Answers to Toldot

Alef 1 a. The typical interpretation of the word “ממנו” in 26:16 is “than us”, i.e., you are more powerful than we are. This makes us uncomfortable. Ordinarily the sojourner is in a subservient position; however your wealth places you above us. The Midrash inserts a sense of resentment on the part of the Gerarites, i.e., you have taken what rightfully belongs to us and turned it into your personal wealth. Your possessions originate “ממנו”, from us, and therefore we are jealous, resentful, or even accusing you of purloining our possessions from us.

RaShI on 38:26, with respect to Yehuda’s declaration that vis-à-vis himself, Tamar was more righteous, first offers a basic interpretation for “ממני”, explaining that one should divide the two words, “צדקה” and “ממני” resulting in the following: “She is righteous. The pregnancy is due to me.” RaShI then quotes a Midrashic approach, interpreting “ממני” as referring to ה' in the sense that all that took place was “Bashert” because kings were to come through the lines of Yehuda and Tamar. For this reason the entire matter was orchestrated and originated “ממני” from Me.

            b. In Beraishit 31:1, Lavan’s sons are hardly subtle in their claim that Yaakov’s wealth really comes and therefore belongs to their father. When it comes to animal husbandry, it can always be claimed that without the original animals, the herds and flocks could never have been produced. If the original animals once belonged to someone else, they can always claim that the entire herd is theirs.

With respect to the claim against Yitzchak, the text does not state that he started out with herds, but rather with only seeds (Beraishit 26:12). Because of Yitzchak’s astounding return “מאה שערים” he was able to parlay his crops into other commodities, including herds (Ibid., 14). I suppose that the Gerrarites could nevertheless say that those seeds grew on ground that belonged to them, and that is why the proceeds really should be theirs.

Yaakov’s herds are “seeded” with individuals from Lavan’s possessions (Ibid., 30:32.) However, Lavan gave these animals to Yaakov as partial payment for additional years of labor to prevent him from returning with his entire family to Canaan Ibid., 30:31.) Since the first animals were given to Yaakov by Lavan, it hardly can be legally claimed that the progeny of these animals belonged to Lavan and his family.

            c.

ד.	"ברוך תהיה מכל העמים"

דברים ז:יד

"בָּרוּךְ תִּהְיֶה מִכָּל הָעַמִּים"

מדרש דברים רבה ג':

"ברוך תהיה מכל העמים". אמר ר' חייא בר אבא: אין שבחה של מטרונא בשעה שמתקלסת מקרובותיה, אלא בשעה שמתקלסת מצרותיה.

1.

במה שונה המדרש בפירושו את פסוקנו מן הפירוש הרגיל?

                In this verse the simple interpretation of “מכל” is “than all of the nations”, i.e., you will be more blessed than any of the other nations. The Midrash interprets the preposition as “originating from”, i.e., that not only will you be praised by those close to you, but even the nations that are your enemies. They will begrudgingly have to acquiesce to your special spiritual stature.

            d. While the syntax is the same in both cases, the accompanying emotion is hardly so. In Beraishit, according to the Midrash, there is resentment and the implication of  a claim against Yitzchak on the part of Avimelech. The usage of the "מ" in the verse in Tehillim 119:99 appears to suggest an admission of debt and obligation on the part of the possessor of the wisdom to those who were instrumental in his obtaining it.

       2.    While it is true that the Gerrarites did not physically harm Yitzchak and Rivka, for Avimelech to claim that they did only good for them seems hardly credible. After all they were asked to relocate in order to remove a target of the people’s resentment from their midst. Needing to uproot oneself as well as being told that one must move is not very reassuring or the kind of directive that will impress the individuals who are spoken to in this manner that they are being treated well and properly.

In the end, how to evaluate the situation is a function of expectations. The standard of “good treatment” for people who ordinarily do bodily harm to their victims is different from the standard applied to individuals who are notable for offering hospitality and treating guests kindly and with respect. Although from Yitzchak’s perspective, Avimelech was hardly entitled to make the claim that they had been good hosts to Yitzchak’s entourage, Avimelech, perhaps recalling how it had ended badly for other temporary sojourners, feels that Yitzchak has been treated remarkable well.

Beit 1 a.  The verse implies that Yitzchak reached an unprecedented state of blessing and prosperity. Consequently something out of the ordinary has to be mentioned.

           b.  Mules are infertile. Therefore the idea of animals multiplying does not apply to mules. Beracha is usually manifested in doubling the existing number of  entities and for this reason RaShI in Devarim 15:14 explicitly excludes mules from the things that have to be given to a newly freed Eved Ivri, since any mules that the master might own are not subject to the state of “Beracha.” Yet if Yitzchak is depicted as supremely blessed, we will invoke even mules as  a source of blessing, and even if they cannot produce offspring, they at least can contribute to the fertilizer supply. 

         2 a. If jealousy was the cause of the filling in the wells, why is the phrase “ויקנאו אותו פלשתים” mentioned at the end of the previous verse (v. 14) instead of beginning this verse (v. 15)? The implication is that  a different motivation was the reason for this action, and RaShI suggests that it was a security issue, in the sense that foreign invading armies could avail themselves of the water and thereby sustain an attack.

Since Avimelech is later going to claim that the Gerrarites treated Yitzchak well (26:29), it would be a much more difficult claim to make if there had been open enmity. Consequently the bad feelings were covered up with claims of military concerns, thereby preserving to some extent the pretense that relations were still good between them.

           b.  “טמונין” could mean “hidden”. Consequently RaShI wanted to clarify that the Gerrarites sealed the wells, but did not necessarily hide their locations.

        3 a.  If the location’s name contains “גרר” it suggests that it is close to the city. Yet Avimelech had instructed Yitzchak to distance himself from Gerar! Therefore RaShI had to emphasize that despite the name of the place, it was distant from the city.

Gimel      With regard to “Asek” the Tora supplies a reason for the dispute, (v. 20) “לנו המים” the water belongs to us. However in v. 21, no reason is given for the dispute, leading Amek Davar to reflect on the name Sitna, derived from “שטן” to goad, attempt to divert, and suggest that this time no excuse was given, but rather the well was filled out of pure spite.