Parshat Toldot Answers

Toldot 5730
Alef.

1.  RaMBaN states that there is no difference in terms of the wells between the actions of Avraham and Yitzchak. This forces him to focus upon the names of the wells and to see them as forecasting the fates of the three Temples.

2.  Abrabanel understands RaMBaN as instead of concentrating upon deriving lessons from the story per se and seeing the events as meaningful in terms of themselves, he chooses instead to see the text as a foil for making predictions about the future Temples.

3.  The verse at the beginning of the citation from Abrabanel is from Beraishit 26:3 where God Promises Yitzchak that all will be well before Yitzchak travels to Gerar. The verse that appears at the end of the citation, 26:24, takes place after Yitzchak has finally established the well of Rechovot, when there are no more disputes. It makes more sense for the Divine Promise to precede all of the untoward events in Gerar, accounting for why Yitzchak presses forward. Once he has succeeded despite the nefarious efforts of the Gerarites, why is it necessary yet again for HaShem to tell Yitzchak not to be afraid?

4.  Instead of explaining that the stories re the wells have to do with the future Temples, or the fact that Yitzchak will succeed with God’s Help despite the obstacles that the Gerarites place in his path, this section of the bible could be explained as an indication of Yitzchak’s personality, i.e., that instead of being discouraged when he is challenged by the indigenous citizenry, he is persistent and presses on until he finds a place that will be free of contention.

Beit.

1.  Akeidat Yitzchak explains “Mimenu” in 26:16 as referring to the fact that despite the Gerarites being in charge of the land, due to Avraham’s cleverness in his business dealings with the indigenous population, he was better off than the rulers. “Than us”

2.   In 31:1, Lavan’s sons claim that all of Yaakov’s wealth really belongs to them. While their claim is based upon the fact that Yaakov worked out a deal with Lavan that speckled and spotted sheep that will be born In the flock  will belong to him, since the parent animals were Lavan’s therefore the descendents could also be considered to be Lavan’s. (This is similar to Lavan’s claim that the mothers and children are his in 31:43, also assuming that since he is the parent, all descendents “belong” to him.) The fallacy in the argument is that an explicit deal was struck between Yaakov and Lavan in 30:31-4.

      Similarly, with respect to Avimelech’s claim according to Akeidat Yitzchak, Yitzchak has benefited from something that the Gerarites assume belongs to them. However, if Yitzchak knows how to engage in business in a more successful manner than the country’s inhabitants, has he necessarily taken something that belongs to “them”? In this case as well, Avimelech had not demanded that Yitzchak and Rivka leave the country (26:16), but simply relocate. They are going to have to support themselves somehow, and it is improper for the Gerarites to suddenly claim that Yitzchak’s success involves possessions that really belong to them.

Gimel.

     Although the Beiur explains that the sense of “Im” with respect to an oath actually connotes a negative clause, i.e., “you must not”, nevertheless the term “Im” is used because it suggests that the outcome is not inevitable, but rather dependent upon the individual’s free choice. While the oath suggests a specific exclusive course of action, nevertheless, you always could do this or do that.  Therefore a word that suggests “if” is closer to the truth with respect to the extent to which one can rely on another’s oath.

Daled.

1.  How can Avimelech claim that nothing was done to Yitzchak? Avraham’s wells had been filled by the Gerarites (26:15) creating hardship upon Yitzchak in terms of irrigating his crops and watering his herds, he was forced to relocate (v. 16) because of the apparent jealousy of the Gerarites due to his success, and the Gerarites filled in the majority of the new wells that Yitzchak dug (v. 18-20).

2.  Beraishit Rabba—we could have done much worse to you. Be happy that you are alive to tell the tale.

   RaMBaN—Your wife and your possessions are still intact.

   Beiur—While the king has done nothing, there is the potential for the citizens once they become violent towards Yitzchak out of jealousy, it might spread and bring down the king as well. This was the reason why Avimelech requested that Yitzchak and his family relocate.

   It seems to me that the Beiur’s interpretation preserves the literal purity of “VeLo Negunacha) (and we did not “touch” you/attack you), when you make a distinction between the king and his people.

3.

בראשית פרק כו

(כט) אם תעשה עמנו רעה כאשר לא נגענוך, וכאשר עשינו עמך רק טוב, ונשלחך בשלום, אתה עתה

ברוך יקוק:

   RaMBaN—if you choose to pay kindness with evil, because you are Blessed by HaShem, we are not presently in a position to be able to defend ourselves. The end of the verse is explaining why the earliest time that they would be able to avenge themselves were Yitzchak to deal with them badly is at some point in the future.

   RaShBaM—Since you are Blessed by HaShem, you are in a position to make the non-aggression pact with us and send us away in peace. The end of the verse is explaining why Yitzchak ought to enter into the non-aggression pact that Avimelech and his general are proposing.

4.  According to RaShBaM, the last two phrases in the verse should be reversed, i.e., since you are Blessed by HaShem, therefore enter into a covenant with us, and then send us away in peace.

5.  It would seem to refer to a similar claim made by Akeidat Yitzchak, cited earlier in question Beit, i.e., that Yitzchak had enriched himself by “stealing” things that rightfully belonged to the Gerarites, with “Chamas” being used in a similar way as in Beraishit 6:11 as interpreted by RaShI.

6.  According to Abrabanel, the phrase “Blessed by HaShem” is not coming to explain why the Gerarites cannot fight Yitzchak at this point (RaMBaN), but rather the explanation for Yitzchak’s success, that not only comes about because God has Assisted Yitzchak, but also because the platform upon which he develops his success is the land of Gerar. And since Yitzchak should be appreciative that his base of operations which resulted in his becoming rich was the land of Gerar, it would only be proper if he would enter into the non-aggression pact that would preserve this land in future years. (Just as Moshe was enjoined from striking the Nile that hid him and the dirt under which he buried the Egyptian as a sign of Hakarat HaTov, Avimelech is making a similar argument to Yitzchak with respect to the land of Gerar.)