Abravanel

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.

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 25, we find a most vexing encounter between Jacob and Esau, twins
born to Isaac and Rebeccah. The story requires context, if Bible students are going to begin to make
sense of it.

“And Jacob had been cooking a stew. And Esau came in from the field,
famished. And Esau said to Jacob, Pass this red stew, that I can wolf [it
down], I beg you. I’m famished….And Jacob said, Sell me your birthright
first.”

Abravanel provides his interpretation. As is his wont, he hurls poignant questions, in efforts to
understand Jacob’s and Esau’s respective roles within the patriarch’s household. The heated meeting
will do more than define the two brothers’ relationship; it will serve as a primer into western civilization.

Certainly, at least taken at face value, the verses quoted above resound with a most unbrotherly tone,
to put it lightly. Abravanel’s questions follow.

“And the boys grew, and Esau was a wily trapper, an outdoorsman. And Jacob was a scholarly man who
remained in the tents [of study].”If Jacob was a pure and honest soul, why did he treat Esau, his older
brother, so callously? Why would he strongarm Esau into selling his birthright? And for what – a bowl of
lentils? Let’s be honest. Such conduct is detestable, and certainly not becoming of a man who fears God.
Studious Jacob trained himself to avoid temptation, and that, of course, includes keeping hands off that
which does not belong to him.

With regard to Jacob’s ruse to wrest away Esau’s firstborn rights, Abravanel writes more. Readers should
seeAbravanel’s World. But let us share one of Abravanel’s approaches regarding the brothers’
confrontation, one whose aftermath is acutely felt until today.

Abravanel believes that Jacob fumed over the brothers’ role reversal, and sought remedy. Let us explain.
Esau and Jacob’s father Isaac had grown old and infirm; he required daily assistance. That meant
someone – the oldest son traditionally – needed to pick up the slack and perform domestic duties.
Chores included procuring food, cooking etc. Moreover, that someone needed to take charge of family
financial affairs.

Esau went AWOL and ditched dad. For extended periods of time, he was away from home on hunting
expeditions and other dubious pursuits. Meanwhile, Jacob stepped up. He acted as if he was the family’s
first born, attending to his frail father’s needs.

Everything fell on Jacob’s shoulders. Devotedly, he executed all domestic duties – large and small. Thus,
what should have been Esau’s job fell to Jacob – by default. Time elapsed. A pattern emerged. Esau
shunned responsibility. Jacob covered for him.

Things came to a head. “And Jacob had been cooking a stew” that day, as he had been countless times
before. “And Esau came in from the field” – after who knows how long. Jacob snapped. Enough of the
charades, the younger brother might have charged. You don’t want to take care of your sick father. I do.
You don’t care about being the first born, and what that entails. I do.

Esau merely grunted, “Pass this red stew…I beg you. I’m famished. And Jacob said, Sell me your
birthright first.” For Abravanel, this is crucial context to the brothers’ tense exchange. For Jacob it was a
turning point, a time of reckoning. Esau would either have to change his errant ways or acknowledge the
truth about Jacob’s de facto role in the family.

Esau’s predictable answer comes in a later verse, as he scarfs down Jacob’s stew. “And Esau said, Behold
I am at the point to die, and what profit shall the birthright do to me?”In Jacob’s mind, buying the
birthright formalized matters, consistent with the facts on the ground.

The Biblical narrative in Samuel records one of the most controversial encounters
in the entire Bible—the story of King David and Bat Sheva. This is precisely the
question I put to my Bible study group, which has taken several sessions to work
out, or rather, to work through.

Samuel in fantastic shorthand, essentially a summary or overview of the topic.

Storyline: King David had intimate relations with Bat Sheva, a woman
married to a warrior in the king’s service. From the relationship, Bat Sheva conceived. King David recalled the woman’s husband, Uriah Hachiti, from the
front and urged him to spend time with his wife. Uriah refused to go home,
insisting that the offer offended a noble soldier’s sensitivities. His commanding
officer and fellow soldiers were in the field “roughing it.” After the king’s second
attempt to send Uriah to visit his wife failed, he resolved that Uriah should return
to the front and there be ambushed by the enemy. This resolution came in the
form of a royal directive to Yoav, the commander. Uriah was, in fact, killed by
enemy fire upon his return to duty.

Abravanel lists five compelling reasons that point to a straightforward
indictment of David. 4 Conclusion: the king was guilty of heinous crimes; he
perpetrated a mighty wrong. Heaven meted out punishment to the culprit. For his
part, the king exhibited remorse and indeed heartrending contrition.

Abravanel then turns to the Talmud’s interpretation of the very same facts.
The rabbis or Chazal take a totally different tack, infusing Jewish tradition and
insight. Not only do they hold the king blameless, but they go a step further:
“Whoever says that David sinned [with Bat Sheva] errs.” 5

Where does this leave us? Did King David sin with Bat Sheva?

According to Abravanel, Chazal’s innocent verdict speaks to a legitimate,
alternate dimension of Biblical text or drush (דרוש). This stands in marked contrast
to Abravanel, who is intent on discovering the verses’ plain reading or pshat (פשט).
Abravanel is always reverential of Chazal, while acknowledging the pshat/drush
divergence. The story of David and Bat Sheva eloquently highlights their distinct
respective outlooks.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508), also spelled Abarbanel was a penetrating Jewish thinker, scholar, and
prolific Biblical commentator. In Genesis Chapter 2, he unearths the meaning of the two trees featured
in the Garden of Eden: the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Regarding the tree of life, Abravanel questions: How is it that the tree bestows eternal life upon
someone who eats of it? After all, anyone who ingests fruit from any tree can only receive those
qualities or nutrients provided by the tree. Since a fruit’s makeup consists of vitamins and minerals that
remain in man’s bloodstream for a limited time, the impact will be finite. Surely, someone who eats that
fruit does not become immortal.

Before Abravanel answers the question concerning the tree of life, he poses a parallel one about the
tree of knowledge of good and evil. It is: How could it be that the tree of knowledge, a tree devoid of
feeling or intelligence, imparts knowledge to the person who eats from it? Again, Abravanel asserts that
fruit can only give to the eater that which itself possesses. So, for example, if pears don’t have any
vitamin k (let alone any emotion or cognition), then a person who eats pears won’t derive any vitamin k
benefit. In our context when we speak about the tree of knowledge, it means that anyone who eats
from that tree shall not receive a boost to his/her I.Q. (intellectual or emotional).

Now Abravanel answers the two questions, and we summarize. Abravanel cites the Talmudic sages’
opinion who learn that Adam’s constitution was a sturdy one; he was created to potentially live and not
die. The rabbis’ position concerning man’s super longevity is not inconceivable, writes Abravanel.

But Adam sinned when he ate from the tree of knowledge. Disobedience to God’s command abruptly
dashed Man’s death-defying potential. Abravanel believes, that had Adam complied with the Creator’s
request, the tree of life would have facilitated a robust life – earning him eternity.

Was Adam originally meant to cheat death and live forever? This question requires explanation. We are
not advocating a position whereby Adam inherently shared traits with the stars and planets, designed to
remain permanent fixtures in the heavens. To be sure, man’s makeup at creation cannot be likened to
the celestials that forever occupy the heavens. That is, Adam was not earmarked to dwell on earth and
not succumb to the grave. Instead, had Adam obeyed God, then the Almighty would have repaid him
handsomely; His kindness and compassion could have catapulted Adam, breathing into him a turbo-
charged existence. But, alas, bumbling Adam blew a golden opportunity to skirt death.

Abravanel now turns to discuss the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Let us restate our original
suppositions and definitions. In fact, the fruit held no sway over man’s knowledge base, not of good and
evil in a moral sense (because trees cannot convey morals) and not of I.Q. (because trees cannot convey
intelligence). Rather, Abravanel says that the knowledge fruit worked as an aphrodisiac. The more a
person consumed, the more desirous of sex he or she became.

As for redefining the tree of knowledge, Abravanel puts forth that In Biblical parlance, “knowledge”
refers to sexual relations. “Knowledge of good” suggests normal and moderate spousal intimacy;
whereas, “knowledge of evil” conveys exaggerated sexual conduct, lechery.

God forbade Adam to eat the intoxicating fruit, as excessive sexual behavior would distract him from
religious values. Crucially, the Torah did not frown upon looking at or even touching fruit from the tree
of knowledge. As stated, Heaven blesses man insofar as he enjoys appropriate spousal intimacy.
However, sexual promiscuity will not be condoned by the One Above. Hence, Adam was told not to eat
the fruit.

Genesis chapter 2. Based on Abravanel’s World of Torah, by Zev Bar Eitan.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508), also spelled Abarbanel was a penetrating Jewish thinker, scholar, and
prolific Biblical commentator. It is, of course, nary impossible to pare Abravanel’s encyclopedic and
groundbreaking commentary on the Bible, and reduce it to a short blog. Indeed, where would one start?
How could we sift through the thousands and thousands of pages of his magnus opus, in order to
produce an Abravanel mission statement?

In his commentary on Genesis chapter two, Abravanel shares the following thoughts with his readers.
Does it fit as a mission statement? It just might.

Genesis begins with the creation story, outlining six days of work. On the seventh day, God rested.
Chapter two delves into the human face of creation, featuring the Garden of Eden, Adam, Eve, and a
seductive snake. On the curious, if not downright dubious venue and cast of personalities, Abravanel
bombards his readers with dozens of questions.

•  Is the entire story allegory?
•  Is the creation of man in God’s image and likeness literal?
•  A tree of life, a tree of the knowledge of right and wrong?
•  Talking snakes?

These are a sampling of the burning questions and issues that Abravanel poses. They continue for many
pages, crafted with clarity and insight. Before he provides answers, he writes (and I translate from the
Hebrew):

“And after all of these points, designed to wake up sleepy heads, I will rise to the occasion. Thoughtful
analysis will be brought to bear, showing one or more ways to approach these heady topics. Text and
context are front and center. When we conclude our discussion, all queries will be answered – without
exception – all firmly based in this chapter’s verses.

Verily, the words of God’s Torah are perfect. To be clear, readers will not be asked to suspend or waive
reason, for religion and reason are intrinsically compatible. The ways of the Maker are straight, and
swerve not.”

Abravanel, as always, speaks his mind. He asks hard-hitting questions to stimulate interest in Judaism in
general, and Bible study in particular. His method takes into account an in-depth study of the verses,
focusing on their context within the greater narrative. Finally, he asserts that God’s Torah is divine.

Is this Abravanel’s mission statement? Humbly, I submit that it is.

Genesis chapter 2. Based onAbravanel’s World of Torah, by Zev Bar Eitan.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. The Bible devotes an entire chapter in Genesis to Esau, meticulously charting out his
family tree. Furthermore, our chapter traces Esau’s move from the Holy Land to Seir.

“And Esau dwelt in the mountain land of Seir, Esau is Edom.

Abravanel discusses both subjects, Esau’s descendants as well as his relocation to Seir. See Abravanel’s
World for the fuller treatment of both subjects. For brevity, we will focus on Esau’s generations.
Abravanel questions why the Bible allocates an entire chapter to chronicling Esau’s seed, seeing that The
Five Books of Moses is essentially concerned with the Jewish nation, God’s Chosen People?

Jewish attitudes toward Esau are regulated by divine law. “You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your
brother.”On a practical level, Abravanel writes, Hebrews need to know Esau’s generations so they do
not infringe divine law by mistreating their brethren. One strain of Esau’s offspring, however, proves the
exception. “And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz, Esau’s son. And she bore to Eliphaz Amalek.” On a
number of occasions in the Bible, we read that the nation of Amalek repeatedly attempted to obliterate
the Children of Israel. God, thus, commanded the Hebrews to be on guard against Amalek attacks,
demanding the Jews to wipe out all memory of Amalek, their nemesis.

Abravanel lists more reasons to explain why the Bible records Esau’s generations. Here, we’ll add one
more to the rationale provided above. In the previous chapter, the Bible writes: “Now the sons of Jacob
were twelve.”Each one of Jacob’s twelve tribes was upright. The Maker walked in their midst. How
opposite were Esau’s descendants! The majority of his grandchildren were ill-legitimate, according to
ancient tradition. This is deduced from the verse: “Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan, Adah
the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon the
Hivite.”Tradition attests to Zibeon fathering bastard children with Anah’s wife, who was his daughter in
law.

Our chapter testifies to the vast difference in moral character separating Jacob and Esau. While Jacob’s
seed remained chaste and virtuous, the same may not be said about Esau’s descendants; they were
philanderers. The Bible marks that for the record.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a seminal Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. Exodus 37 continues to discuss the Tabernacle. We add a parenthetical note on Biblical
measurements: one cubit roughly equals eighteen inches

“And Bezalel made the ark of acacia wood, two and a half cubits in
length, one and a half cubits in width, and one and a half cubits in
height.”.

Constructing the Tabernacle had been, to state the obvious, a colossal undertaking. Beside the
structure’s parameter walls consisting of curtains, there were sacred vessels that became fixtures of the
Tabernacle’s courtyard, foyer, sanctuary, and holy of holies. Indeed, much painstaking detail went into
assembling the Creator’s sanctuary in all its glory.

But who were the builders, Abravanel asks? Moreover, when referring to the construction of the
Tabernacle, why does the Bible on occasion use a plural conjugation of the verb “to do” or “to make?”
To the point, Abravanel noted that the earlier chapter employed the plural conjugation (“And every
wise-hearted man among them that wrought work made the Tabernacle…”). Yet, the verbs in our
chapter utilize the singular conjugation. Finally, Abravanel asks: Why does our chapter’s lead verse link
Bezalel with the ark (And Bezalel made the ark…”)? Contrast that with all other Tabernacle artifacts that
do not associate any specific artisan with the holy vessels. Thus, when speaking about the table,
lampstand, altars etc., we find generic language oft repeated (“…and he made…”).

Abravanel answers as follows. In the previous chapter, “And every wise-hearted man among them that
wrought the work made the Tabernacle”speaks in broad strokes, supplying Bible students with an
introduction of the Tabernacle construction. That is, “wise-hearted” men and their staff applied their
talents and efforts into each and every holy vessel.

Regarding the sequence of production, we read first about “ten curtains: of fine twined linen, and blue
and purple, and scarlet, with cherubs…”Abravanel proposes that since the curtains may have been the
first Tabernacle items assembled, they required a joint or group effort. That would explain the verb
conjugation in plural. The artisans, with approval of the Tabernacle superintendent (Bezalel) sought to
quickly erect parameter walls. Once the Tabernacle had been demarcated, specialists could work
independently and construct smaller vessels. Thus, the Bible conjugates in singular (“…and he made…”),
repeating the same verbal phrasing for table, lampstand, altars etc.

This modus operandi of small cells of workmen clarifies how the Tabernacle and its vessels became
assembled. Abravanel notes an exception to the rule. “And Bezalel made the ark…” Owing to the ark’s
unique role and holiness, Bezalel’s own hands crafted every inch of it.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Exodus Chapter 1 the Bible painstakingly details the Hebrew population explosion in
Egypt, one that spooked the king and terrified his subjects.

“And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and
multiplied, and waxed exceedingly mighty. And the land was filled with
them.”

Expressing fears of the Hebrews forming a fifth column, Pharaoh took action. “And he said unto his
people: Behold, the children of Israel are more and mightier than we. Come let us deal wisely with them,
lest they multiply, and it will come to pass that when there befalls a war, they will also join themselves
with our enemies and fight against us, and leave the land.”

Abravanel notes Pharaoh’s convoluted thinking. That is, if the Jews’ numbers and strength already
reached mammoth proportions, why does the monarch phrase the problem in future tense: “And it will
come to pass…they will also join themselves with our enemies?” The problem was now.

Regarding Pharaoh’s worries, Abravanel poses a second question. “And it will come to pass…they will
join themselves with our enemies and fight against us, and leave the land.”But if the Hebrews
presented an existential problem for Egypt, why does Pharaoh state that they will “fight and leave the
land?”What stops Hebrew fighters from conquering Egypt – whether in alliance with other belligerents
or by themselves?

On this topic of Pharaoh’s strategy for internal affairs, let us call them, Abravanel concludes his line of
questioning. Why should Pharaoh fear that the Hebrews would “leave the land?” That should have been
music to the king’s ears, seeing that he viewed the Hebrews as a ticking time bomb.

Abravanel explains Pharaoh’s assessment of the Jews. When the king states, “Behold, the children of
Israel are more and mightier than we” he did not mean that, at present, the Jews were more populous
than the Egyptians. They weren’t. Pharaoh meant that the Hebrews were a sizeable nation. But, in the
muscle department, they were tough, even tougher than the Egyptians.

“Come let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply, and it will come to pass that when there befalls a
war…” Pharaoh foresaw trouble afoot. Should Egyptian enemies attack, Hebrews could very well join the
invaders, the king predicted. In such scenarios, Egypt would be defeated. At that juncture, the Jews
could disgorge Egyptians and remain, or leave the country, to wherever they decided to go.

In sum, Abravanel reframes the verses. By so doing, Bible students get a better glance into our chapter,
as well as a glimpse into Pharaoh’s thinking – and planning.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Exodus Chapter 10, Bible students read about plagues number eight and nine to hit
Egypt: locusts and darkness. (The tenth and final plague is a subject for the next chapter.)

“And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh and said unto him: Thus
says God, the God of the Hebrews. How long will you refuse to humble
yourself before Me? Let My people go, that they may serve Me. Or
else…I will bring locusts unto your border.”

Abravanel raises a question regarding Scripture’s style or editing. To preface, the Five Books of Moses
are further subdivided into (roughly) 52 portions. Each portion, independent from the next, is read
publicly in synagogues every Sabbath. Chapter 10 starts a new portion.

Abravanel finds it peculiar that this portion opens up with verses discussing locusts. As stated, this is
plague number eight – not number one – hence a strange place to begin a portion. Abravanel makes
another point about the unusual placement of locusts here. He notes that according to hallowed Jewish
tradition, it is the last four plagues which are grouped together, not the last three. Thus, if the Bible
wanted to start somewhere toward the end of the plagues, and not with the first one, it could have
begun our chapter with hail (plague #7). In a word, what lies behind the Bible’s style here?

Abravanel suggests that the arranger of the Bible’s portions had good reason to begin with locusts –
actually two reasons. For brevity, we only bring Abravanel’s first rationale. See Abravanel’s World for
the fuller discussion.

The plague of locusts brought a change in Pharaoh’s prior attitude toward the God of Israel. From here
on out, palpable improvement marked the king’s behavior. He not only began to believe in the Maker,
but he also showed signs of fearing Him. This revelation would accompany Pharaoh for the duration of
plagues numbers eight (locusts), nine (darkness), and ten (slaying of the first born). That is, from the
moment Moses told Pharaoh of an impending plague, the king shuddered. He believed that God would
deliver, as per the prophet’s warning.

To conclude, Abravanel posits that until the eighth plague, Pharaoh doubted Moses’ words and poo-
pooed the warnings. That is, until they clobbered Egypt, the king remained nonchalant. However,
starting with the plague of locusts, the light bulb went off, to be colloquial. In that vein, the Bible’s style
makes sense and explains why plague number eight is an excellent start place for a new portion.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. Chapter 11 delves into the tenth and final plague: the slaying of Egypt’s first born. It also
touches on Pharaoh’s obstinacy, before relating Moses’ and Aaron’s pivotal roles in the Exodus.

“And God said unto Moses: Pharaoh will not hearken unto you, that My
wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt. And Moses and Aaron
did all these wonders before Pharaoh. And God hardened Pharoah’s
heart, and he did not let the Children of Israel go out of his land.”

Abravanel seeks clarification of our verse. Specifically, why does there appear a repetition and rehashing
of Pharaoh’s stubbornness, leading to God’s pronouncement of punishment: “That My wonders may be
multiplied in the land of Egypt”The sentence’s verb is conjugated in future tense: “That My wonders
may be multiplied…” Yet, the Maker had already dished out all ten plagues.

So, Abravanel asks what else was in store for Pharaoh and Egypt? Moreover, the very next verse informs
Bible students that Moses and Aaron completed their tasks: “And Moses and Aaron did all these
wonders before Pharaoh.”

Abravanel explains the import of our verses. Readers should not walk away from the Exodus narrative
with incorrect conclusions. Abravanel focuses first on Pharaoh’s intransigence. God had foreseen this
well in advance, and informed His purpose in bringing the plagues, “that My wonders may be multiplied
in the land of Egypt.”

Next, Bible students should not incorrectly deduce that Moses and Aaron had been careless or
negligent in performing their jobs and thereby contributed to Pharaoh’s constant backpedaling. Actually,
wonders and miracles adhered to the Maker’s playbook to a T, attesting to both prophets’ alacrity and
proficiency. Notwithstanding, all of Moses’ warnings fell on deaf ears.

This brings us to the chapter’s closing verse: “And God hardened Pharaoh’s heart…” Abravanel
interprets the oft-quoted description of the king’s bullheadedness. It teaches that God endowed
Pharaoh with stamina and a stout heart. Like a mighty warrior, the king mustered inner resolve to
withstand relentless and mounting battering implicit in the plagues.

Pharaoh’s recalcitrance, then, had nothing to do with God withholding the opportunity for the king to
repent his sins. The Creator did, however, imbue Pharaoh with a heart of indomitable will. With it, Egypt’s king chose evil. Nothing could sway Pharaoh from parting with his Hebrew servants…except for a series of debilitating plagues.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. Exodus Chapter 12 pertains to the Pascal lamb sacrifice, providing a plethora of details about it.
When was it sacrificed? What type of animal could be used? How was it eaten? These are a sampling of
some salient aspects of the divine commandment given to the Jewish nation.

“And God said unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt saying: This
month shall be unto you the beginning of months. It shall be the first
month of the year to you.”

Characteristically, Abravanel analyzes the different aspects of the Pascal lamb with painstaking care. See
Abravanel’s World for the entire discussion. For our purposes here, we select one requirement – the
timing. The Pascal lamb was to be offered in the afternoon of the fourteenth day of the first month of
the Jewish calendar. “And you shall keep it unto the fourteenth day of the same month…”

Indeed, one marvels at the precision of the Jewish calendar, one that mortals could not have devised.
This is because of the intricate mathematical calculations involved in plotting the celestials. For example,
how would astronomers account for the discrepancy between the number of days in a lunar year versus
the solar one?

“This month shall be unto you the beginning of months.” But how many days are in a month? How many
months in a year? How do we insert or intercalate leap years? Part of the genius of the Jewish calendar
is that it adds one month intermittently throughout the nineteen-year solar cycle.

Again, this blog will not go into more technical calendric detail other than to state that there are seven
years (out of a nineteen-year cycle) where the Jewish calendar adds an entire month. When an extra
month is inserted, that year has thirteen months and not twelve.

In concluding, we quote Abravanel’s ancient Greek source who expressed unabashed adulation for the
ancient Hebrews and their mathematical acumen. For him, the Jewish calendar attested to the Chosen
People’s intimate relationship with God.

“It is proof positive that prophecy rested among them.” – Ptolemy, Greek mathematician

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. Chapter 13 tracks the escape route of the departing Hebrews from Egypt.

“And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led
them not by the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was
near, for God said: Lest the people lose heart when they see war, and
they return to Egypt. But God led the people about, by the way of the
wilderness by the Red Sea. And the Children of Israel went up armed
out of the land of Egypt.”

Abravanel asks on a seemingly superfluous phrase in our verse that mentions Pharaoh: “And it came to
pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go.”The focal point of the verse, says Abravanel, is that God led
them out. Why repeat the fact that Pharaoh gave permission? This information can be gleaned from the
previous chapter.

Abravanel’s first response follows. From the first communication that God had with Moses at the
burning bush, the endgame had been to bring the Hebrews into the Promised Land. Of course, all
travelers to any given destination choose the most direct route. Economy is of essence. The Bible, then,
must explain why this expedient had been ignored. Why didn’t God lead His people along the Coastal
Route, through the land of the Philistines? Abravanel quotes an ancient travel guidebook: “The trip from
Egypt to Jerusalem takes eight days, if one travels via Ashkelon.”

“And it came to pass…that God led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines, though that was
near…”Abravanel solves the mystery behind the Hebrew’s circuitous journey, as dictated by God. Bible
students, Abravanel says, should not draw the wrong conclusion. The Jews did not flee Egypt via the
desert route in order to throw off suspecting Egyptians, who likely would attempt to round them up and
force them back into slavery. Put differently, the Hebrews did not zigzag for purposes of misleading
Egyptians in their hot pursuit.

Our verse makes it plain that the Hebrews were not runaways or fugitives; Pharaoh sanctioned their
exit. “And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not by the way of the
Philistines…”

In sum, here is Abravanel’s answer. He writes that although the king granted the Hebrew permission to
leave, and although the Jews were not fugitives, still, there was a compelling reason behind the 
Creator’s desire to have the nation shun the Coastal Route. “For God said: Lest the people lose heart
when they see war, and they return to Egypt.”God calculated that the Philistines would defend their
borders and fight the Jews, tooth and nail, to keep them out of their territory.

See Abravanel’s World for the full discussion and true reason behind God’s interest in leading the
Hebrews into the wilderness.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Exodus, Chapter 14 captures the dramatic story of the utter demise of Pharaoh and his army.
Down to the last man, they all drowned in the Red Sea.

“And God said to Moses saying: Speak unto the Children of Israel, that
they turn back and encamp before Pi-hahiroth…And Pharaoh will say of
the Children of Israel that they are entangled in the land. The wilderness
has shut them in.”

Abravanel asks: Why did the Creator see fit to trick and entice Pharaoh into pursuing the Hebrews? “And
God said to Moses saying: Speak unto the Children of Israel, that they turn back…” Zigzagging gave the
distinct impression that Moses had no clue how to navigate the treacherous wastelands, and so they
marched in circles. Pharaoh believed his former “confuzzled” servants were marching right into his
hands.

Abravanel learns that God resolved to obliterate the Egyptians with much fanfare for two reasons. One
stemmed from a divine commitment made from God to the patriarchs. Recall, the Maker promised to
increase their descendants’ seed, to free the Jews from Egyptian bondage, and to bring them into a
comely land.

However, when God beheld the Jewish nation, He saw a people that were in a sorry state. Here was an
abject nation, broken and weak. The mighty Canaanites, God assessed, would make short shrift of the
hapless Hebrews, if nature was to run its course. The mismatch would result in a rout, the Jews
humiliated, not to mention their population decimated.

The compassionate Almighty devised a fix. He would make sure that the news of the Egyptian army’s
defeat would reverberate far and wide. Whoever heard of Pharaoh’s sensational demise would be in
shock. Indeed, the parting of the Red Sea provided the perfect, miraculous backdrop. And, it did the
trick. Canaanites, Philistines, and Edomites to list just three hostile nations, trembled before the Jews, as
the Bible makes explicit.

Here is a second rationale for God’s luring Pharaoh into His trap: divine payback. Justice demanded
retribution for infanticide. Egyptians drowned Hebrew babies. Now the murderers would pay the price.

In summary, divine wisdom crafted a plan that would instill fear into every Canaanite’s heart. When it
came to liberating the Holy Land, Hebrew warriors would conquer it in a cinch. See Abravanel’s World.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. Chapter 15 pertains to the Jew’s jubilation after experiencing the miracle at the Red Sea.
Abravanel takes the opportunity to digress from his verse-to-verse commentary and discuss song or
poetry, from a Jewish retrospective. The Hebrew essay is lengthy. Please see Abravanel’s World.

“Then sang Moses and the Children of Israel this song unto God, and
spoke saying: I will sing unto God, for He is highly exalted. The horse
and his rider has He thrown into the sea.”

Here is a shorthand summary of Abravanel’s discourse. One type of song/poem is characterized by its
form. It’s written with melody in mind, though this type does not have musical accompaniment. It is
marked by meter and rhythm. Thus, these poems adhere to a style whereby the ends of the stanzas will
share two or three common letters. Holy Writ does not contain poems of this sort, rather they came into
usage at a later historical period. This literary style flourished when the Jews resided in the Arab or
Muslim countries (circa 8 th -15 th centuries), attesting to the host culture’s influence upon those Jewish
literati. Still, those authors penned their poems in the Hebrew language. Sweet songs, common themes
praised God, the intellect, and wisdom.

Type 2 song or poem did have musical instrumentation, but not necessarily strict, poetic form. It offered
high praise to the One Above. Men of renown uttered these incantations, as David the psalmist writes:
“The voice of rejoicing and salvation is in the tents of the righteous; the right hand of God does
valiantly.”These poems utilized pleasant melody, vocals, and instrumentation to resonate with listeners,
inspiring greater religious awareness. Examples of type 2 can be found in the Five Books of Moses, the
Book of Job, as well as Proverbs. Emphasis was on mnemonic device, aiding listeners to commit those
songs to memory.

Type 3 relied on hyperbole, turn of phrase, and allegory. The purpose was to laud the subject at hand, or
conversely, to demean it. It sought to bring joy or pain to the audience, an emotive experience. In a
word, type 3 set out to influence man, to profoundly move him. Owing to its potency, it has been
likened to medicine; healthy people need not take it. A tonic for a hurting heart and melancholy soul.

In which category type does the song in our chapter belong? Abravanel’s World gives the answer.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Exodus Chapter 16 we read about the Hebrews one month into their desert sojourns.
By that time, the nation began to experience extreme hardships due to dwindling food and water
supplies.

“And they journeyed from Elim, and all the congregation of the Children
of Israel came unto the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and
Sinai…And the whole congregation murmured against Moses and Aaron
in the wilderness. Then God said unto Moses: Behold I will cause to rain
bread from heaven…”

Abravanel poses two questions on our verses. The firsthas to do with the Bible’s chronicling of the
places where the Jews encamped. Why, Abravanel asks, are some venues omitted from our chapter?
Second, why didn’t the Maker lead His people along friendlier desert pitstops that offered basic
amenities, like potable water? People and animals can only survive three days without that most basic
of all provisions.

Abravanel puts the nation’s first, post-Exodus travels into perspective. God was about to reveal Himself
to the entire encampment at Mount Sinai. There, the Hebrews would receive the Five Books of Moses
and divine precepts. Given that impending rendezvous with the Maker, it was deemed necessary to
keep the early desert rest stops bare and desolate. In a word, God wanted the Hebrews to arrive at Sinai
with the requisite religious sensibilities.

Dependency on God started the intimate relationship on the right foot, per se. It also instilled within the
body politic the need to plead for relief before the Almighty. God would heed the cries, delivering
provisions. Belief in the compassionate, and attentive, Creator would be etched in Jewish souls. He is the
One Who causes water to flow from flint. He is the One Who drizzles bread from heaven. Gradually, the
Chosen People would acknowledge God’s omnipotence.

In brief, God meticulously planned the pre-Sinai setting. The main thing was planting a religious mindset.
When Jews hurt, they call to Heaven for help. The God of Israel will be there; He is forever reliable. That
explains why our chapter does not chronicle each venue, but rather only identifies those places where
the nation got schooled in divine faith. Bible students also learn why God hadn’t punished the Jews for
speaking out. Acute hunger had triggered injudicious speech and conduct.

See Abravanel’s World for the full discussion.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. Chapter 17 finds the Hebrews trudging along desert dunes, increasingly becoming road
weary. Unbearable thirst made them more than cantankerous; they totally lost it.

“And God said unto Moses: Pass on before the people, and take with
you the elders of Israel, and your staff wherewith you smote the river,
and take in your hand, and go. Behold I will stand before you there upon
the rock in Horeb and you shall smite the rock, and there shall come
water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight
of the elders of Israel.”

God came to fix matters. He instructed Moses to take his staff, and perform a miracle with it. A tap with
the rod on rock would cause water to flow, fresh water with which to supply Moses’ brethren. Bible
students are not strangers to the miracles wrought by the staff of Moses.

Abravanel wonders: What ever happened with Moses’ staff? To expand the discussion, we know that
after Aaron passed away, the staff he used to perform miracles had been ceremoniously placed next to
the Ark of Testimony for good safekeeping. There it rested together with the jar that contained heaven-
sent manna. Moreover, Aaron’s staff had a prominent place next to a container of anointing oil. During
the period of Jewish kings, King Josiah hid these holy artifacts, along with the Holy Ark.

But, when it comes to the staff of Moses, the Bible is mum. So is Jewish tradition. Not a word. Not a
peep.

Abravanel shares his hypothesis. He believes that when Moses ascended Mount Nebo – to die there –
he had brought his staff with him. Together, the prophet and the staff of God were buried. Neither, the
Bible makes explicit, will ever be found and unearthed.

The Creator would not sanction any mortal to wield the hallowed staff. This is testimony to Moses’
greatness, and uniqueness. Just as no man will ever reach his prophetic achievement, and just as no
man will ever perform such wonders, so too did Heaven decree that no man will ever lay his hand on the
staff of Moses.

See Abravanel’s Worldfor the full discussion.

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.

“And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people.
And the people stood about Moses from the morning unto evening.”

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. Chapter 18 speaks of Moses’ reunion with his wife, two sons, and father-in-law.
Abravanel notes that due to the leader’s inordinately busy schedule, he only managed to take one day
off to spend with family. After that, Moses was back at the grind.

Jethro observed his son-in-law’s arduous hours serving the Hebrews, and asked him: “What is this thing
that you do to the people? Why do you sit alone, and all the people stand about you from morning unto
evening?” Abravanel fills in the details regarding Moses’ intense workload, listing the prophet’s manifold
duties that gave him no respite. A close reading of the verses reveals much, as we shall now illustrate.

“And Moses said unto his father-in-law: Because the people come unto me to inquire of God.” This,
according to Abravanel, stresses Moses as man of God. That is, the Jews waited in line to speak with
Moses in order to learn of the future. Hence, if someone was sick, he would ask if the disease would
subside, or kill him? Perhaps, someone might inquire of the prophet if he could tell him to where his
animals scampered off? Seeing that Moses was privy to “inside information”, if you will, those
individuals who were distressed waited in cue to get answers to pressing, personal needs.

Moses also advised people who worked in the camp’s administration or tribal councils. They sought
sagely counsel from their leader concerning travel logistics, for example, or other administrative issues.

Still others required Moses’ legal mind to sort out folk’s quarrels and questions of torts etc., as it says:
“When they have a matter, it comes unto me, and I judge between a man and his neighbor.”

In addition, Moses attracted another category of visitors. We refer to students who sought to learn
God’s teachings. “And I make them know the statutes of God and His law.” Although Jethro and the
family arrived prior to the Law giving event at Sinai, still Moses had received some divine statutes at
Marah. Eager pupils desired to grasp God’s ethos, His law.

Abravanel ties the discussion all together. Moses, he writes, wore four hats, per se. In his role as a
trusted prophet, he revealed the future. As leader par excellence, he advised others how to govern
wisely. Sitting on the court’s bench, he mediated judiciously. Finally, as a pedagogue, Moses
disseminated Torah, educating students in the intricacies of law.

Abravanel’s World discusses more of Jethro’s concerns and solutions, so that Moses and the Hebrews
would function maximally and smoothly.