Bible studies

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

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

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

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because the Creator completely uprooted and rescinded the first patriarch’s birth name.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

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

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

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

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

Bible studies with Don Isaac Abravanel’s commentary (also spelled Abarbanel) has withstood the test of
time. For over five centuries, Abravanel has delighted – and enlightened – clergy and layman alike,
offering enduring interpretations of the Bible. Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Genesis chapter 32, Jacob begins his trek home. The first leg of his journey starts
auspiciously; angels huddle around him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bible studies with Don Isaac Abravanel’s commentary (also spelled Abarbanel) has withstood the test of
time. For over five centuries, Abravanel has delighted – and enlightened – clergy and layman alike,
offering enduring interpretations of the Bible. In Genesis chapter 6, the Bible focuses on an exemplary personality: Noah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. To provide backdrop, when we get to Exodus chapter 24, the Hebrews have already
heard the Ten Commandments directly from God. The ultra-intense experience left the people
overwhelmed, and petrified. In efforts to regain their equilibrium, they distanced themselves from the
base of the mountain. In addition, they pleaded with Moses to be their intermediary with the Almighty
so to avoid any more hair-raising encounters with the divine. The Hebrews also pledged that whatever
God asked of them, they would “do and obey.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bible studies with Don Isaac Abravanel’s commentary (also spelled Abarbanel) has withstood the test of
time. For over five centuries, Abravanel has delighted – and enlightened – clergy and layman alike,
offering enduring interpretations of the Bible. Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. Genesis chapter 34 covers the violent rape of Dinah, and subsequent revenge killings
carried out by her brothers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abravanel gleans three lessons, sharing them with Bible students:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. We read in Exodus chapter 20 that the Ten Commandments were transmitted to the
Hebrews on Mount Sinai.

“And God spoke all these words saying: I am God, Who brought you out
of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no
other gods before Me…”

Abravanel discusses exactly what makes the Ten Commandments stand out from the rest of the Bible. It
is, not surprisingly, an elaborate discourse. See Abravanel’s World for the entirety of it. Here, we will
share with Bible students Abravanel’s three, salient observations.

One has to do with the Speaker – God. In contrast to all of the other divine commandments, only the
Decalogue was from Heaven, sans an intermediary. That is, when it came to the other commandments,
Moses delivered them to the Hebrews, at God’s behest. Not so with the Ten Commandments. Neither
angel or seraph or prophet uttered them; they came directly from Above. On that historic day, the
Creator of heaven and earth descended, as it were, and addressed His nation. Understand, therefore,
the Decalogues’ intrinsic prominence.

Two stresses the audience, the Chosen People. With the other commandments, God transmitted them
to a single person, Moses, albeit His specially-designated messenger who had shown himself worthy.
Moses’ brethren were not privy to hear what Moses heard, nor see what he had seen. How different
were the Ten Commandments! Every person, young and old, heard and understood God’s words. The
myriads of Jews were an integral part of the conversation with the Divine. The fire at Sinai they beheld;
the audible voice they heard.

Three emphasizes the material upon which the Ten Commandments were written – all etched in stone.
No other verse in the Torah, no other commandment had been so indelibly engraved. Rather, they were
transcribed from God to Moses, who wrote them on parchment. As for the Ten Commandments,
moreover, no engraver’s tool had been utilized. It was the Maker’s handiwork, His imprint upon rock.
Moses hadn’t participated an iota in it.

In brief, Bible students are hereby apprised of the Ten Commandment’s uniqueness, their
otherworldliness. The Almighty alone put His imprimatur on them, in a manner of speaking, as
evidenced by the three reasons stated above.

Don Isaac Abravanel, also spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. Exodus chapter 26 continues to discuss the Tabernacle, a topic introduced in the previous
chapter. Abravanel draws our attention to a grammatical inconsistency in our lead verse (“Moreover,
you shall make…”) when compared to the verb’s conjugation in chapter 25 (“Make an ark…and you
shall overlay it with pure gold”, “Make a table…and you shall overlay it with pure gold”, and “Make a
menorah of pure gold…”).Our verse is conjugated in future tense; whereas last chapter’s verbs are
written in the imperative or command form.

Abravanel sheds light on the linguistic discrepancy after phrasing the question. Why, he asks, doesn’t
our lead verse use the command form for literary consistency: “Make the Tabernacle…” instead of the
future tense “You shall make the Tabernacle…?”

Here is the answer. The previous chapter introduces the commandment to construct the Tabernacle,
“Make Me a Tabernacle.” It uses the command form. That creates a divine fiat to build a Tabernacle.
That earlier chapter then launches into the “how to” aspect of the first three fixtures in the sanctuary:
“Make an ark…of pure gold”, “Make a table…with pure gold”, and “Make a menorah of pure gold…”

Bible students will readily understand that the common – and most valuable – building material for the
ark, table, and menorah is gold. Gold, recall, was the first of several building materials that Hebrews
offered in order to finance the sacred enterprise, some others being silver, copper, wool etc.

Now to the point. After the last chapter listed those three fixtures made of gold, our chapter provides
the “how to” concerning the Tabernacle itself. What materials went into the Tabernacle’s walls and
partitions? “Moreover, you shall make the Tabernacle with ten curtains…” As our chapter proceeds, we
shall see that parts of the Tabernacle had also been constructed with gold, silver, copper, wool etc.

In summary, the earlier chapter foreshadows – in general terms – an impending commandment to build
a Tabernacle, hence the verb is conjugated in the future tense. Our present chapter follows up with the
“how to” manual, including dimensions and the requisite building material to get the job done,
necessitating the command form of the verb.

See Abravanel’s World for the full discussion of the Tabernace and its fixtures.

Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. Toward the end of Exodus chapter 29, the Bible describes the inauguration of the
Tabernacle altar. Two acts readied the altar: anointing oil and the offering of two daily sacrifices.

“Now this is that which you shall offer upon the altar: two one-year-old
lambs each and every day. The one lamb you shall offer in the morning,
and the other lamb you shall offer at dusk.”

Abravanel questions: Why does the inauguration ceremony require only the daily sacrifices, but not
other sacrifices such as the sin or guilt offerings etc.? Abravanel also urges Bible students to pay close
attention to the daily sacrifices, one brought in the morning and one in the afternoon. Yet, when it
comes to the festival additional sacrifices, for example, they were brought to the altar at the same time.

See Abravanel’s World for the full discussion of the inauguration of the altar. For now, however, let us
address Abravanel’s questions raised above. His answers contribute to understanding an integral part of
Jewish belief and thought, or to restate, God’s mindset, per se.

The verses, Abravanel holds, come to disabuse a gross misconception regarding the Creator. That is, God
has not made man with an inclination to sin. Furthermore, the Maker does not desire a pattern whereby
man transgresses, begs God for forgiveness, and concludes the cathartic process with sin offerings.

Patently false. To be clear, the Creator did not establish a regime of sin/guilt offerings to be offered on
the altar after the Golden Calf affair, illustrating some inherent moral shortcoming which tilts people to
falter and stumble. And then, because man sinned, he needs sin/guilt sacrifices.

Such a mindset, Abravanel teaches, is fundamentally fallacious. Let us review this chapter, and put it in
the proper context. It begins with an overview of the induction of Aaron and his sons into the
priesthood. They were selected to serve in the Tabernacle. Next, we read about the inauguration of the
altar – its anointment and sacrifices. “Now this is that which you shall offer…The one lamb you shall
offer in the morning, and other lamb you shall offer at dusk.”

The takeaway: God would prefer for man not to err. How lovely it would be if people walked the straight
path, and not stray! How wonderful it would be if Aaron never had to assist his brethren in getting back
into God’s good graces, if you will! Had the consecration of the altar included sin and guilt offerings,
people would get the wrong idea. Hence, the dedication ceremony included only daily sacrifices.
Heaven’s sublime message rings clear: If only people would obey My commandments and not
transgress, My altar would be content with the daily offerings!

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 15, Abravanel imparts, is rich in material. He arrives at this conclusion
after considerable study, as he writes. We share a snippet from his intriguing comments, one that is sure
to stand Bible students in good stead. For the fuller discussion, see Abravanel’s World.

“After these things the word of God came unto Abram in a vision, saying:
Fear not, Abram. I am your shield. Your reward shall be exceedingly
great.”

“After these things, the word of God came unto Abram…” God pays close attention to the affairs of man.
Providence is the interface between the Maker and man. That is a truism when we speak of common
folk. It is especially true when we speak of prophets. In that vein, Abravanel introduces an important
question on chapter 15’s opening verse quoted above: Why did God appear to Avram at this particular
juncture, and what was His message to him?

In Chapter 14, we read that Abram had just succeeded in pulling off an extremely impressive military
victory over an army far superior in numbers than his. How did that change Abram’s life? According to
Abravanel, it changed everything!

Abravanel theorizes. Before the patriarch handed his royal opponents a drubbing, and prior to Abram
restoring the captives and chattel to the king of Sodom, life for the patriarch was carefree. A picture of
serenity.

That changed après la guerre. Anxiety gripped Abram. Gone were halcyon days, when worry and angst
were unknown. Gone were the quiet days and nights, when the patriarch was footloose and carefree.
Abram’s military feat carried concerns of revenge. As Abravanel puts it, noble warriors don’t take
military setbacks lightly. They will retrench and keep a peeled eye open for the right opportunity to
avenge their honor.

In practical terms, that meant Abram required around the clock bodyguards – lots of them. The
patriarch understood that his days of working as a farmer were a thing of the past. Thoughts of ruthless
and crafty adversaries preoccupied him.

Abram’s sweet and uninterrupted sleep after toiling in the fields was history. In the patriarch’s mind,
nighttime filled with horror, fright. Daytime offered no respite. Wherever Abram turned, he saw sword
toting bodyguards, reminding him of his new reality.

It weighed heavy upon the patriarch, especially because he was unused to restraints. Abram felt that his
life hung in the balance. In a flash, battle cries could erupt, fueling further tension.

Abram’s angst didn’t stop there. Ever since he returned the chattel to the king of Sodom, he fretted. His
stomach ached to consider what he had done. Was it morally reprehensible to return the loot over to a
king and his countrymen who were evil and rotten to the core, sinners against the Almighty’s values? Far
preferable, Abram questioned, had he kept it for himself. With that money, he could have funded and
fed his soldiers, now patrolling 24/7.

In both regards, Providence soothed the patriarch’s sore soul. “Fear not, Abram. I am your shield.” He
heard God’s assuring words. Abram need not think about existential threats from enemies, nor did he
need bodyguards. God had his back.

Further, when it came to returning war spoils to the king of Sodom, the Creator let the patriarch know
that he need not second guess himself. Abram’s altruism was apt. “Your reward shall be exceedingly
great.”Heaven would shower blessing and bounty upon the patriarch. He learned that since the King of
Kings would reward him, it would be an affront to accept gifts from mortal kings, even small ones.

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.

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.

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.