Abravanel

“And it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the
earth…that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that were fair.
And they took them wives…The Nephilim were in the earth in those
days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the
daughters of men. And they bore children to them. The same were the
mighty that were of old, the men of renown.”

Bible studies with Don Isaac Abravanel’s commentary (also spelled Abarbanel) has withstood the test of
time. For over five centuries, Abravanel has delighted – and enlightened – clergy and layman alike,
offering enduring interpretations of the Bible.

In Genesis chapter 6, the Bible brings a narrative that reads more like Greek or Roman
mythology than Holy Writ.

Abravanel launches an investigation: Who were these “sons of God?” And who were the fair maidens
who captivated them with bewitching appeal?

Some commentators suggested that the “sons of God” were princes and of blue blood. Others posited
that these men were clairvoyants or astrologists. They charted the zodiac, peeked into the future, and
ascertained which women would give birth to children who would, in time, become worthy men.

Finally, some sages put forth that the “sons of God” were angels. They write that the angels were the
“Nephilim”, referred to in our verses above. “Nephilim”, they claim, carries an immoral or unethical
connotation. The Hebrew term “Nephilim” is closely related to another Hebrew word, “noflim”, which
means “fallers” or “falling.” These rabbis borrow “noflim,” per se, and turn it into “the fallen”, as in to
fall from grace.

Asserting that the “sons of God” means angels, for a simple reason, does not meet Abravanel’s criterion
for a straightforward interpretation of the Bible. Angels are wholly intelligent and incorporeal beings.
Moreover, according to Abravanel, angels have no physical impulses with zero inclination to sin. Thus,
wrongdoing for these heavenly facilitators is a non-starter.

As to the identity of these “sons of God”, Abravanel offers two responses. We offer one below, though
in shorthand.

“Sons of God” may have been descendants of Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve. The reason why the
Bible characterizes Seth’s seed as “sons of God” is because they were, well, godly and pious. Insofar as
they were pure in character and deed, the Bible lauds them as “sons of God.”

Who, then, were the “daughters of men?” Abravanel answers that they hailed from Cain, the first born
of Adam and Eve, born of dubious circumstances, as an earlier blog has ascertained. Since Cain tilled the
soil, the Bible refers to the women as daughters of man, as in farmer. In Hebrew the generic term for
“man” (adam) shares its root with “land” (adamah).

In sum, we have established that the “sons of God” could not possibly have been angels. But now that
Abravanel identified the suitors and the bevy of beauties, there still remain questions: Why does the
Bible seem to disparage their marriages, putting the matchmaking in a negative and lopsided light?

Further, what shall we say about the “Nephilim?” If they weren’t crestfallen, heavenly angels, then who
were they?

For the fuller discussion on both of these topics, see Abravanel’s World of Torah. There, Bible students
will learn why Heaven frowned on Seth’s descendants marrying the descendants of Cain. They will also
read why certain people were designated or labeled “Nephilim.”

workers were essentially oblivious to Moshe’s rousing seminars…”

Page 103 Shemot vol. I, Sinai Rules

Bible studies with Don Isaac Abravanel’s commentary (also spelled Abarbanel) has withstood the test of
time. For over five centuries, Abravanel has delighted – and enlightened – clergy and layman alike,
offering enduring interpretations of the Bible. Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblicalcommentator. Chapter 40 pertains to Joseph’s interactions with Pharaoh’s staff members, while in prison. But who were Joseph’s fellow inmates?

“And it came to pass after these things, that the Egyptian king’s wine
steward and baker offended their master, the king of Egypt. And
Pharoah was wroth at his two courtiers, against the chief steward, and
against the chief baker.”

Abravanel, who served as the treasurer to the kings of Portugal and Spain, understood palace protocol.
He draws upon personal experience in order to make sense of the verses quoted above.

The first verse brought above speaks about the king’s wine steward and baker. Yet, the next verse
describes two men as officers, before calling them chiefs. Abravanel seeks to clarify for Bible students
the cast of characters. Who exactly ran afoul Egypt’s king?

Abravanel posits that Pharaoh’s palace’s cuisine attendants – food and beverage personnel – likely
resembled palace staff hierarchy in his own time (15 th century). Thus, the first verse does not refer to the
chief wine steward or chief baker. Abravanel assumes this because the title “chief” or “minister” does
not appear there. Instead, the Bible merely mentions stewards or attendants. In contrast, the second
verse does talk about the food and drink officers, also known as ministers.

Untangling matters, Abravanel clarifies. Pharaoh had higher ups or ministers in charge of cuisine (wine
and baker). In their respective duties and areas of expertise, no attendant ranked higher than them.
These ministers personally served Pharaoh rarely, the exception being the most special of occasions
(Pharaoh’s birthday or major festival). Their presence at those celebrations showed the king respect,
and enhancing the event.

However, every other day, the ministers remained behind the scenes, supervising their sizable staff.
Clearly, the officers’ employees were reliable, professionals whose trust was implicit. After all, one
misstep on the employees part carried deadly ramifications for all concerned. Pharaoh, of course,
expected dependable service from his ministers, those closest to the throne.

Abravanel ties it all together. “And it came to pass after these things, that the Egyptian king’s wine
steward and baker offended their master, the king of Egypt.”These were the men who attended to the
king day in day out. As to their offense, it is not explicit. Perhaps they plotted to poison Pharaoh, or some other dastardly deed against the monarchy. Be that as it may, the king did not expend an ounce of energy on them after they were apprehended. He summarily chopped off their heads. 

“And Pharaoh was wroth at his two courtiers….” The regent fumed at his two ministers, under whose
supervision was an army of workers. “And he put them in ward in the house of the captain of the guard,
into prison, the place where Joseph was bound.” A white-collar lockup fit the two officers’ station, and
not a prison reserved for the rank and file.

At the end of our chapter, we will read about the circumstances surrounding the serendipitous meeting
between Joseph and the two senior ministers, one that will change the course of history.

cohesive unit in our parashah.

Parashat Bo, First Aliyah, based on Abravanel’s World of Torah