Abravanel

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Genesis Chapter 20, we read that Abraham left Hebron and relocated to Israel’s
southern area, in or near Gaza.

“And Abraham journeyed from thence toward the land of the South, and
dwelt between Kadesh and Shur. And he sojourned in Gerar.”

The move piqued Abravanel’s curiosity. He asks: What motivated the patriarch to leave the comforts of
home and distance himself from his allies Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre? Not only were the three Canaanite
chieftains his loyal brothers-in-arms, but they also held Abraham in high esteem.

The move piqued Abravanel’s curiosity. He asks: What motivated the patriarch to leave the comforts of
home and distance himself from his allies Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre? Not only were the three Canaanite
chieftains his loyal brothers-in-arms, but they also held Abraham in high esteem.

Here is Abravanel’s response.

Contextually, we see that the patriarch and his family moved to Gerar subsequent to Sodom’s and
Gomorrah’s annihilation. The terebinths of Mamre (Hebron), where Abraham lived practically bordered
Sodom and Gomorrah, so much so that the patriarch could see in the not-too-distant horizon smoke
from the smoldering ashes of the torched cities. “And he looked out toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and
toward all the land of the Plain, and beheld, lo, the smoke of the land went up as the smoke of a
furnace.”Was Hebron next on the chopping block, Abraham fretted? Relocation would be a hedge
against that frightful prospect.

In the same vein, the patriarch experienced trauma at the sight of the rising, grey cloud – a sight that
turned once lush fields and orchards into toast. Abraham worried more when he thought about his
nephew Lot’s financial ruin; he lost everything – family members and property. In a word, the bitter
reality that nothing remained from a once-thriving region profoundly unsettled the patriarch.

That was only the half of it. Sodom and Gomorrah had been the district’s bread basket, supplying the
terebinths of Mamre and environs with food. But now, basic and essential commodities grew scarce.
Abravanel cites both possibilities to explain why Abraham left town.

Abravanel provides three more rationales, but we will suffice to add one more to the two listed above.
Again, context is key.

Earlier, we read that God had changed Abram’s and Sarai’s names to Abraham and Sara. According to
Jewish law, the Creator prohibited people from calling the patriarch and matriarch by their erstwhile
names.

The patriarch faced a conundrum, as he learned that old habits die hard. Very hard. Townspeople knew
him and his wife by their quondam names. Thus, everyone continued to call them Abram and Sarai.
Soon after Abraham’s circumcision, he made a clean break from the old neighbors and neighborhood.
Moving to Gerar, Abravanel states, made sense. There, he and his wife could start anew, introducing
themselves by their new, God-given names. In time, folks would only refer to the patriarch and
matriarch as Abraham and Sarah, in fulfilment of Heaven’s desire and intent.

Abravanel writes additional rationales for Abraham’s move. Please see Abravanel’s World.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Genesis chapter 21, we learn about Sarah’s miracles associated with Isaac’s birth and
first years.

“And she said: Who would have said regarding Abraham, that Sarah
should nurse children – for I have borne him a son in his old age. And
the child grew, and was weaned. And Abraham made a great feast on
the day that Isaac was weaned.”

Abravanel asks a two-tiered question on the verse: “And she said: Who would have said regarding
Abraham, that Sarah should nurse children…”Specifically, Abravanel questions the peculiar placement
of the verse. Sarah’s puzzlement would have made more sense in an earlier chapter, when Abraham first
learned of the impending miracle (birth) and not at present, after the baby was delivered.

Second, he queries: Why was Sarah flabbergasted? “Who would have said”appears to be a question of
source, as in: From where/who did the information come? Yet, if Sarah asked regarding the source, the
answer is straightforward: Either God or His messenger relayed news of Isaac’s imminent birth.

Before we bring Abravanel’s response, let us bring one more related question on the other verse quoted
above: “And the child grew, and was weaned. And Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac
was weaned.” The question is, why did Abraham make a feast after Isaac was weaned? Logically, the bash should
have taken place either at Isaac’s birth or circumcision. After all, from time immemorial Jews have
joyously celebrated their son’s entrance into the covenant, on day eight after birth.

Abravanel asks a two-tiered question on the verse: “And she said: Who would have said regarding
Abraham, that Sarah should nurse children…” Specifically, Abravanel questions the peculiar placement
of the verse. Sarah’s puzzlement would have made more sense in an earlier chapter, when Abraham first
learned of the impending miracle (birth) and not at present, after the baby was delivered.

Second, he queries: Why was Sarah flabbergasted? “Who would have said” appears to be a question of
source, as in: From where/who did the information come? Yet, if Sarah asked regarding the source, the
answer is straightforward: Either God or His messenger relayed news of Isaac’s imminent birth.

Abravanel quotes one classic commentator who suggested that Abraham waited until the weaning in
order to make sure Isaac was healthy and hardy. That’s illogical, Abravanel remarks. The patriarch knew
that Isaac would be just fine, a testament to Abraham’s trust in the Maker’s promise: “For in Isaac shall
seed be called to you.”

Abravanel’s answers follow. No sooner had Sarah given birth to a miracle baby than she experienced an
aftershock, courtesy of the Creator; she lactated. Given Sarah’s well-advanced years, when her body
should have lost its suppleness, nature provided a most kind reversal. She lactated like a young mother.
“And she said: Who would have said regarding Abraham, that Sarah should nurse children.”

Sarah had been apprised of Isaac’s birth. Thus, she was not only eagerly awaiting her baby, but she also
mentally prepared for it, since Abraham had shared the joyous tidings received from Above. However,
her ability to produce milk came out of nowhere. Hence, Sarah’s rhetorical question here: “And she said: Who would have said regarding Abraham, that Sarah should nurse children.” It was the matriarch’s way of conveying the bombshell, one in which she had been kept in the dark. Neither God nor His angel, nor
any mortal whispered a word about it to Abraham.

Without a doubt, Abravanel continues, divine providence had smiled on Isaac. Heaven didn’t want Isaac
to suckle from Canaanite women, foreign breasts.

Alternatively, “Who would have said regarding Abraham that Sarah should nurse children” may allude to
an alternative tack than the one just mentioned. It ties into the question of the timing of the celebration
for Isaac. Possibly, the Creator had not bent nature and rejuvenated Sarah, as far as nursing was
concerned. The nonagenarian managed, with utmost difficulty, to eke out and produce a bit of milk for
Isaac. “And the child grew, and was weaned. And Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac was
weaned.” In appreciation of the little boy’s reasonable development, despite mom’s meager milk
supply, Abraham celebrated. It was the patriarch’s way of acknowledging and expressing thanksgiving
for the Creator’s compassion.

In sum, we now understand that Abraham had not thrown a party when Isaac was born. We also grasp
the reason why Isaac’s circumcision had not been marked by celebration. Abraham had been apprised
from the Almighty about those events, as wondrous as they were. To the core, the patriarch had been
profoundly moved by the Maker’s affection, granting Sarah the ability to suckle Isaac full term. Now,
that called for public celebration!

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Genesis chapter 13, the Bible reiterates divine promises previously made to Abram in
an earlier chapter. Here again, God tells Abram that his progeny will wax prolific, and that they will
inherit the Holy Land.

“And God said unto Abram, after Lot separated from him: Lift up your
eyes, and look from the place where you are – northward and southward
and eastward and westward. For all the land which you see, to you will I
give it, and to your seed forever. And I will make your seed as the dust of
the earth, so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall
your seed also be numbered.”

Abravanel wants to get a read on the reason why the Creator repeats both divine promises, essentially
the same message that He already communicated with Abram. Further, Abravanel compares the
language of the two divine communiqués. He finds that the second time around goes into far greater
detail than the terse, first prophecy.

Abravanel’s answer educates Bible students. Readers will not only learn why there is a repeat of the
prophecies, but they will also become sensitized to a theme Abravanel drives home throughout his
commentary on the Bible. It is this: prophecy does not come in a vacuum. God speaks to man, assuaging
his inner turmoil and distress.

The verse quoted above, then, sets the all-important context. God spoke with Abram after his nephew
Lot separated from him. Abravanel plumbs the patriarch’s mood, post separation. In a word, the
patriarch felt forlorn. Years of trial and tribulation together had brought the uncle and nephew
extremely close; they bonded.

When Lot bolted, Abram had no other family member remaining with him from his father’s household.
Despondent, the patriarch received the Creator’s message, one of profound comfort and cheer – he
would be the patriarch of a burgeoning nation, one whose number can be likened to the dust of the
earth. More good news – his descendants would inherit the Holy Land.

For sure, the first divine message carried the same gist, albeit in shorthand. However, after Lot
abandoned Abram, the Creator sought to gladden a heavy heart. The second, amplified prophecy hit its
mark.

Abravanel brings a second reason that answers why the Bible reiterates the original prophecy delivered to
Abram.  You can learn about it in Bereshit: Theory of Moral Evolution

Bible studies with Don Isaac Abravanel’s commentary (also spelled Abarbanel) has withstood the test of
time. Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Genesis chapter 9, the Bible turns to diet for Noah, his family, and their progeny. Is
Scripture biased toward veganism or, at least, vegetarianism?

“Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you, as the green herb
have I given you all. Only flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood
thereof, shall you not eat.”

The verses we have quoted above cannot be more explicit: the Creator gives man license to eat meat;
it’s kosher. But what changed? God stopped Adam and pre-flood mankind from ingesting animal flesh.
One Biblical commentator writes that plant life was violently uprooted during the great flood,
irretrievably so. That commentator isn’t right. God’s green light to Noah should not be viewed as an
emergency measure, based on a new reality on the ground. It’s just not true. In time, a soggy earth
would dry and bounce back. Agriculture would be restored to its antediluvian level. Actually, post-flood
soil was more nutrient rich than prior to the deluge.

Abravanel explains the diet change by way of a historical sweep. Recall, the Maker transported Adam
into the Garden of Eden. The place lacked for nothing. Plentiful fruit trees and other yummy edibles
grew marvelously, as per the verse: “And out of the ground made God Almighty to grow every tree that
is pleasant to the sight, and good for food.” Furthermore, with the exception of the tree of knowledge,
God welcomed Adam and Eve to enjoy the Garden of Eden’s delights: “And God Almighty commanded
the man saying, of every tree of the garden you may freely eat.”

Here is the thing. Though drenched loam had not been permanently ruined during the deluge, it had
taken a hit, forcing a setback. Neither fruit trees, vineyards, or berry bushes survived high waters. Had
Noah and family needed to attend to plowing, planting, sowing seeds, and harvesting produce, they
would have wasted away before gathering and filling their first basket. Recognizing an impending, albeit
temporary food crisis, God permitted Noah and his family to eat meat.

Based on Abravanel’s World of Torah, by Zev Bar Eitan

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Genesis chapter 10, the Bible chronicles Noah’s children’s progeny – but in fantastic
shorthand. To be sure, history may be gleaned from the Bible, but it cannot narrowly be called a history
or historical book. Let us explain, using the verses below as an illustration.

“Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and
Japheth, and unto them were sons born after the flood….And unto
Shem, the father of all the children of Eber, the elder brother of Japheth,
to him also were children born.”

“And Shem, the father of all children of Eber, the elder brother of Japheth, to him also were children
born.” Eber was Shem’s great grandson: Shem begot Arpachshad; Arpachshad begot Shelah. Shelah
fathered Eber. Yet, Scripture makes it sound as if Shem only bore Eber. Abravanel asks: Why do
Arpachshad and Shelah get short shrift?

Another thing. Abravanel questions why Holy Writ identifies Shem as Yapheth’s older brother, but fails
to mention Ham, who also was Shem’s younger brother. In a word, Abravanel wonders why our verse
appears fragmented or incomplete, as far as Shem’s lineage is concerned. Curious.

Here is Abravanel’s approach. Shem’s progeny was many. Shem’s family of origin included his two
siblings, Japheth and Ham. Respectively, their children made up Shem’s extended family.

Who was Shem? Abravanel posits that he was a devoted truth seeker. Shem’s chiseled soul soared to
spiritual heights. He dedicated himself to study and upright conduct, surrounding himself with like-
minded thinkers. Now let us apply this knowledge to our verses, with a focus on this blog’s title: Bible as
history?

The Bible is not particularly interested in painstakingly chronicling mankind. It is, among other priorities,
interested in shedding light into personalities, especially saintly ones. As Abravanel ascertains, for Shem,
Heaven’s values mattered most. Shem’s affinity was reserved for his erudite, great grandson Eber. He
had less in common with his own son Arpachshad and grandson Shelah. Shem also fawned over Eber’s
descendants. Soulmates, they explored timeless lessons in hallowed study halls.

Shem also didn’t have too much time for his brother Ham or his descendants. Let’s just say that their
lifestyles and choices parted ways. Japheth and Shem, on the other hand, enjoyed brotherhood. Literally
and figuratively. They found a common language, interests.

Abravanel reiterates, that Shem favored Eber so much in comparison to Arpachshad and Shelah, it was
as if they weren’t his son and grandson. As for Shem’s siblings, there is the same model. Namely, Shem’s
closeness with his brother Japheth dwarfed his relationship with Ham, to the extent that Shem hardly
related to Ham as kin.

Based on Abravanel’s World of Torah, by Zev Bar Eitan

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. For Bible Studies, Genesis chapter 27,is one of the Bible’s most dramatic passages – Isaac’s
blessing. Old and blind Isaac intends to bless Esau. His wife Rebeccah won’t hear of it. She plans on
securing her husband’s blessing for her beloved Jacob, and not Esau. As for the stakes, they’re sky-high.

“Bring me venison, and make me savory food, that I may eat and bless
you before God before I die.”

Abravanel begins his discussion of the dynamic episode with a question: What motivated Isaac to bless
Esau? After all, we don’t find precedence in Genesis’ earlier chapters. Adam didn’t bless Seth. Nor did
Noah bless Shem. Even Abraham failed to do so. Hence, the query: What pushed Isaac to offer a
benediction to his Esau? The thorny question proves more disturbing when we consider Esau’s evilness.

Recall, God singled out Abraham. He promised the first patriarch, along with his descendants, divine
providence in exchange for their fealty and compliance to His ways. Furthermore, the Creator promised
title to the Holy Land.

Abravanel holds that each of the patriarchs, before their deaths, should have designated a rightful heir
(or heirs) to enter into the divine covenant, as described above. Certainly, this would have created a firm
chain, and set the record straight, as to successorship.

Isaac sought to choose his successor via a blessing. Later, Jacob will follow suit, though he will bless all
twelve of his sons. Interestingly, Abraham did not bless Isaac. Why not? There was no need. God had
made the choice for Abraham, as He proclaimed: “For in Isaac shall seed be called to you.” More to the
point. Heaven directed Abraham to expel Ishmael from the patriarch’s home. These things made
Abraham’s choice abundantly clear.

When Isaac reached old age, and it was time to announce his rightful, spiritual heir, he sensed a
predicament. Which son would sit on the Abraham’s lofty throne? God was mum on the subject. Isaac
knew that Esau and Jacob were polar opposites.

In Isaac’s estimation, Esau held the biological advantage; he was the first born. Jacob’s strengths were
his pious personality and religious contemplation. Seeing that the Almighty hadn’t tipped Isaac’s hand,
the patriarch felt he needed to devise an acid test. A blessing would determine his rightful successor.
“And he said, Behold now, I am old. I know not the day of my death.”

Isaac needed to know who would inherit the spiritual mantle and enter into God’s covenant. The last
thing the aged patriarch wanted was to shirk responsibility, and leave the decision open. The vacuum
would invite internecine strife between Esau and Jacob.

Here, then, is a snapshot of Isaac’s dilemma, according to Abravanel. Naturally, the Almighty intervened
with His budding nation, and helped Isaac resolve his quandary.

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 Biblical
commentator. In Genesis Chapter 33, we read about the long-anticipated reunion of Jacob and Esau.
Twenty years had elapsed from the time the twins had last seen each other.

“And Jacob lifted up his eyes and looked and behold, Esau came and
with him four hundred men. And he divided the children unto Leah, and
unto Rachel, and unto two handmaids…And he himself passed over
before them, and bowed himself to the ground seven times, until he
came near his brother. And Esau ran to meet him and embraced him,
and fell on his neck and kissed him. And they wept. And he lifted up his
eyes and saw the women and children and said, Who are these with
you? And he said, The children whom God has graciously given your
servant.”

The Bible makes Jacob’s conduct before Esau explicit. Unabashedly, the patriarch showed deference to
his brother, behavior befitting a servant before his master. “And bowed himself to the ground seven
times until he came near his brother.”

Abravanel shares his thoughts on the brothers’ encounter. The verses illustrate Jacob’s subservience.
But, how did Esau receive it? When Esau observed Jacob’s demeaning posture and proper etiquette, he
softened, or better, melted. “And Esau ran to meet him and embraced him…and kissed him.” Jacob, too,
choked up. For a stitch in time, sibling hostility dissipated. Brotherliness and affection swept over them,
filling their hearts. They may have asked themselves why they let so many years pass apart from each
other.

After the brothers hugged it out, Esau opened the conversation with a question. “And he lifted up his
eyes and saw the women and children and said, Who are these with you?” Jacob answered, but only
partially. “And he said, The children whom God has graciously given your servant.”

Abravanel picked up on Jacob’s evasiveness, as the patriarch only touched upon his children. Why didn’t
Jacob breathe a word about his wives, as Esau had enquired? Apparently, Esau assumed that some of
the women and children were Jacob’s, others were not. Perhaps some women and kids were related,
say cousins.

Abravanel writes that Jacob didn’t want to open himself up for humiliation. How so? Jacob was reticent
to tell Esau that he had four wives, lest Esau give his kid brother a rakish, goofy grin before cracking
ribald remarks. What a paradox! You my righteous and God-fearing brother have four wives! One or
even two wives don’t suffice? You outdid your evil brother. I only have three wives etc.

In responding to Esau, the patriarch chose the path of discretion. He pivoted the conversation to his
children. “And he said, The children whom God has graciously given your servant.”As for the womenfolk
accompanying Jacob, the patriarch was mum. Thus, Jacob sidestepped Esau’s booby trap.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Genesis chapter 29, Jacob arrives at a well, outside of Haran. There, in a setting
teeming with rich imagery, he meets local shepherds and plies them with questions. Abravanel explains
the significance of the dialogue at the well, both significant topics for Bible students. As to Jacob’s
questions, what was he getting at? Here is Abravanel’s interpretation.

“Then Jacob went on his journey, and came to the land of the children of
the east…And he looked, and behold a well in the field…And Jacob said
unto them, My brethren, from where are you? And they said, We are
from Haran. And he said unto them, Do you know Laban the son of
Nahor? And they said, We know him…And he said unto them, Is it well
with him? And they said, It is well. And behold, Rachel his daughter
comes with the sheep.”

Jacob sought out Laban, Rebekah’s brother, this despite Isaac’s advice. The aged patriarch had called for
Jacob to pay a visit to Betuel, Rebekah’s and Laban’s father. First, Jacob learns from the locals that he
arrived in Haran. Next, Jacob asks: “Do you know Laban the son of Nahor?” Yet, Laban was the son of
Betuel and grandson of Nahor.

Abravanel clarifies. Of course, Jacob knew Laban’s lineage. The reason he calls Laban the son of Nahor
(and not Betuel) was Jacob’s way of paying respect to the family’s pedigree. Nahor was Abraham’s
uncle. Pegging Laban to Nahor underscored the more prestigious family ancestry.

Next, Jacob asks: “Is it well with him?” Abravanel understands the question, not as a nicety, but rather
as a crucial barometer. Jacob needed to know if Laban lived in peace. The patriarch feared that perhaps
a tribal feud engulfed Laban and the townspeople. Jacob had plenty of infighting back home. He needed
a breather.

No sooner had Jacob heard that peace reigned in Haran than more favorable news followed. “And they
said, It is well. And behold, Rachel his daughter comes with the sheep.” When Jacob heard about good
neighborly relations in Haran, followed by news that Rachel was approaching, a strong premonition
from Above overcame him – he felt certain that the two were destined to marry.

How did Jacob know that Rachel would be his bride? He had heard the story of divine providence, one
that arranged for Rebekah to meet Eliezer, Abraham’s servant, at the well. The venue turned out to be a
precursor, as Isaac and Rebekah married. Now, Jacob felt that the well, with its history and symbolism
alluding to life, would become the backdrop whereby he would find his wife.

In sum, Abravanel argues that Jacob’s arrival at the well, and the conversation with Haran’s shepherds
that took place there, was anything but casual or chance. It had the mark of divine providence written
all over it.

In Blble studies, Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Genesis chapter 35, we read that Jacob and family edge closer to home, to Isaac in
Hebron. Along the way from Paddan-Aram, God appears to the patriarch and confirms what an angelic
messenger had told him earlier – a name change was in the offing: “Your name shall not be called any
more Jacob, but Israel shall be your name.”

“And God appeared unto Jacob again, when he came from Paddan-
Aram, and blessed him. And God said unto him, Your name is Jacob.
Your name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be your
name. And He called his name Israel.”

Abravanel contrasts Jacob’s name change to Israel versus Abram’s becoming Abraham – really a world
of difference. Let’s start with the operative verse for Abraham: “Neither shall your name any more be
called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham…”

Abravanel teaches that whoever refers to Abraham by his original name contravenes divine will. This is
because the Creator completely uprooted and rescinded the first patriarch’s birth name. The same
applies to Sarah’s name change from Sarai.

Jacob’s change to Israel, Abravanel learns, needs to be understood in a different light; it’s a revision.
Importantly, the appellation given to the third patriarch by his father Isaac was not voided. Here’s the
thinking.

Abram’s and Sarai’s names changed as a direct result of entering God’s covenant, at the time of
Abraham’s circumcision. Consequently, it fit to erase both of their originally given names, as they
received them in a wholly non-kosher and morally defiled milieu. The moment that Abraham and Sarah
entered into the divine covenant, they received a spiritual boon. Thus, those early names, tainted by
pagan culture, fell by the wayside forever.

Jacob’s circumstances were night and day from Abraham’s and Sarah’s. Isaac had designated Jacob’s
name when he ushered his son into the Abrahamic covenant. That appellation resonated with holiness
and divine inspiration. Hence, it would be wrong to uproot that sacred appellation and have Israel
supplant it, even though Heaven’s angel called Jacob by the name of Israel, for good reason. “Your name
shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and men, and have prevailed.”

To conclude, the name Israel complements and supplements Jacob, but does not replace it. Here’s a
caveat. Israel should be viewed as the primary name, Jacob the secondary one. This hierarchy reflects
the givers’ respective identities. Since a divine angel renamed the patriarch, that trumps Isaac’s
designation.

“Now therefore, my son, hearken to my voice and arise. Flee to Laban
my brother, to Haran.”

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 Biblical
commentator. In Genesis chapter 28, Jacob is urged to leave home. The precise destination is less clear.

Jacob’s mother Rebekah instructs him to travel to her brother Laban: “Flee to Laban my brother, to
Haran.” Jacob’s father Isaac had something else in mind: “And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him…and
said unto him: Arise, go to Paddan-Aram to the house of Bethuel, your mother’s father.”

Abravanel makes sense of the seeming ambiguity surrounding Jacob’s destination. Along the way, he’ll
do more than provide Bible students with an address. Abravanel will also fill in some nagging blanks
about Isaac and Rebekah.

In the aftermath of the high drama associated with Isaac’s blessing, things got messy. Rebekah
overheard Esau’s desire to murder Jacob. According to Abravanel, Rebekah never did tell Isaac that she
masterminded the efforts to secure the patriarch’s blessing for Jacob. Had she done so, Isaac would
have pinned the ensuing family dissension on her. But it seems like the aged patriarch remained
blissfully unaware of the boiling hatred and contempt Esau held for his younger brother.

Instead, Rebekah told Isaac a white lie, let us call it. “And Rebekah said to Isaac: I am weary of life
because of the daughters of Heth. If Jacob takes a wife of the daughters of Heth….what good shall my
life do me?”Stressing marriageable material, she urged Isaac to send Jacob away to Laban, in order to
find a suitable wife.

But actually, Rebekah had something else in mind. She believed that Laban, her young and burly
brother, would protect Jacob, should Esau show up looking for a fight. Isaac, as written above, was
unaware of the intrigue, as well as the hostilities the intrigue stirred. Isaac took Rebekah’s words at
face value. That is, Jacob needed to leave home posthaste in order to find a wife.

Isaac directs Jacob differently than Rebekah. “And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged
him, and said unto him…Arise. Go to Paddan-Aram to the house of Bethuel, your mother’s father.”
Abravanel learns that there is more to our story than different addresses. For Isaac, Jacob’s destination
should be Rebekah’s father, not brother. Why? Since the patriarch assumed the goal centered on
locating a good match, Bethuel would be the better contact. As an older and more mature man than
Laban, his judgment would be sounder, and thus be more helpful for the task at hand: matrimony.

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 Biblical
commentator. In Genesis chapter 32, Jacob begins his trek home. The first leg of his journey starts
auspiciously; angels huddle around him.

“And Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God met him. And Jacob
said when he saw them, This is God’s camp, and he called the name of
that place Mahanaim. And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau
his brother…”

Abravanel probes Jacob’s mindset, as he parted ways with Laban, a most trying man. “And Jacob went
on his way, and the angels of God met him.”Long years under Laban’s roof and employment had sapped
the patriarch’s strength. Seeing Laban and company shrink into the horizon gladdened Jacob’s heart and
put a bounce in his gait. He breathed a sigh of relief. Unburdened.

Invigorated in body and soul, Jacob regained his prior energy level. Elated, he received prophecy, the
same as he had experienced when he left the Holy Land. At that time, he beheld a vision with a ladder.

Now Jacob saw something else. “This is God’s camp”, the patriarch declared. Abravanel deciphers the
telling image, explaining that “God’s camp" refers to divine providence – and more. “Camp” carries
military overtones. According to Abravanel, the vision boosted Jacob’s morale. “And he called the name
of that place Mahanaim.”In Hebrew, “Mahanaim” means camps, in plural. Heavenly agents would join
forces with Jacob’s men. Together both camps would rally to defend and protect Jacob and family.

Abravanel investigates our verse more thoroughly. “And Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God
met him.”He asks: Who were these angels of God? Were they, as we posited above, the heavenly sort
of beings, relaying the Creator’s message to the patriarch? The problem is, as Abravanel notes, they
didn’t relay anything to him. Furthermore, the verb “met” seems peculiar. Better, the verse should have
said that these angels appeared to Jacob.

Abravanel suggests the following. When Jacob bid farewell to Laban, he didn’t know that the road he
chose to take him home was on a collision course with Esau, his brother. Had Jacob known, Abravanel
writes, Jacob would have opted for an alternative route so he could avoid the fraught confrontation.

Abravanel provides two distinct approaches in determining the identities of the “angels of God.” One,
the patriarch beheld a divine image. It was of the Maker’s angels converging upon him. They encircled,
giving Jacob a sense of safety. Silently, they surrounded him. No enemy would penetrate God’s lines of
defense. “And Jacob said when he saw them, This is God’s camp.”After Jacob saw the angel’s formation,
he felt less apprehension about the imminent encounter with Esau. Jacob’s side outnumbered Esau’s.

Here is Abravanel’s second approach to reveal the identity of the “angels of God.”These angels weren’t,
well, the angelic type. They were merely passersby. As is the wont of travelers, Jacob struck up a
conversation with them. One thing led to another. It came out that these travelers casually mentioned
to Jacob that just down the road, in the direction Jacob was heading, they had seen a band of soldiers.
When Jacob questioned his new friends further, he ascertained that the warriors were none other than
Esau and his men. For Jacob, the “casual” meeting with these travelers proved invaluable and timely.
And as we shall see later in this chapter, Jacob will prepare himself accordingly. For the religiously-
attuned patriarch, these travelers were indeed angelic.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Genesis chapter 28, Jacob leaves home and makes his way to Haran. The patriarch
rests along the road. A prescient encounter with God will change his life forever. Abravanel deciphers
the prophecy – Jacob’s ladder.

“And Jacob went out from Beer-Sheba, and went toward Haran. And he
lighted upon the place, and tarried there all night…And he dreamed, and
behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven.
And behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.”

For elegance and mystique, few Biblical passages surpass the sublime story of Jacob’s ladder. A towering
ladder, a vision that depicted angels in upward and downward movement. Abravanel asks a core
question: What it’s all about? Is God tutoring Jacob in the realm of heaven’s inner workings or
mechanics, as other Bible commentators conclude? If so, why didn’t the Creator reveal the heady stuff
to Abraham and Isaac when He communicated with them?

Continuing, Abravanel wonders about the timing of the dream. Why did the Almighty convey esoterica
to Jacob now, when he was spent and road weary, en route to distant Haran? Far better, Abravanel
proposes, had God apprised Jacob of these intricate laws of the universe while he learned with his
father Isaac, or in the ancient study halls of Shem and Eber. Jacob in either of those academic settings
felt calm, and had the right frame of mind to receive Heaven’s tutorial. Lastly, Abravanel asks about
context. How is the vision connected to the overall narrative, given the backdrop of the circumstances
that prompted the patriarch’s exit from Beer-Sheba?

Abravanel lists his predecessors’ approaches, and there are many. Here we only zero in on his. See
Abravanel’s World for the full discussion. By way of preface, Abravanel challenges Bible students to
evaluate all the approaches, including his own, to determine for themselves which one rates as the most
logical and reasonable.

Indeed, context matters. For that reason, Abravanel says, God appeared now to Jacob and not at other
earlier junctures in the patriarch’s lifetime. Further, the vision of the ladder came to Jacob and not
Abraham or Isaac, in a communiqué tailor-made for him.

In a word, God sought to comfort Jacob’s brooding mood, patch his wounded soul. Jacob had just duped
his blind father. Further, Jacob infuriated Esau, to the point where the patriarch feared for his life at his
brother’s hand. Penniless, a destitute and lonely Jacob fled.

Nagging doubts gave Jacob no respite. Regret consumed him. Had God disapproved? Had the Maker
resolved to soundly punish him for unconscionable conduct toward Esau? Was stealing the blessing
worth the risk of death? Was exile from the Holy Land the Creator’s punishment to a crestfallen
patriarch, the first of endless wanderings?

Indeed, self-doubt haunted Jacob. Still, that night he slept, “and he dreamed, and behold a ladder…”
Abravanel illustrates how God’s uplifting dream reassured Jacob; he need not worry. He informed Jacob
that his father’s blessings reached the right son. “And behold God stood beside him and said, I am
God…The land whereupon you lie, to you I will give it, and to your seed. And your seed shall be as the
dust of the earth.” Jacob heard that Heaven approved of his actions. “And behold I am with you.” As for
Esau’s intent to kill Jacob, his evil plan will be thwarted, “and will keep you wherever you go…”

In short, Jacob’s vision apprised him of beautiful blessings in store, including heavenly protection via
divine providence.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Genesis Chapter 19, we read about Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction. Only Lot and
his unwed daughters survived. However, the Bible makes clear that their own merits had nothing to do
with it.

“And Lot went out unto them to the door, and shut the door after him.
And he said: I pray you, my brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I
have two daughters that have not known man. Let me, I pray you, bring
them out unto you and do you to them as is good in your eyes….”

Lot’s daughters are mentioned twice in Chapter 19. In this blog, we focus on Lot’s dilemma with the
townspeople, and his gambit – at his daughter’s expense – to protect his otherworldly visitors.

As the verses above teach, Lot offered the lustful neighbors his two virgin daughters, if only Sodomites
would go away and leave his guests alone. Putting aside the moral messiness of the scheme, Abravanel
poses the following query: What was Lot thinking?

Earlier in Genesis, Abravanel theorizes as to the main, ethical issue plaguing Sodom and Gomorrah. Hint:
it wasn’t about sexual immorality. Rather, Abravanel posits that the numero uno shortcoming, and a
huge one it was, had to do with their clenched-fist policy when it came to sharing financial success with
the less fortunate. Sodom and Gomorrah’s fields and farms grew crops prodigiously, year after year. The
citizens were loaded, flush with cash.

Sodomites took their miserliness seriously, going so far as to legislate rules & regulations regarding poor
folk: They were not to trespass. If a beggar, Abravanel continues, came looking for handouts, they would
be sexually assaulted and humiliated, before being run out of town. Charity didn’t exist, an anathema to
Sodom’s ethos.

Given that background, Abravanel asks: If Sodomites sought to keep the indigent away, what purpose
would it serve for Lot to offer his daughters to the local sickos? As stated, sex wasn’t the main driver.

Irate Sodomites presumed that Lot was harboring strangers in their land, men who had NO business
being there. The crowd’s intention had been to manhandle Lot’s guests, and thereby create a deterrent
whereby such things would never occur again. Abravanel stresses that the neighbors didn’t have a beef
with the newcomers. Perhaps they were unaware of Sodom’s laws. However, they did hold Lot
responsible. He should have known better than to host guests.

Abravanel suggests that Lot came up with the following gambit, and thus pleaded with the Sodomite
mob to take his daughters. Lot surveyed the rowdies surrounding his house, banging on the door. He
assumed that among the frenzied masses were his own sons-in-laws, Sodomites married to Lot’s
daughters. Lot figured that when he pushed his virgin daughters out the door, the girls’ sisters would put
up a fuss, demanding their husbands keep their fingers off the girls. Once that happened, Lot hoped, a
new dynamic would emerge, creating chaos. In the ensuing confusion, Lot would sneak his guests out of
town. Thus, Abravanel explains Lot’s gamble.

“These are the generations of Noah. Noah was in his generations a man
righteous and whole-hearted. Noah walked with God.”

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 focuses on an exemplary personality: Noah.

In glowing terms, the Bible extols Noah as righteous and whole-hearted. Abravanel takes a deeper dive
into this survivor’s stout soul, showing ways in which Noah exceled in an era when a world tottered and
tanked. Indeed, as Noah’s neighbors corrupted their ways and wallowed in morass, “Noah walked with
God.”

Abravanel quotes a rabbinic epigram that best contrasts the values of virtuous Noah from his
unscrupulous contemporaries. The translation of the witticism goes like this: While mankind gorged
their bodies and starved their souls, Noah nourished his soul, and starved his body.

In what ways did Noah please his Maker? “Righteous” refers to Noah’s interpersonal relationships. With
his fellow man, Noah was honest. He took pains to treat each person fairly, courteously. This is in
marked contrast with those around him. The generation was more than inconsiderate to others; they
were mean-spirited and deceitful.

There was a second aspect that distinguished Noah from his contemporaries. Decency defined him.
His attitude toward the physical world and its pleasures came without misplaced hype. Noah
displayed steely self-discipline to material things. As for the rest of the planet, moderation was not in
their lexicon. Nor was fair play.

Whim ruled. Bigtime. Gluttony proved their undoing. Man and animal alike acted out unnaturally in
pursuit of perversion.

Abravanel adds something else about Noah. Despite a dystopian culture of sin, Noah stood apart. For
him, crisp demarcation lines divided right from wrong. Smut held no sway over him, let alone blur God’s
ethos. From youth until old age, Noah’s swerved not an iota from divine service. Through hell and high
water, “Noah walked with God.” Literally.

Readers will find that Abravanel details, and heaps, more praise for Noah in Abravanel’s World.
However, before concluding this blog, let us share one aspect of Heaven’s favor and divine providence
for loyal Noah, as per Abravanel’s understanding.

Genesis’ first chapters record a meteoric population growth trajectory, with early man begetting and
begetting and begetting. Yet, Noah’s family was, to be colloquial, nuclear in size. He fathered only three
sons. Abravanel learns that, typically, a father of many children cannot fully devote himself to his kids’
education. Had Noah’s family waxed many, undoubtedly, some of the sons would have been influenced
by a wayward world. However, because Noah’s number of children was small, he kept a keen eye out for
creeping unacceptable attitudes and behavior. A vigil dad will nip trouble in the bud.

Abravanel says more. He understands that Noah did not father daughters. Had he, then, perforce the
daughters would have married men – all rotten to the core. Noah’s grandchildren would have followed
the despicable ways of their fathers. As a case in point, Abravanel brings an example from Lot’s
daughters. When Sodom and Gomorrah fell to fire and brimstone, so too did Lot’s married daughters.

Based on Abravanel’s World of Torah, by Zev Bar Eitan

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Genesis chapter 23, Sarah passes away. As we shall see, Abraham leaves no stone
unturned in efforts to secure an honorable burial spot for his beloved Sarah.

“And Sarah died in Kiriatharba, the same is Hebron, in the land of
Canaan. And Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her.

And he spoke with them saying, If it be your mind that I should bury my
dead out of my sight, hear me, and entreat for me to Ephron the son of
Zohar…that he may give me the cave of Machpelah, which he has,
which is in the midst of you for a possession of a burying place.”

Abravanel asks: Of all places in Canaan, why did the patriarch set his sights exclusively on the cave of
Machpelah to inter Sarah? Wouldn’t any place in the Holy Land accord the first matriarch honor?

The Bible, Abravanel explains, places great importance on burial. Moreover, location matters. Here is
why. Man is comprised of body and soul. Add another factor: God punishes or rewards, depending on
how a person lived his life. If he followed God’s ways, his refined soul will garner high spiritual marks.
That soul will find its eternal rest in heaven, specifically in a befitting, spiritual realm or designation.

Now discussion turns from the deceased, righteous person’s soul to his lifeless body. Assuredly, the holy
person’s physical frame, too, deserves apt interment. No different than the soul, so too the physical
place of burial should reflect that person’s lofty accomplishments, while alive.

Abravanel is explicit. It is more than a mere slight for a pious individual’s body to be buried and lie next
to an evildoer’s body; it’s positively indecorous. Just as their respective souls do not share the same
otherworldly space, so too their bodies should not lie side by side.

Thus far, Abravanel generalizes about burial rules. But what about our verses quoted above? Why did
Abraham insist on the cave of Machpelah for Sarah? He posits that even within the Holy Land, some
plots are superior to others. Perhaps soil quality plays a role in grading plots. Geography can as well. In
what way?

Abravanel learns that some ground types will more quickly absorb and dispose of a deceased’s body.
Decomposition aids the soul’s ascension into the heavens, and helps bring catharsis to the dead. “And
does make atonement for the land of His people.”

Furthermore, custom or habit plays a part. Thus, if a particular or designated area has been a cemetery
for people of renown, generation after generation, that ground becomes hallowed by association.
Osmosis.

Abravanel likens the ground where the righteous are interred to a mantle used to cover and adorn a
Torah scroll – holy by association.

Abraham had these sentiments and sensitivities in mind when he planned Sarah’s funeral arrangements
in the cave of Machpelah. That precluded burying the matriarch next to Canaanites, a nation infamous
for irreligious conduct. “After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein you dwelled, shall you not do.
And after the doings of the land of Canaan, where I bring you, shall you not do. Neither shall you walk in
their statutes.”

Instead, Abraham sought a special place for his wife, one that matched her uniqueness. The cave of
Machpelah would make a perfect fit, perhaps attesting to tradition that Adam and Eve had been buried
there. Later in the Bible, when Jacob felt his death nigh, he beckoned Joseph and requested to be buried
next to his parents and grandparents in the cave of Machpelah.

In closing, Abravanel learns that Abraham’s example and legacy provide thoughtful guidelines on burial
practices.

“And Moses wrote all the words of God, and rose up early in the
morning, and built an altar under the mountain, and twelve pillars for the
twelve tribes of Israel.”

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 Biblical
commentator. To provide backdrop, when we get to Exodus chapter 24, the Hebrews have already
heard the Ten Commandments directly from God. The ultra-intense experience left the people
overwhelmed, and petrified. In efforts to regain their equilibrium, they distanced themselves from the
base of the mountain. In addition, they pleaded with Moses to be their intermediary with the Almighty
so to avoid any more hair-raising encounters with the divine. The Hebrews also pledged that whatever
God asked of them, they would “do and obey.”

What happened next, Abravanel asks? That evening, Moses ascended Sinai and relayed the Hebrew’s
stance. God then conveyed a raft of statutes to the prophet. At the crack of the following dawn, Moses
“rose up early in the morning, and built an altar under the mountain, and twelve pillars…” Namely, after
he descended the mountain, he erected an altar of earth at Sinai’s base, beside “twelve pillars for the
twelve tribes of Israel.”

Abravanel continues, explaining that at this juncture God and the Jewish people entered into a new
covenant, one sanctified with blood to commemorate the Hebrew’s acceptance of the Torah. “And he
sent the young men of the Children of Israel, who offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings
of oxen unto God.” Abravanel posits that the verse speaks of strapping youngsters who could lift the
heavy loads of animal sacrifices, in assisting the encampment. Burnt offerings consisted of sheep. They
were burnt on the altar. Peace offerings, on the other hand, were oxen. People ate and enjoyed the
roasted beef.

At this juncture, the Jews entered into a covenant with the divine. “And Moses took half of the blood,
and put it in basins, and half of the blood he dashed against the altar.”Another verse describes how
“Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said: Behold the blood of the covenant
which God has made with you in agreement with all these words.”

Abravanel wonders: how did Moses sprinkle blood upon myriads of Jews? He suggests that half of the
blood was flicked upon the main altar, while the other half of blood had been dashed upon the twelve
pillars, each pillar corresponding to distinct Hebrew tribes. In that way, Abravanel teaches, it was as if
blood had been sprinkled upon each Jew.

For the full discussion of the covenant, see Abravanel’s World.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Genesis chapter 14, the Bible chronicles Abram’s dashing military success, which freed
Lot and the other captives who were snatched from their homes in Sodom, and led away.

“And the king of Sodom said to Abram: Give me the persons, and take
the goods for yourself. And Abram said to the king of Sodom: I have
lifted up my hand unto God, the God most high, Maker of heaven and
earth, that I will not take a thread nor a shoelace nor anything that is
yours, lest you say: I have made Abram rich, except only that which the
young men have eaten, and the portion of the men who went with me,
Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre. Let them take their portion.”

Further, the Bible records a conversation between Abram and the king of Sodom. It turns on the
question of war spoils. The patriarch, out of strong feelings of family ties for his captured nephew Lot,
risked everything to save him. In a daring military raid, under cover of night, Abram and his Canaanite
allies, saved the day. All of the Sodom prisoners, together with that city’s chattel were wrested away
from the enemy. The valorous patriarch was greeted by a jubilant king. Sodom’s royal highness desired
to reward commander Abram handsomely, legitimately so.

Abravanel is puzzled by Abram’s refusal to accept the prizes of war, offered by Sodom’s monarch. Fair is
fair. From time immemorial, there have been conventions about these matters. Victorious warriors were entitled
to the lion’s share.

Why, Abravanel asks, did the patriarch turn the king down? Abravanel goes further, questioning if the
patriarch exhibited hubris by declining the king. Indeed, Bible students need to understand Abram’s
position. What was he conveying or signaling?

Abravanel lays important groundwork into morality. He says that it comes down to honing ethical
excellence; at least one aspect of it: gift giving and gift receiving. In a word, the moral man works within
a well-guarded milieu. He fraternizes with like-minded truth seekers.

When the patriarch refused the king’s munificence, he conveyed a not-so-subtle message. That is,
Abram was not interested in befriending the king of Sodom. Why?

Sodomites weren’t just licentious, though that would have been enough to turn Abram’s stomach. They
were heartless to the poor and needy, enshrining it in their bylaws and local governance.

Of course, the patriarch wanted nothing to do with it, for it was an anathema to his refined inner fiber. A
king of Sodom is still a Sodomite and Avram was discerning when it came to choosing friends.

And thus, the patriarch spurned an injudicious alliance with Sodom’s king, stating: “I will not take a
thread nor a shoelace nor anything that is yours…”

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 Biblical
commentator. Genesis chapter 34 covers the violent rape of Dinah, and subsequent revenge killings
carried out by her brothers.

“And Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne unto Jacob, went
out to see the daughters of the land. And Shechem the son of Hamor the
Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her. And he took her, and raped her,
and humbled her.”

Abravanel provides Bible students his perspective on the crime and punishment. Given that Shechem
son of Hamor committed the rape, was it excessive punishment to massacre all the men of the village,
Abravanel asks? “And it came to pass on the third day…that two sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s
brothers, took each man his sword…and slew all the males.”

And, if we put forth that Jacob’s sons sought to avenge Dinah, why did they subsequently pillage the
place? “And all their wealth…they took…even all that was in the house.”Abravanel asserts that revenge,
if it is to be morally defensible, must adhere to strict parameters. Certainly, greed cannot enter into the
equation. Thus, after Jacob’s sons killed the men and rescued Dinah, why did they take booty?

Abravanel dives into the chapter devoted to Dinah’s rape – and repercussions. He bases the discussion
on the legal/moral code that was widely accepted and practiced by the ancients. We speak of the
Noahide laws. That code, among other things, forbade promiscuity and stealing – on penalty of death.

These are Abravanel’s prefatory remarks. In that light, Dinah’s brothers must be judged, Abravanel
posits. Rape, of course, violated the law. Stealing, also, infringed Noahide laws. By raping Dinah, and
then abducting her, Shechem the son of Hamor committed multiple crimes. As for Shechem’s fellow
villagers, they didn’t utter disapproval, let alone criticize the prince’s felonies. Silence in the face of
crime was tantamount to collusion. According to Noahide standards, Shechem’s fellow citizens’ tacit
consent amounted to culpability – punishable by death.

Here's more evidence against the townspeople. Shechem and Hamor gathered their countrymen to
discuss the terms by which Jacob and his sons would dwell among them – they were all to undergo
circumcision. “These men are peaceable with us” the princely father and son declared to the assembled.
“Therefore, let them dwell in the land, and trade therein, for behold the land is large enough for them.
Let us take their daughters for wives, and let us give them our daughters.” The referendum, per se,
passed with loud cheers. And all the men underwent circumcision.

Abravanel believes that in the forefront of the men’s minds was one thing: getting their hands on
Jacob’s vast wealth. This, then, is the backdrop to understanding Simeon and Levi’s deadly deed. After
the two killed the villagers, their brothers came and plundered the town.

Jacob’s sons taught posterity a lesson in morality, summed up by the sentiment: Fight fire with fire. The
villagers conspired to do harm to Jacob. His sons outsmarted them by taking the initiative.

Bible studies with Don Isaac Abravanel’s commentary (also spelled Abarbanel) has withstood the test of
time.  Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. Abravanel observes that chapter 38 digresses from the Bible’s main storyline of Joseph,
training a spotlight on Judah. Why the interlude, Abravanel asks?

“And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from his
brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah.”

“And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from his brethren”provides key context and
chronology for Judah’s departure. It took place after the brothers sold Joseph into slavery. The majority
of Jacob’s sons were keen to kill Joseph, and had issued a death warrant. Present at the legal hearings,
Judah argued convincingly against capital punishment. As a result, Judah saved Joseph’s life. Selling
Joseph into slavery was the best outcome Judah could manage.

Stylistically speaking, the Bible should have followed up chapter 37 – dealing with the sale of Joseph –
with chapter 39, as it pertains to Joseph’s arrival in Egypt. It would read smoothly. Instead, we find
Judah’s story. The interjection comes from left field, per se.

Abravanel gleans three lessons, sharing them with Bible students:

1) Historically, Israel has two distinct kingly lines. One gets traced from Joseph through his sons Ephraim and Manasseh. The other hails from Judah, through Perez. Now, Joseph’s sons were born to his Egyptian wife. Hence, that line should not be viewed as legitimate or worthy of the throne. In contrast, Judah’s son’s pedigree ranked, well, royal. It attests to Tamar’s merit and piety, a woman of valor born to righteous Shem, as the Jewish sages taught.

2) The story of Judah highlights his greatness. “And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from his brethren…” Judah wanted nothing to do with his cruel brothers who sought to murder Joseph, their innocent brother. Though he eked out an arrangement to spare Joseph’s life, Judah could not reconcile himself with his brothers’ cold-heartedness. Besides, Judah could not bear to see Jacob’s anguish. Abravanel inserts a caveat. Despite Judah’s hard feeling for his brothers, he regularly visited Jacob, showing filial piety.

3) Finally, the story of Judah was written in Scripture for posterity. Bible students, for all time, will see divine providence at work. Here is how. For the ancients, infant and child mortality was commonplace. However, none of Jacob’s children or grandchildren died prematurely, as the Creator kept a vigilant eye over them. The two exceptions were Er and Onan, sons of Judah and his wife Bat Shua. They both died young, as the Bible relates in our chapter: “And Er, Judah’s first born was wicked in the sight of God. And God slew him.”Onan also brought sudden death upon himself: “And the thing which he did was evil in the sight of God. And he slew him also.”

To summarize, Abravanel learns that the story of Judah, though stylistically out of place, imparts
important information that Bible students need to know.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Genesis chapter 11, Bible students encounter the inglorious debacle of the Tower of
Babel. Abravanel digs deep into the puzzling storyline. He asks: Where did the generation go wrong?
What underlaid the provocation of the Almighty?

“And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech. And it
came to pass, as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land
of Shinar. And they dwelt there. And they said one to another: Come, let
us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone
and slime had they for mortar.”

Abravanel supplies Bible students with an intriguing, though straightforward, response. Really, he says,
it was a repeat of an earlier and colossal miscalculation that befell Adam, Cain, and their descendants.
We’re talking about a dismal failure to prioritize, to internalize why the Maker made man in the first
place. Abravanel elaborates:

God created Adam in His image and likeness. In our context, it means that the Creator fashioned man to
be rational, and acknowledge God in this world. Put differently, man’s raison d’être centers on
perceiving His mighty endeavors. By so doing, man harmonizes and hones his soul.

Adam’s task, then, was chiefly a transcendental one. As for God, He provided Adam with a lovely garden,
stocked with abundant, nutritious food and drinking water. Indeed, nature smiled upon Adam and Eve,
and graciously opened its cupboards. First man would not have to lift a finger, let alone toil to live well.
Adam’s only “job” was to recognize his Creator, and live accordingly. Man was meant to live moderately
and enjoy physical pleasures maturely.

But Adam missed his cues. A natural life held no appeal. Of creature comforts, he wanted more and
more and more. And so, God expelled Adam from pastoral Eden to a less inviting environment. There, in
humiliation, he would fend for himself in a land cursed by Above.

No longer would nature be kind or forthcoming. Adam brought hardship upon himself, all because he
chose to flout the mission that the Maker requested. Backbreaking labor would be his lot. Adam’s son
Cain fared no better. Passion for make-believe amenities derailed him. He farmed an accursed land. Cain
plowed and the soil mocked him; Cain planted seeds and the soil mocked him more. In the end, Cain
resembled a beast of burden, his brow bent over furrows and fields that would yield no more than a
pittance.

Abravanel surveys the ill fate of other early man, but for brevity, we omit that part of his discussion and
now turn to the generation who would build the Tower of Babel. Abravanel shows how they, no
differently than their forebears, failed to assume the mantle that God had placed upon them.

Understand that God gave sufficient supplies for mankind to subsist. Ample provisions would allow
people to act and live sensibly, while pursuing truth and purpose – nourishing the soul.

However, the post-flood generation wanted more. They were not satisfied with a simple and quiet
lifestyle. Instead, they set their sights on building a metropolis, the Tower of Babel its centerpiece.
Urban planners and architects wrote God out of the script. They also rewrote the play book, per se.

It became fashionable to buy stuff, acquire things. If it meant stealing from others, well, that presented
no moral problem for people seeking upward mobility. Thievery and murder followed. How different
urban existence compared with agricultural life!

Day and night. No longer were folks self-sufficient. For modern society, collectivism stood front and
center. Abravanel quotes King Solomon, who summed it up best: “God made man straight, but they
sought many intrigues.”

Though Abravanel writes more, readers get the gist of the point and understand where the generation
of the Tower of Babel went wrong. For the fuller discussion, please seeAbravanel’s World.