] they should not have requested a king in his days - as he said to them (I Samuel 12:12), \"but the Lord, your God, is your King.\" And the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him (I Samuel 8:7), \"for it is not you that they have rejected; it is Me they have rejected as their king.\" And therefore, He did not give them a lasting monarchy. And that which the verse states (I Samuel 13:13), \"You acted foolishly in not keeping the commandments that the Lord, your God, laid upon you; otherwise the Lord would have established your dynasty to (<i>el</i>) Israel forever,\" is that if [Shaul] had not sinned, his seed would have had dominion in Israel, [but] not over all of them - and that is [the meaning of] \"to Israel.\" Maybe he would have reigned over the tribes of his mother - over Binyamin and Ephraim and Menashe - as Yehudah and Ephraim are considered like two nations in Israel; or he would have reigned under the hand of Yehudah. And according to my opinion, the kings from the other tribes that ruled in Israel after David transgressed the will of their father (Yaakov) and transferred the inheritance. And they relied upon the word of the prophet, Achiyah the Shilonite, who anointed Yerovam and said (I Kings 11:39), \"And I will chastise David’s descendants for that [sin], though not forever.” And when Israel prolonged coronating one king after the other from the other tribes and did not go back to the monarchy of Yehudah, they transgressed the will of the elder (Yaakov), and were punished for it, as Hoshea said (Hosea 8:4), \"They have made kings, but it is not from Me.\" And that was [the cause for] the punishment of the Hasmoneans who reigned during [the time] of the second Temple - as they were [otherwise] lofty pious ones; and, but for them, the Torah and the commandments would have been forgotten from Israel. And nonetheless they were punished a great punishment; as four of the sons of the elder Hasmonean who reigned one after the other - [in spite] all of their strength and their success - fell to the hands of their enemies by the sword. And in the end, the punishment reached to that which the rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Batra 3a), \"Anyone who says, 'I come from the Hasmonean dynasty' is a slave\" - as they were all excised from this sin. And even though there was a punishment to the seed of Shimon [the Hasmonean] due [to their being] Sadducees, the entire seed of Mattatyahu the righteous Hasmonean was only removed because of this - that they ruled and they were not from the seed of Yehudah and from the House of David, and [that] they removed the scepter and the law-inscriber from Yehudah completely. And their punishment was poetic justice, as the Holy One, blessed be He, had their slaves rule over them, and [these slaves] cut them off. And it is also possible that their reign was a sin for them because they were priests (Kohanim) and they were commanded (Numbers 18:7), \"guard your priesthood in everything pertaining to the altar and to what is behind the curtain; I make your priesthood a service of dedication\" - and they should not have reigned, [bur rather, just] served the service of the Lord. And I saw in Yerushalmi Horayot 3:2, \"We do not anoint priests as kings. Rabbi Yehudah of En Tor said, 'Because of \"shall not depart.\"' Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said, '\"To the end that he and his descendants may reign long in the midst of Israel\" (Deuteronomy 17:20); what is written after it? \"There should not be to the Levite priests.\"' Behold, they learned here that we do not anoint kings from the priests, the sons of Aharon; and it first explained that it is for the honor of Yehudah - that rulership not depart from that tribe. And therefore even though Israel may establish a king from the other tribes according to the need of the time, we do not anoint him; that there should not be the majesty of the monarchy [with them], but rather they should be like 'judges and officers.' And they mentioned the priests, since even they though they are intrinsically fit to be anointed, we [still] do not anoint them for the purpose of [coronation]; and all the more so, the other tribes. And it is as they said in the gemara (Horayot 11b), that we only anoint kings from the House of David. And Rabbi Chiya bar Abba explained that it is prevented by the Torah, [such] that 'the Levite priests - the whole tribe of Levi should have no share and inheritance' in the kingdom - and it is a fitting and appropriate thing. [With regard to the phrase, \"nations will gather (<i>yikehat</i>),\" Rashi explains that it means,] \"a gathering of nations , as it is stated (Isaiah 11:10) 'Unto him shall the nations seek.' Of similar meaning is the word in (Proverbs 30:17) 'The eye that mocks the father, and despises the gathering of (<i>yikehat</i>) the mother,' [as it means] the gathering of wrinkles on her face due to her old age. And in the Talmud (Yevamot 110b), [we find a similar meaning of this word]: 'They gathered assemblies (<i>mekahu kehiata</i>) in the streets of Nehardea.” It could have also said an assembly (<i>kehiat</i>) of nations [in the verse, instead of <i>yikehat</i>.\" That is] the language of Rashi. And it does not appear that \"the gathering of (<i>yikehat</i>) of the mother\" can be explained as the assembly of the mother. And also the expression, \"<i>mekahu kehiata</i>\" is only an expression of refutations and challenges, as they would be challenging and refuting it with many questions. Since one who has difficulty with something is called <i>koheh</i>in the language of the sages (Talmudic Aramaic); as they said in Midrash Chazit (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 3:8), \"'All of them brandishing the sword' - that they would all learn the law like a sword: that if a matter came to their hands, the law would not be challenging (<i>koheh</i>) to them.\" And so too are there many [other examples] there. And from [this usage], they said in the gemara (Nazir 65b), \"Rabbi Yehoshua <i>kihet</i> and purified [it],\" as he challenged many things about it and broke all of the [arguments] that were making it impure, until he forcibly purified it. And so [too], we have found in old textual variants of the gemara (Bava Metzia 52a), \"One who <i>kehi</i> for a coin is called an evil soul,\" since he is exacting about it and is challenged to get it from his friend. And the grammarians (Radak and R. Yonah Ibn Jenach) say that the root of <i>yikehat</i> is <i>yakeh</i>, and that its understanding is [that it is] an expression of discipline and acceptance of command, [such that] \"the nations <i>yikehat</i>\" is that they will listen to him and do everything that he will command upon them. [And] \"he despises the <i>yikehat</i> of the mother\" is [that he despises] to accept her command. And that which is correct in my eyes is that it is from the usage (based on Jeremiah 31:29), 'One who eats unripe grapes, his teeth will <i>tikahena</i>.' And its root is kehat, and the [first letter,] yod in it is like the yod [at the beginning of] <i>yitshar</i>. And the matter of all [of its usages] is weakness and breaking: It is saying [here] that the rod of the taskmaster will not depart from Yehudah until his son, who [brings] the weakness of the nations and their breaking, arrives - as he will weaken all of them with the blade of the sword. And so [too], \"If the iron <i>kehah</i>\" (Ecclesiastes 10:10) - that it has become weak and cannot cut, like a knife \"that has sat,\" in the language of the sages (Beitzah 28b), or that has become a little broken and has nicks in it. And so [too] did I also find there in Midrash Chazit (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:12), \"The Holy One, blessed be He, made appear a good scent from the spices of the Garden of Eden, and their souls were (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 3:8)<i>koheh</i> to eat. They said to him, 'Moshe, our teacher, give us what to eat.' He said to them, 'So did the Holy One, blessed be He, say to me, \"all sons of foreigners may not eat from it.\"' They stood up and separated the foreigners from among them and their souls were <i>koheh</i> to eat, etc.\" And the matter is that their souls were weakened and broken in their bodies from the greatness of their desire to eat from the Pesach sacrifice in which the good smell had cleaved. And so [too], \" the law would not be <i>koheh</i> to them,\" [means that] it be weak and unsure in their hands. And \"<i>mekahu kehiata</i>\" is [that] they would ask challenging questions that would weaken the soul, because of their great effort (pain) and research. Or it is an expression of breaking and refuting, like the expression (Kiddushin 13b), \"Rav Acha refuted.\" And so [too] did they say (Mekhilta, Parshat Bo 18), \"You too should <i>hekaheh</i> his teeth\" - [which means] break them or weaken them with your words. [It must also mean weaken] as unripe grapes weaken, and do not break; but weakening and breaking are the same [general] idea, and <i>kehiah</i> includes both of them. "]]],"Foreword":["","","","","","","","","","","And I saw this Syriac book called <i>The Great Wisdom of Solomon</i> and it was written there: \"There has never been a different generation for king or ruler. For one entrance is there for all humans in existence, and one corresponding exit for them all. On account of this, I praised and a spirit of wisdom was given to me, and called and a spirit of knowledge came to me. I desired it more than scepters and thrones.\" <small>This apocryphal passage, from Wisdom of Solomon 7:5—8, is first transcribed from Syriac cursive into Judeo-Aramaic block script, then translated into Hebrew.</small>","And it says there: \"And He who gave knowledge without falsehood, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the cosmos, the beginning and the end and the middle of times, the changes of ends and the action of times, the running of the year and the fixing of the stars, the nature of livestock and the temper of beasts, the powers of spirits and the thoughts of humans, the genera of plants and the strength of roots, everything hidden and everything openly known.\" <small>This apocryphal passage, Wisdom of Solomon 7:17—21, is, like the previous passage, first transcribed from Syriac cursive Aramaic into Judeo-Aramaic block script, then translated into Hebrew.</small> "],"Introduction":[]},"title":"Ramban on Genesis","versionSource":"https://www.sefaria.org","versionTitle":"Sefaria Community Translation"} |