Abravanel

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. Chapter 48 brings Bible students closer to Jacob’s final days. The patriarch summoned
Joseph, as our chapter recounts. The blind patriarch revealed to Joseph divine secrets about the future,
a destiny that Heaven laid bare before him in Luz, decades earlier.

“And Jacob said unto Joseph: God Almighty appeared unto me at Luz in
the land of Canaan, and blessed me. And said unto me: Behold, I will
make you fruitful…. And I will make of you a company of peoples, and
will give this land to your seed after you for an everlasting possession.
And Israel beheld Joseph’s sons, and said: Who are these? And Joseph
said unto his father: They are my sons, Whom God has given me
here…Now the eyes of Israel were dim for age, so that he could not
see.”

Abravanel zeroes in on the father-son dialogue. Jacob, as stated, revealed to Joseph that which the
Creator had foretold in Luz. Mysteries galore. Now, as he lies dying, the hoary patriarch could make out
shadows of two men within earshot, hearing Jacob’s divine secrets. It prompted Jacob to ask: “Who are
these?”Answering, Joseph responded: “They are my sons, Whom God has given me here.”

Abravanel asks concerning Joseph’s answer: Why did Joseph tell his father that God had given him two
sons in Egypt? Jacob, of course, knew that when Joseph went to Egypt, he was single and had no
children.

Abravanel clarifies what Joseph meant. Jacob realized that his private conversation with Joseph, was,
well, not private. Two others had been present, eliciting the visually-impaired patriarch’s curiosity:
“Who are these?” Joseph had been listening intently, as his father revealed the future, things he had
heard in Luz. “They are my sons, Whom God has given me here,” Joseph replies.

Joseph wanted to show Jacob that he understood God’s prescient message, uttered in Luz. “Here” does
not refer to location – Egypt. The fact that Ephraim and Manasseh were not born in Canaan was
abundantly clear. Instead, Joseph conveyed the reason behind his fathering two sons in Egypt. “They are
my sons, Whom God has given me here.” That is, as Joseph processed and internalized what God had
foretold to Jacob in Luz.

“And said unto me: Behold, I will make you fruitful…And I will make of you a company of peoples…”
Because of that prophecy spoken in Luz, Joseph comprehended that he had been blessed by Above with
these two sons. Put differently, Joseph realized that elements of the Luz communication materialized. As
a consequence of God’s promise, he had fathered Ephraim and Manasseh in Egypt.

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. Chapter 50 closes out the book of Genesis, chronicling the state funeral procession
accorded to Jacob, the third Hebrew patriarch. Indeed, the procession had been widely attended by
family and Egyptian royalty. “And all the house of Joseph, and his brethren, and his father’s house, only
their little ones and their flocks and herds, they left in the land of Goshen. And there went up with him
both chariots and horsemen. And it was a very great company.”

“And when the days of weeping for him were past, Joseph spoke unto
the house of Pharaoh saying: If I have found favor in your eyes, speak, I
pray you, in the ears of Pharaoh saying: My father made me swear,
saying: Behold, I die. In my grave which I have dug for myself in the land
of Canaan, there you shall bury me.”

The Bible mentions that the Jews’ children, as well as their flocks and herds, remained back in Egypt.
Abravanel questions why Bible students need to know about the cattle and sheep. Was the livestock
planning on taking part in Jacob’s burial, digging his grave? Were cows and goats to deliver stirring
words of eulogy, Abravanel wryly remarks?

Here is the import. Regarding court protocol, Abravanel writes that while Joseph grieved over his father,
he did not permit himself to speak to Pharaoh’s attendants, let alone to Pharaoh himself. This reflects
mourning practices, requiring immediate family of the deceased to rend their garments and put on
sackcloth. It would be an affront to the throne, had Joseph appeared publicly.

“Joseph spoke unto the house of Pharaoh”, for Abravanel, is not literal. Rather, it teaches that Joseph
coached his brothers. They appealed to the house of Pharaoh, soliciting them to have Pharaoh grant
permission to bury Jacob in Hebron. “Now therefore let me go up, I pray you, and bury my father. And I
will come [right] back.”Joseph’s family bolstered their petition with an oral promise made by Joseph to
the patriarch: “My father made me swear…”

Pharaoh granted leave. He was duly impressed with the solemn oath: “And Pharaoh said: Go up, and
bury your father, as he made you swear.”

Great care went into the planning of Jacob’s funeral procession; it would pay homage to the patriarch.
“And Joseph went up to bury his father, and with him went all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his
house, and all the elders of the land of Egypt.”Abravanel interjects that Pharaoh may have had ulterior
motives. That is, the monarch may have feared that Joseph and his family might decide to stay in
Canaan, after the interment of their father. It attests to Pharaoh’s observation that Jacob held great
affinity for the Holy Land, while he lived, and even in death. In fact, the twelve tribes hoped to emulate
their father.

Pharaoh wouldn’t hear of it. He began eying the Jews as a potential cheap source of labor. The Hebrews
sought to assuage the king’s concerns, assuring him they had no intention of remaining in Canaan. “Only
the little ones and their flocks and herds, they left in the land of Goshen.”Their womenfolk, babies, and
livestock served as surety; they would not abandon their families and wealth.

Thus, the Bible describes Jacob’s funeral procession. It included the Hebrews and Egyptian notables.
Notably, not all of the patriarch’s family was allowed out. “Only their little ones and their flocks and
herds, they left in the land of Goshen.”For the Hebrews, a storm was brewing.

We now better appreciate the divine wisdom that sequenced the order of Bereshit’s and Shemot’s parshiyot. As for the author, all had been transcribed by Moshe, at the word of God. Moreover, the prophet received commentary on all that the Creator communicated to him. After we have laid out these four introductory rationales, we proceed to Shemot’s commentary, with God’s help.

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 46, we read that Jacob packed up his family to leave famine-plagued Canaan
for Egypt, where Joseph ruled. A stopover in Beer Sheba, and a night vision there, nearly put a spike in
the patriarch’s plan. Abravanel puts our verses into perspective. Bible students are the richer for it.

“And Israel took his journey with all that he had, and came to Beer-
Sheba, and offered sacrifices unto the God of his father Isaac. And God
said unto Israel in the visions of the night, and said: Jacob, Jacob. And
he said, Here I am. And He said, I am God, the God of your father. Fear
not to go down into Egypt, for I will there make of you a great nation.”

Abravanel asks: Why did God need to appear to Jacob in Beer-Sheba in order to calm his concerns? “And
He said….Fear not to go down to Egypt.”Curiously, the patriarch gave no impression of fearfulness. At
the end of the last chapter, Jacob seems to state matter-of-factly: “And Israel said…I will go and see him
before I die.”Our chapter segues from the previous one: “And Israel took his journey with all that he
had, and came to Beer-Sheba…” No worries.

Abravanel teaches that Jacob began his journey to Egypt with a stop to Beer-Sheba, because the place
carried warm associations – the patriarchs prayed there. Further, when Jacob fled Canaan for Paddan-
Aram, he had stopped there. That night, Jacob had his ladder vision, a dream that promised him divine
protection.

Presently, when Jacob came to Beer-Sheba, he “offered sacrifices unto the God of his father Isaac.”
Abravanel finds it odd that Jacob didn’t mention, and invoke, his grandfather Abraham, referring only to
his father Isaac.

Here is Abravanel’s read on the verses. Jacob yearned to visit Egypt and set his eyes upon Joseph. On the
other hand, the patriarch feared leaving the Holy Land, the land that divine providence calls home. Here,
then, was Jacob’s quandary – to go or not to go.

This much Jacob knew, as he grappled for clarity. His grandfather, Abraham, had left Canaan for Egypt
during a famine. Yet, after the binding of Isaac, God said to Isaac: “Do not go to Egypt.”The reason for
God’s injunction had to do with wanting to spare Isaac from seedy Egypt, a society immersed in sorcery
and black magic. A mindless culture.

Abraham was permitted to go to Egypt, because divine providence had not yet been assigned as a
guiding force to him. But, as a result of circumcision and the binding of Isaac that changed; providence
attached to the first patriarch’s descendants. God had cleaved to the Chosen People, and the Chosen
People – His servants – cleaved to Him. And providence, as stated above, permeated throughout
Canaan.

This brings us back to Jacob’s predicament. Isaac was told to remain in the Chosen Land, for God’s eyes
are ever watching over it. Recall, that young Jacob experienced the same uneasiness as he fled the Holy
Land for Paddan-Aram. In the ladder dream, God assured him that He would protect him. “I will be with
you and guard you.” For Jacob’s part, he reciprocated in kind in the form of a pledge. He vowed that
when he returned from Paddan-Aram, he would wholeheartedly serve the Creator.

Now, Jacob arrived in Beer-Sheba, in need of divine inspiration. Should the patriarch abort his dream of
seeing Joseph in Egypt? Jacob “offered sacrifice unto the God of his father Isaac.”Would God forbid
Jacob from leaving the Holy Land, as He had stopped Isaac from going there?

A deeply-conflicted Jacob so wanted to see Joseph, just for a second. The patriarch poured his heart
before God, praying for a dispensation. The Maker told him: “And He said, I am God, the God of your
father. Fear not to go down into Egypt.”From Above, permission was granted.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Genesis chapter 30, God’s fulfilment of Jacob’s earlier dream continues to unfold.
Abravanel supplies Bible students with proper context, as well as the right stance with which to
approach divine blessing.

“And Reuben went in the days of wheat harvest, and found mandrakes
in the field, and brought them unto his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to
Leah, give me, I pray you, of your son’s mandrakes.”

“And your seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west, and to the
east, and to the north, and to the south…” Indeed, the divine communication to Jacob at Beth-El
foreshadowed a rosy future. His seed would grow exponentially. Still, divine blessing should be
construed as conditional; it depends upon the recipient’s worthiness. In our case here, blessing also
assumes it wouldn’t have come to Jacob and his wives had they sat passively.

“And you shall spread abroad” informed Jacob that, in time, he would father twelve tribes. According to
Jewish tradition, Jacob relayed God’s cheery promise to Rachel and Leah, as well as to their respective
handmaids Bilhah and Zilpah. A close examination of the boys’ names reveals as much, a topic
developed in Abravanel’s World. But for our purposes here, let us set matters straight. Abravanel
agrees with other classic Bible commentators who contend that Leah and Rachel were reproductively
impaired. Thus, action would have to be taken to remedy nature’s obstacle.

“And Reuben went in the days of wheat harvest, and found mandrakes in the field, and brought them
unto his mother Leah.” The verse suggests that mandrakes boosted fertility. Hence, Rachel’s request to
Leah: “Give me, I pray you, of your son’s mandrakes.”

For Abravanel, there is a fundamental lesson to be noted. That is, even though Jacob’s family operated
under divine providence, and even though God had promised Jacob prodigious seed, it didn’t give the
patriarch and matriarchs license to sit on their heels, and do nothing. Instead, each one’s efforts were
brought to bear. Prayer and medical assistance, in the form of mandrakes, aided in those efforts. If this
were not the case, the Bible would not have bothered mentioning the story about Reuben and the
mandrakes.

Initially, Leah balked and did not want to part with her son’s mandrakes, highlighting her interests to
conceive additional tribes to the rapidly growing nation. However, an arrangement between Rachel and
Leah was worked out. “And Rachel said, therefore he shall lie with you tonight for your son’s
mandrakes.”Tradition attests to Leah conceiving that night.

In brief, this episode in the Bible conveys how the patriarch and matriarchs nudged, in a manner of
speaking, the wonderful tidings communicated in the Jacob ladder vision. They partnered with the One
Above to help bring about divine providence and promise.

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. Chapter 37 starts one of the Bible’s most disturbing – and protracted – scandals: the sale
of Joseph by his brothers. The sibling’s recrimination, antagonism, conflict, and resolution accompany
readers to the end of the book of Genesis.  But first we read of Jacob's retirement from physical labor.

“And Jacob settled in the land where his father had sojourned, in the
land of Canaan.”

Abravanel sets the scene of the selling of Joseph by first focusing on Jacob. “And Jacob settled in the
land where his father had sojourned, in the land of Canaan.” He asks: What information does the verse
convey? We read in an earlier chapter: “And Jacob came unto Isaac his father to Mamre, to Kiriatharba,
the same is Hebron, where Abraham and Isaac sojourned.” Since the Bible does not mention that Jacob
left or traveled from Hebron, we may safely assume that Jacob settled there.

Abravanel follows up with a second question. “And Jacob settled in the land where his father sojourned”
does not need to spell out the obvious: “In the land of Canaan.” Bible students are fully aware that Isaac
never left Canaan.

According to Abravanel, there are two approaches to this chapter’s lead verses. They provide
remarkable insights into Jacob’s mindset as he settled back home, in Canaan. This blog covers one of the
approaches. See Abravanel’s World for the full treatment.

Abravanel begins by characterizing Jacob during the Paddan-Aram years, when he worked for Laban. An
ambitious go-getter, the patriarch doggedly pursued wealth and material acquisitions – day and night.

From the moment Jacob returned to Isaac in Hebron, his priorities changed. Isaac’s home was wholly
dedicated to spirituality and service to the Maker. Religious opportunity converged from two angles.
One, the first patriarch Abraham set the right tone by establishing Hebron as a place well-suited for
spiritual growth. Jacob’s father, Isaac, for his part, redoubled efforts in maintaining Hebron’s holy aura.
Two, the land of Canaan is wired to inspire man to reach his full potential. God’s chosen land is a fount of divine revelation.

No sooner had Jacob come home than he realigned his goals, himself. Acquiring money and increasing
assets no longer interested him. Instead, Jacob sought solitude, and divine wisdom. He longed to follow
in Abraham’s and Isaac’s footsteps.

But, if Jacob retired, who would pick up the slack and oversee the vast flocks and family empire? The
patriarch eyed his sons, all strapping young men. “And Jacob settled…” He had enough of the nomadic
life, always on the move and lookout for pastures. Now, it was his sons’ turn to keep the business going.

In sum, Jacob’s transition from entrepreneur to noble patriarch occurred when he reached Hebron.
Learning timeless values from Abraham and Isaac, along with the proper ambience and location
afforded by Canaan carried Jacob to ever higher religious awareness. Indeed, Jacob’s spiritual labor
benefited from Hebron’s strong tailwinds, a sacred haunt.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In chapter 42, we read how Joseph’s interpretation of Pharaoh’s dreams was correct.
Seven go-go years in Egypt came and went. A bitter famine began to rear its ugly head. This chapter
focuses on Jacob’s reaction to the harsh reality and existential threat.

“Now Jacob saw that there were provisions in Egypt. And Jacob said
unto his sons: Why do you look upon one another? And he said: Behold,
I have heard that there are supplies in Egypt. Go down there, and buy
for us there, that we may live, and not die.”

Abravanel asks: What is Jacob’s revelation, regarding the news that Egypt was flush with provisions?
After all, Egypt was a vast empire, with much fertile land. It regularly generated a surfeit of crops and
boasted plenty of food supplies. Certainly nothing novel about that. And, of course, Egypt’s
commodities’ market had been well-developed. What, then, did Jacob hear? And what did the patriarch
mean when he asked: “Why do you look upon one another?”

Abravanel explains that Jacob wasn’t interested in disclosing the obvious, namely that Egypt was a
veritable bread basket in the Middle East. Rather, the patriarch had heard that Egypt’s government was
opening their grain to non-Egyptians. “Now Jacob saw that there were provisions in Egypt. And Jacob
said unto his sons: Why do you look upon one another?”

Furthermore, Jacob saw that traveling businessmen were selling Egyptian grain to Canaanites. Jacob’s
family was paying retail. For this the patriarch rebuked his sons, demanding they stop twiddling their
thumbs, per se. “Go down there” Jacob scolded. “And buy for us there, that we may live, and not die.”

Jacob’s sons got an earful about hard work, and healthy attitudes toward making a living and supporting
their families. They should not act arrogantly, as if labor and toil were beneath their honor. Jacob bid
them to stop acting like they were rich and could afford to pay traveling merchants exorbitant prices.
“Go down there”, said Jacob. Don’t put on airs, as if it was too much trouble to go to Egypt and buy
food. In a word, Abravanel teaches the proper Jewish work ethic.

To paraphrase Abravanel: A man must degrade himself, when it comes to buying necessities. Indeed,
there isn’t an ounce of shame or embarrassment in it.

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 chapter 43, a heart-wrenching reunion takes place in Egypt. A disguised Joseph sets his
eyes upon his kid brother, Benjamin. However, Pharaoh’s viceroy isn’t ready to reveal his true identity
and keeps up the façade that Jacob’s sons are treacherous scoundrels and spies.

“And he lifted up his eyes, and saw Benjamin his brother, his mother’s
son, and said: Is this your youngest brother of whom you spoke unto
me? And he said: God be gracious unto you, my son.”

Abravanel asks the meaning of Joseph’s blessing to Benjamin: “And he said: God be gracious unto you,
my son.”What motivated him to bless his younger brother at this juncture? For backstory, Abravanel
calculates that Benjamin was about thirty-one-years old at the time. He adds that Benjamin was married
and a father to ten sons.

The last time that Joseph had seen Benjamin was when his little brother was five or six years old.
Further, Abravanel questions why Joseph snidely asks his brothers: “Is this your youngest brother of
whom you spoke unto me?” Pay attention to the tone.

Abravanel supplies Bible students with important context, prior to answering his questions. “And he
lifted up his eyes, and saw Benjamin…and said: Is this your youngest brother of whom you spoke unto
me?”And then immediately, Joseph blesses Benjamin: “God be gracious unto you, my son.”

Earlier, Joseph accused his brothers of espionage. They denied charges, giving more family details,
including the fact that they had a baby brother who remained in Canaan with his father. Joseph now
beheld the “baby brother”, not a baby at all.

The viceroy feigned anger. He told the men that he was led to believe by their defense that their brother
was a young boy. Joseph would then interrogate the child, who could be expected to talk the truth,
seeing that children are not yet versed in lying. “Is this your youngest brother of whom you spoke unto
me?”Joseph was hardly amused as he looked at an adult, a man in his thirties. Obviously, the young
man could read scripted lines – and lie through his teeth.

But then Joseph thought to himself, that perhaps he overplayed his pretended indignation when he
commented on his younger brother’s age and strength. Joseph sought to counterbalance the positive
description of Benjamin, as an antidote to the ill effects of the evil eye that he may have unwittingly
unleashed. Thus, blessed Benjamin. “And he said: God be gracious unto you, my son.” He prayed to the
Almighty One to bless Benjamin and watch over him, and especially to ward off the evil eye that the
viceroy may have inadvertently provoked with his injudicious words.

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 chapter 44, an epic legal battle takes place between Joseph and Judah. Abravanel sets
the courtroom scene for Bible students so they can better appreciate the legal proceedings.

“Then Judah came near unto him, and said: Please my lord, let your
servant, I pray you, speak a word in my lord’s ears, and let not your
anger burn against your servant, for you are like Pharaoh [in my eyes].”

To begin, Abravanel poses a question on our verse: What does it mean, “Then Judah came near unto
him…?”Two verses earlier we read that Judah had already been conversing with Joseph (still preserving
his anonymity to his brothers): “And Judah said: What shall we say unto my lord…?”

What, then, does it mean now when Judah “came near?” Had Judah been far away, and now moved
somewhere, getting closer to Joseph? Further, Abravanel asks about Judah’s request to “speak a word in
my lord’s ears.”But Judah had been speaking to Joseph, as we noted. Was he not within earshot, per
se?

Abravanel explains our verse’s plain meaning. Earlier in the chapter, Joseph handed down his (contrived)
guilty verdict to Benjamin for stealing his wine goblet. Judah sought to amend Joseph’s decision, begging
for mercy. Asking for Benjamin’s clemency, Judah petitioned Joseph to accept him in his youngest
brother’s stead. He would assume full responsibility for Benjamin’s “crime”, allowing Benjamin to join
his brothers and return to Jacob in Canaan.

Judah sought an appeal to Joseph’s verdict because he had offered Jacob assurances, and underwrote
Benjamin’s safety. “I will be surety for him…” Judah pleaded for a disposition, expressing fears to Joseph
that if Benjamin remained in Egypt, Jacob would writhe in agony and die, so attached was he to his
youngest son.

Judah well understood the delicacy of the mission, considering palace authority; a viceroy’s decision is
not subject to appeal. Discretion was key, Abravanel teaches. Until now, Joseph had been surrounded by
staff, the hearing a public one. That changed. “Then Judah came near unto him.”Judah hoped to speak
with Joseph in privacy. He was, after all, requesting Joseph release a criminal (Benjamin), and
incarcerating an innocent man (Judah), contrary to the viceroy’s indictment: “And he said: “He with
whom it is found shall be my bondman, and you [all] should be blameless.”

“Please my lord, let your servant, I pray you, speak a word in my lord’s ears” suggests a hushed
conversation. Judah knew that confidentiality was vital.

In sum, we now better understand Judah’s tack, one that demanded forethought and tact, so that
Egypt’s viceroy would not lose face by letting Benjamin go free.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. Chapter 39 chronicles Joseph’s ordeal, a slave sold to Egypt: “And Joseph was brought
down to Egypt…”

“And Joseph was brought down to Egypt. And Potiphar, an officer of
Pharaoh’s, the captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him of the hand
of the Ishmaelites, that had brought him down thither. And God was with
Joseph, and he was successful. And he was in the house of his master
the Egyptian.”

Abravanel’s close read of the next verse reveals much. “And God was with Joseph, and he was
successful. And he was in the house of his master the Egyptian.” In a single verse, Abravanel notes, we
read: “And God was…and he was…and he was…” Surely, the Bible could have written more concisely:
“And God was with Joseph, succeeding in his master’s house” or something to that effect. This begs a
question: What does Scripture convey, with its seeming extra verbiage, when a crisper sentence would
have sufficed?

Abravanel insists that the wording was anything but superfluous. Each phrase, he shows, comes to
emphasize a fundamental fact: Divine providence protected and blessed Joseph.

Consider, Abravanel says, what actually transpired with sale of Joseph versus what could have occurred,
had God’s guiding hand been absent.

Sans divine providence, the Ishmaelites who acquired Joseph may have decided to keep him as their
porter, traipsing endless sand dunes. Or, they may have dragged him to far away destinations, say
Timbuktu. Who says that the Ishmaelites couldn’t have sold him to a buyer who engaged in
backbreaking labor, and put Joseph on a chain gang? Perhaps, without divine good fortune, Jacob’s
beloved son could have ended up employed in other degrading jobs – cleaning latrines in a souk?

Really, it doesn’t take much imagination to picture Joseph employed in work far beneath his station, had
the Maker not intervened. But God did intervene, Abravanel makes clear.

And so, Jacob’s favorite son “was brought down to Egypt.” Egypt at that time was a paradigm of
civilization, with creature comforts – no less. Moreover, the Egyptian who purchased Joseph was
“Potiphar, an officer of Pharoah’s…”

Unquestionably, concludes Abravanel, the Creator orchestrated a cushy landing for Joseph, sold
ignominiously as a slave by his brothers. In Egypt, he would excel and flourish, courtesy of 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.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In chapter 41, we read how Joseph’s life takes a radical turn – for the better. His meteoric
journey rise to power started one night, when Egypt’s king’s sleep was disrupted by ghoulish dreams
featuring nightmarish imagery.

“Then Pharaoh sent and called Joseph, and they brough him hastily out
of the dungeon. And he shaved himself, and changed his clothing, and
came in unto Pharaoh.”

Distraught, Pharaoh awoke haunted to the core. He convened his closest counselors to interpret the
dreams, to no avail. They disappointed him, adding to his distress. That’s when the chief butler stepped
forward. He had a recommendation for Pharaoh, a master dream interpreter who just might be able to
decipher the king’s dreams, and assuage his angst.

Abravanel illustrates how divine providence brought Joseph to the pinnacle of power. Specifically, he
notes how the Maker – Doer of good and evil – charts history. In earlier chapters, the Bible records ten
travesties committed against Joseph. Here, God provides ten antidotes, also supported by Scripture.

1) In Canaan, Joseph was hated by his brothers. In Egypt, Joseph was the darling to strangers,
including Pharaoh and his couriers.
2) In Canaan, dreams exacerbated animosity in Jacob’s family. In Egypt, dreams were the vehicle
by which Joseph became popular.
3) Joseph’s brothers stripped him of his coat of many colors. In Egypt, the king outfitted Joseph in
royal raiment.
4) Joseph’s ordeal began when his brothers threw him into a pit naked. Pharaoh summoned
Joseph from his dungeon, and rushed him to the palace after he had shaved and dressed
respectfully in preparation for meeting the monarch.
5) Whereas Joseph had been ignominiously sold in Canaan, in Egypt he was put in charge of selling
local grain.
6) In Canaan, when Joseph approached his brothers, they acted callously, as if strangers. In Egypt,
when his brothers came to buy food, the shoe would be on a different foot, in a manner of
speaking. Joseph pretended he had never laid his eyes upon them.
7) Earlier, Joseph had been alienated from his brothers. Now, they engage him for commerce.
8) Prior, Joseph had been disgraced and degraded. At present, Joseph ruled Egypt.
9) While a slave, Potiphar’s wife tried repeatedly to seduce Joseph. He resisted her bids. In power,
Joseph marries Osnat, daughter of Potiphar.
10) While serving time in prison, the chief butler failed to remember Joseph. When restored to
office, the chief recommends Joseph to Pharaoh.

In sum, we have listed ten providential antidotes custom designed to lift Joseph’s spirits, and comfort
him. For Abravanel, this is proof positive that both good and evil emanate from Heaven. The evil that
had so pained Joseph became stepping stones to his path to fame and glory.

Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator. In Leviticus 7, he explains God’s attitude toward penitents.

“And this is the law of the guilt offering; it is most holy.”

Abravanel observes that both guilt and sin offerings are described in the Torah as “most holy.” On the
surface, this runs counterintuitively to our logic. Since they conjure up man’s wrongdoing, why should
they be so special, so very holy? Contrast sin offerings to peace offerings, brought by people who had
not transgressed God’s commandments. Second-class, per se, peace offerings get referred to as ‘holy
light.’

Abravanel suggests that the Torah imparts an insight about wrongdoers.

How does the Almighty relate to them? Does He disparage them, for having done mischief? Quite the
contrary.

People who acknowledge their wrongdoing, feel contrite about it, resolving to avoid such mistakes in
the future, need not sink into despair. Nor should they view themselves as inferior to righteous folk, on
account of having succumbed to temptation. It simply isn’t true. A penitent is not on a lower, moral level
when compared to the upright who always walks the straight path.

The truth be told, penitents are to be praised for having veered from God’s ways, and yet realigned their
steps, their wayward conduct. God holds such people in especial esteem. The Maker views them as if
they never transgressed, appreciating their efforts – and successes – to conquer evil inclinations.

In this reframed attitude toward penitents, Abravanel echoes the Jewish sages’ sentiment. They write:
In the place where a penitent stands, not even a tzaddik (rigteous person) can stand.

In sum, Heaven’s upbeat message about penitents gets Scriptural support. Guilt and sin offerings are
labeled “most holy”, illustrating that the Creator’s affection and appreciation for those who have done
wrong, yet have pulled them out of moral morass. Indeed, their sacrifices are most holy.

Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a seminal Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. We read about the priestly garments in Exodus 39. Specifically, we refer to the
manufacturing of the ephod, onyx stones, breastplate, robe etc.

“And of the blue and purple and scarlet, they made plaited garments.
And he made the ephod of gold, blue, and purple. They made shoulder
pieces for it. And they wrought the onyx stones. And he put them on the
shoulder pieces of the ephod…”

Even the casual Bible student can’t miss the recurring and glaring grammatical inconsistencies here. For
example:

“They made” – when discussing the ephod.

“He made” – regarding the onyx stones.

“They made” – referring to the breastplate.

“They wrought” – is used for the robe.

“And he put” – for the two wreathen chains of gold.

See Abravanel’s Worldfor the remainder of the priestly garments discussed in this chapter, as well as
the continued singular/plural zigzag associated with them.

What is behind the grammatical anomalies, Abravanel asks? He believes that Bezalel worked side by side
with the other artisans who produced the priestly vestments. Why? It is because Bezalel wanted to
bestow honor and prestige upon Aaron, the high priest. Furthermore, the Tabernacle superintendent
did not want to demean the Hebrews who manufactured those garments. Had Bezalel not taken a
“hands-on” approach the clothing, it might have sent the wrong message. Artisans may have felt
slighted in their work, falsely downplaying their work compared to the work that other craftsmen were
doing, such as making the ark, table, lampstand, and altars.

The Tabernacle’s chief’s presence and input silenced those specious sentiments. Indeed, Bezalel’s touch,
literally and figuratively, sent a strong message. It also explains why the verbs in our chapter utilize,
intermittently, the singular and plural conjugation.

Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator.Parasha Tzav, Leviticus 6 discusses one aspect of a priest’s daily tasks in the Tabernacle. The
Tabernacle’s priestly sanitation department, let us call it, swept up the altar’s ashes, charred remains
from the previous day’s sacrifices.

“And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches
shall he put upon his flesh. And he shall take up the ashes whereto the
fire has consumed the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them
beside the altar.”

Abravanel explores how and when the priests went about this task, where they deposited the collected
altar’s ashes, as well as the theological implications thereof. Put differently, what does “and he put
them beside the altar” teach Bible students here?

Strangely, Abravanel observes, our chapter seems vague about the drop off place of the altar’s ashes.
That is, our chapter lacks clear-cut direction for priests to place ashes to the east of the altar. ‘East of
the altar’ does, however, appear at the beginning of the Book of Leviticus (chapter 1), in the context of
priests cleaning up the charred remains of burnt, bird offerings: “And he shall take away its crop with
the feathers thereof, and cast it beside the altar on the east part, in the place of the ashes.”

Here is Abravanel’s observation, one that leads Bible students to a fundamental, theological takeaway.
When it came to tidying up burnt, bird offerings (chapter 1), the Torah really did not need to spell out
“on the east part”, and could well have sufficed with a more generic phrase “in the place of the ashes.”
That information would have taught readers what the priests did with altar ashes, albeit in a general
sense. Namely, they were brought to a designated area – and discarded there.

But for Abravanel, “on the east part” imparts much, and is not superfluous. The phrase takes a jab at
paganism. They prostrated themselves to the sun. The Torah, thus, disparages the east, of all the four
directions on a weather vane. “On the east” is a not so veiled dig at idolators that believed the sun to be
a deity; they worshipped the great ball of fire, rising daily out of the east.

In our context, Abravanel conveys that for Judaism, the west holds the most esteem, as evidenced by
the holy of holies situated in the western most chamber of the Temple. In contrast, the east conjures up
the shame of the ancients. Their focus on the east, was for Hebrews, an anathema, a dumping station,
as per Scripture: “East of the altar” was merely a trash bin where priests chucked out unwanted altar
ashes of soiled bird feathers (and all other altar residue).

Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a seminal Jewish thinker, penetrating scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. Leviticus (Vayikra) 3 is devoted to peace offerings brought to the Tabernacle. Abravanel explains
the sequence, and importance, of peace offerings coming after the Bible speaks about burnt offerings
(Leviticus 1) and meal offerings (Leviticus 2).

“And if his offering be a sacrifice of peace offerings, if he offer of the
herd, whether male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before
God.”

Are some sacrifices holier than others? According to Abravanel the short answer is an emphatic YES.
Here is why.

If a man is inspired to bring an offering to the Temple, one that will be wholly dedicated to God, he
brings a burnt offering. If a man desires to bring an offering that is partly earmarked for the Maker, and
partly shared with the priests, then he’ll make it a meal offering.

Now we come to our chapter. If a man decides to bring an offering that will be split three ways –
between God, the priests, and himself (and family/friends), it is a peace offering.

When sacrifices are viewed along the lines of the recipient(s), Abravanel teaches, a picture of a clear-cut
hierarchy emerges. On top of the hierarchy is a burnt offering, seeing that it is the sole ownership of the
Creator. Beneath the burnt offering is the meal offering, as it is divided between God and the priests. In
Temple parlance, both the burnt and meal offerings get categorized as ‘holy of holies’ or ‘most holy.’

Third from the top of the sacrifice chart comes peace offerings. In the world of sacrifices, they are
designated as ‘holy light.’

Abravanel goes further in his discussion of ordering or sequence of offerings. Burnt offerings are
brought on the altar, God’s table, to use an anthropomorphism. The second table or offering domain
was found in the Tabernacle’s courtyard. There, the priests partook of their portion of the meal offering.
Lastly, certain sacrifices were enjoyed in Jerusalem – peace offerings. In the Holy City, the proprietors
(along with their guests) shared the meaty repast of peace offerings.

SeeAbravanel’s World for the full discussion of the sequence of animal sacrifices in the Temple,
including his Scriptural sources that bolster Abravanel’s findings.

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 I will send an angel before you. And I will drive out the
Canaanite….”

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. Exodus chapter 33 dives into a fascinating subject: Which holy force will lead the
Hebrews during their desert wandering – God or God’s angel? For Abravanel, it’s anything but a
question of semantics. See Abravanel’s World for the full discussion.

In fact, the question of which mystical force would guide the Jews had already been broached earlier in
the Bible (See Torah Portion Mishpatim). Abravanel provides key context, in order to better get a grip on
this issue of divine versus angelic escort or chaperoneship.

Well, what was at stake? Why did Moses insist on God’s presence (and not an angelic one) and why did
the Creator ultimately acquiesce to the prophet’s entreaty? Moreover, when God tells Moses about the
“changing of the providential guards”, the seer wasn’t the only disheartened party; collectively, the Jews
sulked. “And when the people heard these evil tidings, they mourned. And no man did put on him his
ornaments.”

Explaining the complementary and supplementary passages, Abravanel elucidates. In chapter 32, divine
anger is explicit when God addresses His prophet: “And now go. Lead the people…My angel shall go
before you…Nonetheless, in the day when I visit, I will visit their sin upon them.”Moses would have no
part in it. He was not about to shepherd the Creator’s flock in the wilderness, accompanied by an angel.

Thus, Moses held his tongue, saying nothing in response to God’s announcement, for he believed the
angel’s presence would bring trouble. The prophet also noted that last chapter’s verse made no mention
of the patriarchs, or the Holy Land, for that matter. These omissions were out of character, as other
verses had made reference to the patriarchs and Israel’s comeliness.

This background, for Abravanel, leads us to chapter 33’s lead verses. “And God spoke unto Moses:
Depart, go up…”The Creator informed Moses that He would deed the land to the Hebrews for two
reasons. One stressed Moses’ merit: “You and the people that you brought up out of the land of
Egypt…” God meant, that since the prophet threw his fate with his brethren, and “brought up out of the
land of Egypt”, there would be divine forgiveness for the Golden Calf sin, as well as title to Israel.

The second rationale focused on the fulfilment of an oath uttered to the patriarchs: “unto the land
which I swore unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying unto your seed will I give it.”

Here we have two rationales which illustrate God’s forgiveness for the Molten Calf. But what transpire
in the interim? Which force would escort the Hebrews during the arduous desert trek – God or His
angel? See Abravanel’s World for the full discussion.

“And it came to pass, when Pharoah 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 perhaps the people repent when they see war,
and they return to Egypt.”

On our verse, readers readily note a difficulty with our verse. The Torah appears to disclose God’s
motive for taking the escaped Jews via a desert, rather through the Coastal Route, that would have been
a breeze. And it would have gotten the Jews to Canaan much faster.

But what is written is not the underlying reason for God’s “peculiar” itinerary for His flock, as we shall
soon discuss. Why does the Torah provide a feeble rationale (“Lest perhaps the people repent when
they see war…”), when more meaty ones present themselves? Indeed, opting for a tenuous reason and
omitting the real ones represents a glaring problem with the text.

From the outset of the ten plagues, God was itching, you might say, to part the Red Sea, sending the
Egyptians to Davy Jones’s locker. Below we bring three reasons to explain Heaven’s motive for leading
the Hebrews away from the Coastal Road, instead, directing them via the divine cloud column and pillar
of fire headlong into an arid wasteland.

One has to do with the Hebrews leaving Egypt courtesy of and by permission of Pharoah. It was
understood that the monarch authorized them to serve God in the desert per Moshe’s request: “Let my
people go, that they may hold a feast unto Me in the wilderness.” From the first meeting at the palace,
the wilderness was the professed destination. For that reason, the Creator did not bring them out to the
Coastal Route. It would have given Pharoah license to slander the prophet, calling him a liar. Further,
Pharoah would have deduced that their destination was the land of the Philistines, with no intention to
serve God in the desert. This is expressed by our verse: “And it came to pass, when Pharoah had let the
people go, that God led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines…”

The Torah stresses that Pharoah permitted the Jews to leave. It was understood that they would
celebrate in a serene, albeit barren setting. For that reason, Hashem could not guide them to Canaan via
the land of the Philistines, adjacent to Egypt. Such a plan would have brought the monarch to conclude
that in the land of Philistines were where the encampment sought refuge.

Two concerned another wrinkle God may have anticipated. Had the Hebrews traveled along the
Philistine Road, there stood a strong likelihood that the Philistines would have girded for war. Jewish
preparedness, let us say, was nil. The masses would not have mustered up the courage to fight. And
given that Egypt was nigh, they would have returned to it, opting for enslavement. We have concluded
the second reason. Before we continue to the third one, we interject a midrash, based on our verse.

“Although that was near” allows for multiple interpretations. In Pirkei Rabbi Eliezer, it is hinted that
“although that was near” cloaks one of the very first Hebrew wars, one that ended in abject disaster. We
speak about a misguided attempt by the Children of Efraim to hasten the liberation of Canaan. The
impetuous tribe of Efraim marched headstrong out of Egypt and into the land of the Philistines, where
they were soundly smashed. Two hundred thousand soldiers met death in their inglorious rush for
redemption: “The Children of Efraim were as archers handling the bow, that turned back in the day of
battle.” Our verse states, “Lest perhaps the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt.” It alludes to the annihilation of the tribe of Efraim. When the encampment witnesses Efraim’s carnage,
their brothers’ bones strewn about on the Philistine Road, they will chant in unity: Let us return to
Egypt.

To summarize the second point, we put forth that God did not guide them along the Coastal Highway,
rather He opted for the desert. A vital lapse of time (forty years!) would grant the Hebrews precious
opportunity to thoroughly train for war. After decades in the wilderness, they would encounter Sichon’s,
Og’s, and the Canaanites’ formidable forces, emerging victorious. Further, these enemies are based far,
far away from Egypt. Geographical considerations would have given pause to the Hebrews about a
return to their former slaveowners.

Three is the most powerful and compelling. The Philistine Route offered no body of water. The Creator
hungered to split the sea for the Jews, and to drown Egyptians in it (revenge for Egyptians drowning
Hebrew babies). That necessitated the nation to be led into the desert. The Red Sea served as the plan’s
centerpiece. Our section’s second verse says: “But God led the people about, by the way of the
wilderness by the Red Sea…”

We can prove our point by interjecting a Hebrew grammar rule. Specifically, it concerns the usage of the
Hebrew letter vav, generally a conjunction meaning “and.” However, in Scripture a vav may also signal a
root cause. For our purposes here, we will show how it works, and reframe the section’s second verse
accordingly. “And God, in order to lead the people about by the way of the wilderness – because of the
Red Sea…”

Rendering the verse as we have provides the proper accent or tone. Consequently, we better
understand God’s main rationale for doing what He did. That is, he led them into a desert, and not into
Canaan via the Coastal Road, because of a highly-anticipated confrontation and divine rendezvous at the
Red Sea with their heartless, quondam taskmasters and baby-killers.

“So that I might place these signs of Mine in his midst.”

‘Pharoah was a lost cause but God aimed to instill lessons of eternal faith within His people. When
they looked around them and saw God’s hand everywhere, it would be a boon. Belief would spring
eternal. A better approach to these verses is that Moshe was taken in by Pharoah’s post-hail promise
to liberate the Jews. The Almighty’s messenger mistakenly thought further plagues unnecessary.

God knew differently…’

 Page 172 Sinai Rules by Zev Bar Eitan

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In the book of Exodus, parashat Mishpatim, it delves into divine, judicial statutes that comprise large swathes of
Jewish law or jurisprudence. This subject matter continues into the upcoming chapters, as well.

“And these are the statutes which you shall set before them.”

For the full discussion of Jewish jurisprudence, see Abravanel’s World. However, for our purposes here,
we touch upon Abravanel’s introduction. He emphasizes one of his guiding principles that he applies
throughout his commentary on the Bible. We speak about the integrity of Holy Writ. Not only must the
words and verses be carefully analyzed and understood, but also their order, sequence, or juxtaposition
illuminate the text.

Let us elaborate. Abravanel writes in his preface to this chapter that he perused his predecessors’
approaches regarding the sequence of the divine commandments pertaining to Jewish law. Does it
matter which statute proceeds another?

To his dismay, Abravanel found that a majority of commentators write that order is inconsequential.
Since they assumed that the organization of the laws were random or haphazard, these commentators
felt no pressing need, for example, to derive clarification or meaning from our chapter’s first
commandment (“If you buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve…”) to the second one (“And if a
man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant…”), or to the third topic (“He who smites a man, so that he
dies…”). For those writers who posit that all of our chapter’s statutes act as independent units, they
failed to grasp minutiae which emerge from a proper appreciation of any given rule’s placement. Put
differently, because they did not connect the dots, they missed the bigger picture.

Indeed, Abravanel leveled sharp remarks regarding such a lackadaisical approach to the Bible’s organic
integrity, let us call it. He had, perhaps, less patience for those commentators who did attempt to derive
meaning from the statute’s sequence, but offered only gibberish. “Accept or reject them at your
discretion,” Abravanel advises.

Abravanel launches into an insightful discourse showing just how crucial juxtaposition is to a precise
understanding of our chapter in particular, and of the Bible in general. How does Abravanel come to this
conclusion, that sequence matters?

It’s plain logic, Abravanel’s advances. Since God Himself is the judge of the universe, will He Himself not
mete out justice? Did He not array His laws according to purposeful sequence? It’s as basic as that: God
did not dictate the Pentateuch in a whimsical fashion to Moses. His design and method run throughout.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. The subject of the three major Jewish festivals is broached in Exodus chapter 23.
Attendance in Jerusalem’s Holy Temple during those holidays is compulsory: “Three times in the year all
your males shall appear before God Almighty.”

“Three times you shall keep a feast unto Me in the year.”

Abravanel writes, as we have ascertained in an earlier blog, that the Ten Commandments are really a
start place for many more divine commandments. In that vein, when the Bible obligates Hebrews to
observe Sabbath, it also alludes to the observance of the three major Jewish festivals.

Passover comes first: “The feast of unleavened bread shall you keep. Seven days you shall eat
unleavened bread…”Abravanel explains that, in fact, the eating of unleavened bread is only compulsory
on the first day of Passover. The verse just cited means that should a Hebrew desire to eat bread during
the seven-day holiday, that bread must be unleavened.

Another detail about Passover emerges: timing. “At the time appointed in the month of Aviv, for in it
you came out from Egypt.”Aviv, in Hebrew, means springtime. The genius of the Jewish calendar
combines the lunar and solar months in order to safeguard that Passover will always be celebrated in
the spring. When the Hebrews ascended Jerusalem’s holy mountain, they did not arrive empty-handed.
Each visitor brought animal sacrifices to the Temple.

The feast of harvest came next, followed by the third and last holiday – the feast of ingathering. “And the feast of harvest, the first fruits of your labor, which you sow in the field, and the feast of ingathering,at the end of the year, when you gather in your labors out of the field.”

Abravanel teaches that the second festival coincides with the wheat harvest. Hence, Jews must offer the
first fruits of grain to the attending priestly class in Jerusalem.

As for the third major festival, it refers to the feast of ingathering. At that time, Hebrews brought wine,
oil, plus a vast array of produce to the Temple. Lest readers get the wrong idea, Abravanel warns, and
assume that the major festivals were celebrated in people’s hometowns, an explicit verse disabuses that
false notion: “Three times in the year all your males shall appear before God Almighty.”

“Before God Almighty” requires clarification. What does the phrase impart? It stresses the main point of
visiting the Holy Temple. That is, the major festivals are not for the purpose of gorging on food and
delighting in other mundane activities. Rather, visitors to Jerusalem were meant to foster an intimate
relationship with the Maker, cleaving to Him. Proper demeanor toward God resembles a servant before
his master.

How appropriate, then, to celebrate each festival in otherworldly repose and devotion to the One
Above! Priests and Levites residing in Jerusalem assisted their brethren to better understand holy
teachings, further enhancing the Holy City’s spiritual experience for all visitors.

See Abravanel’s World for a full discussion of the Jewish festivals, including one of Abravanel’s most
resourceful efforts to find a connection between the third festival (“the feast of the ingathering”) and a
seeming unrelated commandment pertaining to dietary laws – “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s
milk.”