פרשה: תולדות · עלייה: רביעי (נצח)

אל תירא כי אתך אנכי, "do not be afraid for I am with you, etc." Seeing that Isaac had experienced the humiliation of expulsion at the hands of Avimelech and did not know where to turn next, he might have felt abandoned by G'd. This is why G'd reassured him, telling him not to be afraid.

[Dear reader, you will note that the author distances himself from the commentary of the Bereshit Rabbah on the following verse, calling it merely homiletical, and proceeds to substitute his own. I leave it to you to decide which approach seems more far-fetched. I have followed my practice of printing this commentary in smaller print than usual in such cases Ed.] ואבימלך הלך אליו מגרר, and Avimelech went to him from Gerar, etc. Why did the Torah have to tell us where Avimelech came from? We know he lived in Gerar! Aware of this difficulty, Bereshit Rabbah 64,9 mentions that the word מגרר is to be understood here as מגורר, that the king experienced strange growths on his body which he attributed to his treatment of Isaac. Of course, this is an homiletical explanation only.. Besides, why did he have to take his general Phichol and Achuza along? If these people were merely part of the Royal entourage, the Torah did not have to bother mentioning it.

The intent of the Torah is to explain why Avimelech suddenly needed Isaac as an ally and flattered him though he should have been secure in the knowledge of the covenant Abraham had made with him (21,23). The validity of that covenant extended for three generations into the future. Nachmanides attempts to answer this problem claiming that Avimelech was simply afraid that Isaac would not honour a covenant made by his father seeing that Avimelech on his part had violated the agreement by expelling Isaac. I have not seen anywhere that part of the agreement between Abraham and Avimelech included the right of Abraham or his descendants to reside in the land of the Philistines. There was therefore no breach of the agreement when Avimelech asked Isaac to leave Gerar, and the problem we have raised remains unanswered.

We have learned in Nedarim 65 that if someone has denied himself (by a vow) the benefit of anything owned by a second party such a vow can be annulled only in the presence of the other affected party. The Talmud understood the words of the Torah in which Moses agreed to stay with Yitro as a vow not to return to Pharaoh in Egypt. When G'd told Moses to return to Egypt the Torah says: "G'd said to Moses in Midian 'go return to Egypt" (Exodus 4,19). There too the words "in Midian" appear superfluous at first glance, except for the fact that G'd told Moses that seeing he had made his vow in Midian that was the place he had to annul it. Concerning the rule that the annulment has to take place where the vow was made originally, we find the following glossary in Haga-ot Maimoniyot chapter six of Hilchot Shevuot: Ri states that this ruling applies in that form only as a desirable (לחתחילה) form of annulment. If, however, the vow was revoked by the person who made it in the absence of the person affected by it, such an annulment is valid. Even the rule that it is desirable that the person who was the subject of the vow be present at the annulment applies only when the person who denied himself any benefits of that party had originally been the recipient of a favour by that party, such as Moses to whom Yitro had given his daughter, or King Zedekiah who had been set free by King Nebuchdnezzar. When no such benefit had been received by the person who has made the vow there is no need for the subject of the annulment to be present at all, as we know from Sotah 36. Thus far the quote from Haga-ot Maimoniyot. From the above it is clear that the person who uttered the oath denying himself benefits from a second party can proceed to have this oath annulled without bothering about the presence of the second party involved. The question of whether Abraham had obtained benefits from Avimelech prior to having sworn an oath to him is therefore irrelevant. As a matter of record, Abraham received absolutely no benefit from Avimelech. The gifts that Avimelech gave him were only in expiation for the humiliation he had caused Sarah. The report in the Torah shows clearly that Abraham departed from Gerar immediately after that episode and settled in Beer Sheva. Abraham did not accept Avimelech's gifts in order to remain in Gerar but moved to Beer Sheva where Isaac also lived after his expulsion from Gerar. I have found a statement recorded in Bereshit Rabbah 54,2 on Genesis 21,23 where Avimelech refers to the kindness he showed Abraham and requests a kindness in return. The "kindness" was Avimelech's offer to Abraham to reside in the land of the Philistines, an offer which Abraham declined. The request to conclude a treaty was meant to be Abraham's quid pro quo for that offer. When the Torah quotes Avimelech as having performed acts of kindness towards Abraham, the Torah reports Avimelech's own version, not an historical fact. Isaac, on the other hand, did remain in the land of the Philistines, prospering greatly during his sojourn there. When the Torah reports Avimelech as going to Isaac from Gerar this means "on account of the legal situation deriving from Isaac's stay in Gerar." Abraham had not accepted Avimelech's offer at the time, and could therefore annul his oath without the presence (agreement) of Avimelech. The fact that Isaac did accept Avimelech's offer, made it impossible for him to annul Abraham's covenant without the presence (agreement) of Avimelech.

We may assume that Abraham did not agree with the approach of the Ri when Avimelech made Abraham swear the covenant but agreed with the approach of Maimonides. The latter writes in Hilchot Shevuot chapter 6 that whoever makes his fellow man render an oath cannot annul such an undertaking unless the other party is present even though he had not received any benefit from the party requesting the oath. Maimonides does agree, however, that if this provision was ignored the annulment is still valid precisely because the party who swore never received any benefit from his opposite number. Later halachic authorities such as the Raa'vad, Rashba and others feel that such an annulment is not valid even ipso facto, i.e. בדיעבד. Avimelech wanted to cover all his bases and therefore went to Isaac and took with him Phichol and Achuzat to lend added strength to the agreement to be forged, as we shall explain.

ואחוזת מרעהו ופיבול, וגו׳. And Achuzat and Phichol, etc. We need to know why Avimelech had to take these two people with him, something he had not done when he made a covenant with Abraham.

We may understand this with the help of a comment by Ran in Nedarim 65. He expresses doubt as to the ruling about the affected party having to be present when the vow is revoked unless the vow was designed originally to be of benefit to the party becoming its subject. [King Zedekiah (Chronicles II 36,13 as interpreted by the Talmud Nedarim 65), had vowed not to reveal the fact that he had observed king Nebuchadnezzar eat a raw hare. Had this fact become common knowledge, Nebuchadnezzar's image would have suffered amongst his subjects. Zedekiah therefore should not have had his vow annulled without the presence (consent) of Nebuchadnezzar, seeing such annulment was to his detriment. Ed.] Ran quotes unnamed sources who hold that the whole rule of requiring the consent (presence) of the second party is valid only if the second party would suffer embarassment if the party who made the vow originally now wants to annul it. Other authorities hold, however, that the reason for the rule is to ensure that the second party does not inadvertently commit a sin by not being aware that the vow had been annulled. According to the latter view, when the vow had not conferred a benefit upon the second party, it suffices to inform the second party, his presence or consent is not required. According to the former view the affected party's presence (consent) would be required as a condition for such annulment to become valid.

Avimelech may have been astute enough to try and prevent Isaac from annulling his (or his father's) vow by converting the covenant made with Abraham (in private) into a covenant made in public. We have learned in Gittin 46 that according to the view of Rabbi Yehudah a vow made in public can never be annulled. On folio 36 the Talmud quotes the opinion of Amemar that even according to the view that vows made in public are subject to annulment this is so only when the vow was not made with the consent of the people present at the time such vow was made. Tossaphot explain that Amemar does not necessarily disagree with the view of Rabbi Yehudah that publicly made vows are not subject to annulment. It emerges from the opinion expressed by Rav Yoseph in Pessachim 107 that the discussion is resolved in favour of the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah, whereas at the end of the discussion the other rabbis rule in favour of the opinion expressed by the Rabbanan. Later authorities, i.e. the Geonim, again rule in favour of Rabbi Yehudah. At any rate, Avimelech took along an entourage, i.e. Achuzat and others in order to make the vow they wanted Isaac to undertake qualify as an oath made in public and therefore not subject to annulment at any future time. Our rabbis in Gittin disagree on how many people must be present in order for such a vow to be considered "public." Rabbi Nachman holds that the presence of three people suffices, whereas Rabbi Yitzchok holds that there has to be a quorum of ten people. After perusing what our sages have written on this subject in Bereshit Rabbah 64,2 concerning the meaning of ואחוזת מרעהו, I found that Rabbi Yehudah defines the meaning as simply the name of the person, whereas Rabbi Nechemyah understands it as a procession of wellwishers. Perhaps the disagreement mentioned in that Midrash is parallel to the disagreement whether three or ten people are required in order to qualify a vow as having been made in public. At any rate we may view Avimelech as having made sure that sufficient people were present to make Isaac's vow irrevocable.

Perhaps Avimelech was so astute that he wanted to ensure that the presence of his army commander Phichol, who represented all the military, would make the vow one that had been made על דעת רבים, "with the consent of many," not merely "in the presence of many."

The same two rabbis who disagreed in Bereshit Rabbah 64,9 on the meaning of ואחוזת מרעהו also disagree on the meaning of the word פיכל. Rabbi Yehudah considers the word as merely his name, whereas Rabbi Nechemyah sees in it a description of his function, i.e. that פי כל, he was the authority to whom all the soldiers owed obeisance. The argument between the two rabbis may have the same root, i.e. whether in order to make a vow into a public vow one requires the presence of three or ten people respectively. The plain meaning of the Torah seems to be that three people suffice; this is why if we accept the meaning of Rabbi Yehudah, Avimelech took two people along for the ceremony. According to the view that a quorum of ten is required to make the vow a public oath we would have to interpret the verse according to the opinion of Rabbi Nechemyah in which case Avimelech took along quite a number of people, i.e. a minimum of ten. At the same time Avimelech may have wanted the oath to qualify as approved by a quorum of at least ten people, as we described earlier.

ויאמר אליהם יצחק, Issac said to them, etc. We have to understand why Isaac spoke to the king and his entourage in such a hostile manner. It seems incompatible with our image of Isaac. Besides, seeing that in the end he did make a covenant with them, what was the point of the hostile attitude Isaac displayed initially? Furthermore, once Isaac had told Avimelech and company that they hated him, why did he spell out how this hatred had expressed itself, i.e. by his being expelled from Gerar? If the latter sentence was meant to prove the Philistines' hatred of him, he should have said כישלחתם אותי, when you expelled me instead of ותשלחוני מאתכם, suggesting that they let him go unmolested?

We must understand Isaac's words as reflecting his awareness that the only reason Avimelech displayed any interest in making an agreement with Isaac was his concern that possibly his own inheritance would be in jeopardy due to G'd's promise to Abraham of the whole land of Canaan. Abraham had already reassured Avimelech about those concerns and Isaac his son would certainly not be able to annul a promise made by his father. There was therefore no reason for Avimelech to approach Isaac in this matter. Isaac reasoned as Maimonides rules that vows undertaken with the consent of the other party cannot be revoked except with that party's consent. Since Abraham had not done so during his lifetime it was too late for Isaac to make any changes, anyways (based on Job 37,18). Under the circumstances Avimelech had no need of Isaac at all. When Isaac said: "why did you come?" this is not to be understood as a hostile statement, but as pointing out that there was no need for them to come all the way in order to request what they were about to ask. Seeing this was so, he could only assume that they had come for his sake, presumably in order to lure him back to Gerar. He alluded to this by using the word אלי, to me. This was hard to believe, however, in view of past hostility shown him. He added the word ואתם, and you, referring to Avimelech and his ministers personally; he meant that it was not just the population at large which had displayed hatred towards him. By using the word ותשלחוני, Isaac meant that their hatred of him was based on jealousy. It is a well known fact that hatred may evaporate unless it is caused by jealousy. Hatred based on jealousy will not abate until the cause (Isaac) of the jealousy has disappeared. Isaac challenged Avimelech that their hatred of him would not disappear as it was based on jealousy.

ויאמרו ראו ראינו וג׳. "We have seen very clearly, etc." Why did Avimelech and company repeat: "we have seen, seen?" There are also other nuances in their remarks which we need to analyse.

Basically, Avimelech and company responded to Isaac's questions by saying that they really intended to respond to all Isaac had said. As to the covenant concluded between Abraham and Avimelech they said: "we have seen,seen." They claimed that there were two reasons why they could not rely on Abraham's vow. One was, as we stated, that Abraham's vow was made in private, the other that Abraham had not been a beneficiary of Avimelech and thus was at liberty to annul his vow even without Avimelech's presence or consent. Furthermore, they said that they did realise that only when they renewed said covenant with Isaac would he consider his father's vow as binding and ironclad. Avimelech added that when he concluded his covenant with Abraham he had not been careful to do it in such a way that it would remain irrevocable.

Should Isaac be angered that Avimelech had not bothered to secure similar guarantees from his brother Ishmael who was, after all, Abraham's elder son, they explained this by saying they had observed that it ws Isaac who was both personally powerful and obviously enjoyed G'd's blessing and support. Although Isaac had pointed out that the fact they had expelled him was a sign of their hatred for him, they had convinced themselves that if he was worthy of G'd's blessing there was no cause to hate him.

Concerning Isaac's complaint that they had not been honest with him and that it was an effrontery therefore to ask him for favours, ראו ראינו, they felt intellectually that the permanent validity of the covenant with Abraham would be guaranteed only if they renewed it at this time. I shall forthwith explain how we can read all this out of their carefully chosen words.

ונאמר תהי נא אלה בינינו, we said: "let there be an oath between us, etc." The word ונאמר is past tense. They now began to explain the reason they had expelled Isaac from Gerar; as long as Isaac remained with them in Gerar it was legally impossible for the oath they had in mind to become irrevocable. We learn in Nedarim 27 that it is permissible to revoke certain vows without the need to appear before a tribunal. Examples are vows which were made under pressure from people who are reputed to commit murder in order to enrich themselves, or when facing robbers intent merely on confiscating one's property, or when facing tax collectors who exceed their authority. The school of Hillel taught that even when such vows were phrased as an oath, no legal mechanism is required to revoke them (when the danger is over). Concerning the above Mishnah, Maha'rik writes in Yore De-ah 232, that "anyone who swears an oath or makes a vow under duresss, such oath or vow is not legally binding." It suffices to annul such vows or oaths in one's heart; Joseph, however, did not annul his vow concerning his promise to Pharaoh not to reveal that the latter did not understand the Hebrew language, nor did Zedekiah annul his promise to Nebuchadnezzar in his heart. This ruling is valid even if the person who made the vow had been compensated in some form for the vow he was about to make. Avimelech and his company were afraid that Isaac might invoke this ruling to free himself of any vow if such an undertaking were to be made while he was in Avimelech's territory, i.e. under his rule, and therefore under some kind of duress. Therefore they came to a place over which Avimelech had no authority so that any undertaking by Isaac would be completely voluntary and therefore binding upon him. This is also clear from the writings of Nachmanides on the subject. The words תהי נא were meant to emphasise that the covenant to be undertaken now was to be different from the one previous in that it would remain valid, i.e. תהי. When they claimed at the time they expelled Isaac that he had become too powerful, this had only been a pretext to make him leave; their true reason had been to create a situation in which Isaac's oath would be binding upon him. They may also have used that pretext so that Isaac could not try to dissuade them by telling them that their fears that he would not honour his commitment were unfounded. There were some other considerations which I will come back to later.

בינותינו בינינו ובינך, "between us, i.e. between us and you." The reason they added the apparently unnecessary word בינותינו was to reinforce the existing agreement concluded with Abraham, and to add a new covenant with Isaac. They wanted to examine whether Isaac considered the agreement with Abraham as valid for him. Perhaps Avimelech was afraid that G'd would renew His promise to give the land of Palestine to Isaac and the latter would give part of his inheritance to Esau. Avimelech did not consider Esau as the seed of Abraham seeing that G'd had specificaly said to Abraham that כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע, that only part of Isaac's seed would be considered Abraham's seed (21,12). Should Isaac then decide to give the land of the Philistines to Esau, he, Avimelech, would not have a legal leg to stand on in a dispute with Isaac, seeing that the covenant with Abraham which covered Abraham's descendants down to his great-grandchildren would not have been breached thereby. Esau would argue that his inheritance was due to a promise made by G'd to his father Isaac, not through a promise made by G'd to Abraham who had delayed it from becoming effective for four generations. These were the considerations which prompted Avimelech to make Isaac swear a separate oath. According to Rashi the word בינותינו alluded to the validity of the agreement for several generations.

This word may also allude to the fact that Avimelech wanted the undertaking to be a public one. The repetition of the word בינינו was meant to emphasise the mutual agreement that prevailed at the time of the new covenant and which would make any future attempt to revoke it subject to mutual agreement.

אם תעשה עמנו, "if you will do with us, etc." They were careful to include in the wording of the covenant that it was in recognition of favours they had done to Isaac, whereas they referred to the eventuality that Isaac might reciprocate by doing harm to them. This is the reason that the whole verse is worded so unusually, as if it had been interrupted in the middle. The words "if you will do evil with us" should by rights have been part of the previous verse, providing the rationale for Avimelech seeking this agreement.

When you keep in mind what we have said, it becomes clear that the words are in their proper place, however. Avimelech and company stressed that just as they had not done any harm to Isaac in the past they now expected him to swear that he in turn would not do something that would harm them in the future. Isaac could not be expected to understand what they meant by the טוב, the good they had done for him, until they explained that the very fact that they let him depart whole in body and assets was in itself an act of kindness. Kings, i.e. governments, sometimes pass legislation to extend financial aid to some of their subjects. They do so for one of two reasons. 1) If the day would come when the government is in need of financial aid they would have wealthy citizens to call upon to provide loans to the government. 2) In order to enhance the economic standing of their countries. A country which contains many wealthy people thereby adds to the glory of its rulers. As a result one could have argued that any favours Avimelech had done for Isaac were not of an altruistic nature but were designed to enhance the king's personal reputation as a ruler over a successful country. Avimelech denied such an interpretation of his motives by saying: "just as we never harmed you," meaning that there were no selfish motives in that part of the טוב they had done for Isaac. The very fact they had let Isaac depart with all his assets intact [and had not imposed an emigration tax Ed.] had made Avimelech's country poorer. According to their reasoning this proved that every kindness they had shown Isaac had been genuine, not self-interest. All of this was alluded to in the words ראו ראינו.

[At this point the author quotes a line he saw in Bereshit Rabbah according to which Avimelech's words are proof that the Philistines did not do Isaac any true favours. He finds this difficult and deals with it. Since I have not found such a line in my edition of Bereshit Rabbah, I have omitted this paragraph. Ed.]

אתה עתה ברוך ה', "you are now the one who is blessed by the Lord." They had come to this realisation when they saw that Isaac continued to prosper in spite of having been expelled from their midst. Seeing that Isaac had not been deprived of any of the favours they used to bestow on him as a result of their having expelled him, he had no reason not to render the oath they requested from him as a quid pro quo.

The author argues that in spite of the definition of the Rivash that what constitutes an oath which is rendered as a quid pro quo is the favour which is rendered at the time of the oath, the same holds true if the oath was sworn in recognition of favours received previously.

Avimelech also wanted to explain with this statement why they did not invite Isaac to return to Gerar. Seeing that after leaving Gerar Isaac had prospered even more than while he had been there, there was no point to invite him to come back there. Previously it could have been argued that he was the beneficiary of the help of G'd extended by means of intermediaries such as the local government in Gerar, i.e. Avimelech himself. Now that he lived in no-man's land it was clear that his success was due entirely to G'd's direct help.

Avimelech also wanted to deny the argument that they had caused Isaac's good fortune to be interrupted by their expulsion; this could not have been the case seeing that G'd had been its author. The fact that he was still better off today than when he resided amongst them was the proof; עתה ברוך ה', "now that they had already done all that was in their power with the means at their disposal, it was clear that he was blessed by the Lord" since he had found the real source of such blessing. All these arguments were designed to elicit an oath the legality of which would be unassailable under any circumstances. There is a discussion in Gittin 46 why the Jewish people did not make war against the Gibeonites when they found out that the latter had tricked them into a promise to treat them as allies instead of as Canaanites (Joshua 9,18). Rabbi Yehudah holds that since the oath was sworn by the leaders of the Jewish people, Israel could not take action denying the validity of that oath. The other rabbis disagree, claiming that the Israelites' undertaking was never valid as it had been based on the Gibeonites' declaration that they were a people who lived far from the land of Canaan. Clearly, Rabbi Yehudah was concerned with the image of Jewish leaders who by defaulting on an undertaking denigrate the reputation of G'd whom they represent. Rashi explains that Rabbi Yehudah's point is not that the oath was valid, but that the Gentiles must not be allowed to say that Jewish leaders were guilty of perjury. We must remember that Rabbi Yehudah's point is not a legal one, i.e. a Mosaic law, but an act of piety that Jewish leaders have to impose upon themselves. Besides, even according to Rabbi Yehudah, such a consideration is in place only when the oath was as public as that of the Jewish people to the Gibeonites. Oaths between a relatively small group of people such as Isaac and Avimelech's entourage would certainly not fall under that heading.

Furthermore, an additional reason why the other rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Yehudah is that the Gentiles are well aware of the mechanics and the conditions when oaths are subject to annulment. This being so, the question of חלול השם, public desecration of G'd's name which troubled Rabbi Yehudah did not even arise.