Toldot 5725
Alef.
1. The
general question revolves around why it is so important to mention what
took place with the digging of wells. Why is this considered of importance
“LeDorot”—for generations beyond the one in which it took place?1
2. Midrash HaGadol:
There is symbolic value in the account, since the digging of wells and
discovering water brings life to the world, just as the Tzaddikim brought
spiritual life to the world.
RaDaK:
The wells symbolize the eventual possession of the land by Yitzchak’s
offspring, albeit engendering controversy from surrounding nations.
RaMBaN:
The wells symbolize the three Batei Mikdash, the first two of which
are destroyed, as symbolized by those who challenge and fill up the
pre-existing wells.
RaDaK and
RaMBaN view the passage as presaging history rather than merely
symbolizing the great effect that righteous individuals will have upon
the world. However they relate to two different periods of history:
RaDaK—the conquest of Israel during the times of Yehoshua; RaMBaN—the
construction and destruction of the various Batei Mikdash.
Beit.
Ibn Kaspi: the jealousy was directed at Yitzchak’s possessions.
Reggio:
the jealousy was directed at Yitzchak himself.
Gimel.
1.
Shemot 1:9; BaMidbar 13:31; I Melachim 20:23 all have to do with
strength and power. Devarim 1:28 has to do with wealth, which is the
meaning in 26:16 as well.
2.
The Midrash is at odds with the simple meaning. The Midrash understands
“Mimenu” as referring to the source of Yitzchak’s wealth, i.e.,
the inhabitants of Gerar themselves.
3.
Both the Philistines with respect to Yitzchak, as well as Lavan’s
family vis-à-vis Yaakov, argue that the forefathers became enriched
via the resources of those among whom they resided, i.e., Yitzchak found
water on the land that belonged to the Gerarites, and Yaakov
used Lavan’s unspotted and unspeckeled sheep to breed the ones that
he ultimately possessed.
In both
cases the claims were hollow. In the case of Yitzchak, Avimelech gave
him permission to live on the land, so what he finds there should
be considered as his. Similarly, Lavan entered into an agreement with
Yaakov concerning which sheep that would be born would belong to Yaakov.
Lavan made the agreement because he did not want Yaakov and his family
to depart. Once the agreement was made, even though it carried with
it the expectation that whole-color sheep would give birth to other
whole-color sheep as opposed to speckled and spotted ones, the agreement
should have been adhered to, just as Yitzchak should not have been harassed
concerning the wells that he either redug or dug from the start.
Daled.
1. The
question addressed by RaDaK is where the boundary between Gerar and
Be’er Sheva was located, with the implication being that wells inside
Gerar’s territory, regardless of who digs them, should belong
to the inhabitants of Gerar.
The question
that MaLBIM believes is being addressed is can a claim be made upon
water that even if it is issuing forth from outside the boundaries of
Gerar, nevertheless originated from within it.
2.
Each is discussing a totally different perspective. RaDaK is not concerned
about where the water originates, only where it comes out—inside or
outside the border of Gerar. MaLBIM is not concerned where the well
is located, only who has claim to water that originates within
the kingdom of Gerar.
Heh.
In chapter
25, the term “חפר” is used in every instance
except the last where “כרה” appears. How can that be accounted
for?
(טו) וְכָל הַבְּאֵרֹת אֲשֶׁר חָפְרוּ עַבְדֵי אָבִיו בִּימֵי אַבְרָהָם אָבִיו סִתְּמוּם פְּלִשְׁתִּים וַיְמַלְאוּם עָפָר:
(יח) וַיָּשָׁב יִצְחָק וַיַּחְפֹּר אֶת בְּאֵרֹת הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר חָפְרוּ בִּימֵי אַבְרָהָם אָבִיו וַיְסַתְּמוּם פְּלִשְׁתִּים אַחֲרֵי מוֹת אַבְרָהָם וַיִּקְרָא לָהֶן שֵׁמוֹת כַּשֵּׁמֹת אֲשֶׁר קָרָא לָהֶן אָבִיו:
(יט) וַיַּחְפְּרוּ עַבְדֵי יִצְחָק בַּנָּחַל וַיִּמְצְאוּ שָׁם בְּאֵר מַיִם חַיִּים:
(כא) וַיַּחְפְּרוּ בְּאֵר אַחֶרֶת וַיָּרִיבוּ גַּם עָלֶיהָ וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמָהּ שִׂטְנָה:
(כב) וַיַּעְתֵּק מִשָּׁם וַיַּחְפֹּר בְּאֵר אַחֶרֶת וְלֹא רָבוּ עָלֶיהָ וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמָהּ רְחֹבוֹת וַיֹּאמֶר כִּי עַתָּה הִרְחִיב יְדֹוָד לָנוּ וּפָרִינוּ בָאָרֶץ:
(כה) וַיִּבֶן שָׁם מִזְבֵּחַ וַיִּקְרָא בְּשֵׁם יְדֹוָד וַיֶּט שָׁם אָהֳלוֹ וַיִּכְרוּ שָׁם עַבְדֵי יִצְחָק בְּאֵר:
Vav.
1.א. One might have thought
that the Philistines had sealed the wells dug by Avraham as soon as
Avraham left Gerar. RaShI comes to say that they sealed the wells only once Yitzchak came to
Gerar and before he relocated upon Avimelech’s request.
ב. By mentioning the Philistines before the verb of sealing,
it implies that this was a deliberately hostile act, i.e., the Philistines, who did not respect Yitzchak, they sealed up the wells,
as opposed to saying they were sealed by the Philistines, this order
suggesting that it was not all that important who had sealed the wells,
just that Yitzchak found them sealed.
2.א.
The
verse could be translated
as if the subject is HaShem in the last portion of the statement, i.e.,
and HaShem will Increase us. The Targum demonstrates that it is the
people, and not HaShem, who will do the increasing. In effect the “Vav” at the beginning
of the word “U’Farinu” separates the
previous subject from the one applying to the very end of the verse.
ב.
(י) וַיֹּאמֶר אֲבִימֶלֶךְ מַה זֹּאת עָשִׂיתָ לָּנוּ כִּמְעַט שָׁכַב אַחַד הָעָם אֶת אִשְׁתֶּךָ וְהֵבֵאתָ עָלֵינוּ אָשָׁם:
In this
instance the subject switches at the end of the verse as well, from “one of the Gerarites” to “Yitzchak” with the “Vav” serving as the indicator that there will be a switch.
וְדָגָ֥ן וְתִירֹ֖שׁ סְמַכְתִּ֑יו וּלְכָ֣ה
אֵפ֔וֹא מָ֥ה אֶֽעֱשֶׂ֖ה בְּנִֽי׃
3
1. The Zakef Katan
atop “LaAvadim” as well as the Etnachta under “Semachtiv” demonstrates that
the last section is separated from the previous two, suggesting that
the last section is unto itself, with a connection between the first
two sections, as explicated by
HaRechasim LaBika.
2. The Kadma atop “Lach” suggests that
the first section is cut off from the beginning of the second section,
which supports Sephorno’s view, but not HaRechasim LaBika.
3. The
typical translation:
“And Isaac answered and said unto Esau: 'Behold, I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren
have I given to him for servants; and with corn and wine have I sustained
him; and what then shall I do for thee, my son?”
Targum
Yonatan:
“…and now go away from me, for what can I do for you?”
It seems
to me that the Trop supports Targum Yonatan since the series Zakef Katan
atop “U’Lecha Eifa” would appear to set it apart from the last three words of
the verse “Mah E’eseh Beni” rather than forming a continuum with it, as the typical
translation suggests.
1
An assumption underlying whatever is canonized in TaNaCh has relevance
and significance beyond the immediate present in which it was recorded. 
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment