Genesis

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Genesis chapter 31, we read about Rachel swiping Laban’s idols. Her inexcusable deed
raises a red flag, prompting Bible students to question: What could Rachel possibly have been thinking?

“Now Laban was gone to shear his sheep. And Rachel stole the
teraphim that were her father’s.”

It certainly vexed Abravanel, leading him to ask: What tempted Rachel? Did she want to ween Laban
from his idolatrous folly? If so, how naive? What would be the likelihood that an old man set in his
primitive ways could be cured by a young daughter? Besides, who would stop Laban from acquiring new
gods? Finally, Abravanel raises the possibility that Rachel desired to serve idols, as her father. Answering
his own ridiculous thought, Abravanel says emphatically – God forbid. No way would Rachel stoop so
low!

Jacob clearly had no inkling that Rachel pilfered the teraphim, otherwise he wouldn’t have issued a
death warrant for the offender. The patriarch tells Laban: “With whomsoever you find your gods, he
shall not live…”

Here is Abravanel’s response. At best, Rachel viewed her father’s teraphim as a type of talisman. That is,
of course she understood that the figurine couldn’t speak, but maybe it somehow inspired Laban, and
spurred him to greater awareness. In our context, Abravanel suggests that maybe Rachel thought that
when Jacob exited with his wives and children, Laban would run to his idols, talk to them, in hopes of
gaining insight. Laban would take hold of the teraphim, pensively inquiring of them: “Tell me. Where did
Jacob lead my daughters and grandchildren? Which way did they go? What route did they take etc.?”

In sum, Rachel hedged her bet and sought to improve Jacob’s run for freedom. Since Rachel worried
that Laban would consult his teraphim, as means to figuring out Jacob’s best escape route, she stole her
father’s idols. The blow to Laban would blunt his powers of concentration, and ultimately thwart his
chances to apprehend the fugitives.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Genesis chapter 12, the Bible introduces the first of three patriarchs, Abram. God
directed him to leave home and family to destination unknown. Our chapter informs us that Abram
traveled westward with his wife, Sarai, and Lot, his nephew. Shortly, as the sojourners reached Canaan,
the Maker appeared to Abram, and revealed the mystery destination. God let Abram know that he was
to dwell there. Other divine messages of good tidings were communicated to him. But no sooner had
Abram, his wife, and nephew began settling in Canaan than the émigrés faced an existential threat: a
merciless famine.

“Now God said unto Abram: Leave your country, and your kindred, and
your father’s house, unto the land that I will show you…And Abram
passed through the land…And God appeared to Abram and said: Unto
your seed will I give this land…

There was a famine in the land. And Abram went down into Egypt to
sojourn there, for the famine was sore in the land.”

As the verse above says, Abram decided not to stay put in his new homeland. Instead, he packed up the
family and headed to Egypt.

Abravanel poses a question. Would it have been preferable to withstand the famine and rough it until
the crisis passed? Fortitude in the face of dire straits is not as farfetched as it may seem. Faith in the One
Above, especially in mortal danger, does more than build character. Is it not a religious imperative?
Certainly, King David believed it so, as he writes in psalms: “Behold, the eyes of God are upon those who
fear Him, upon those who hope in His steadfast love.”

Let us be clear. It was God Who sent Abram away from home in the first place, entrusting him with a
sacred task in Canaan. Surely, divine salvation would watch over Abram in the Holy Land, and ward off
the pangs of a killer famine.

Abravanel wasn’t the only one to raise an eyebrow over Abram’s decision to leave Canaan in search of
greener pastures in Egypt. One commentator went further. He impugned Abram’s judgment,
characterizing the move as a woeful sin. Abravanel writes that the criticism of Abram was unfair and
uncalled for.

Notwithstanding, Abravanel does ask: Was Abram’s departure from Canaan wrong, sinful? What was he
thinking?

Here is Abravanel’s approach. It provides Bible students with a peak into Abram’s logic.

• Abram believed that the divine commandment to dwell in the Holy Land did not categorically
  ban going to Egypt for good cause, such as engaging in commerce or other weighty
  considerations. The patriarch presumed it alright, based on his understanding of the
  commandment. Hence, a short jaunt beyond Canaan’s borders did not present a problem, an
  infringement of God’s will. Abram would return to his new home the moment the famine
  passed. This attitude, Abravanel teaches, had been prevalent among “Israelis.” Namely, they
  were accustomed to attend to business outside of the land, and then return to it after they
  wrapped up their commercial affairs. For Abravanel, Abram’s conduct was perfectly reasonable
  insofar as he acted with what he believed to be something acceptable in Heaven’s eyes. Put
  succinctly, Abram assumed that the mitzvah to dwell in Israel allowed leeway. The Bible writes
  as much: “And Abram went down to Egypt to sojourn there, for the famine was sore in the
  land.”The term “sojourn” suggests a temporary visit and not permanently.
•  Abram understood that divine commandments come with a qualification or condition.
  Fulfilment of God’s word must bring the believer or adherent a betterment to his lot and
  enhance his life. If, however, compliance with a given commandment brings death, then God
  suspends it. When faced with a raging famine – a clear and present mortal danger – Abram
  reasoned that the conditions were not right to stay put in Canaan. Dying in the Holy Land would
  prove nothing. The Talmudic sages concurred. To paraphrase: If famine plagues a city, run away.
  For Abram, moral clarity dictated that existential threat obliged him to leave Canaan. God, the
  patriarch thought, would approve the temporary move, with the intention to return when the
  threat subsided. “For the famine was sore in the land.” Necessity forced Abram’s departure. In
  extreme circumstances, the Maker allows for dispensation.

There was another compelling reason for Abram to leave Canaan and go to Egypt. Please see
Abravanel’s World Abravanel’s Worldto learn more.

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 the angel of God said unto her: Behold you are with child, and shall
bear a son. And you shall call his name Ishmael, because God has
heard your affliction. And he shall be a wild ass of a man. His hand shall
be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. And he shall
dwell in the face of all his brethren.”

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. Earlier in Genesis, Bible students read of God’s promises to Abram. The patriarch heard
that he would be the father to many nations, and that his descendants would inherit Canaan. Yet,
Abram and Sarai grew older and older, with no children in sight.

In Chapter 16, things come to a head. Sarai senses that she is reproductively impaired. Ten years in the
Holy Land brought no boost to the couple’s fertility. Still no babies.

Sarai came up with a strategy. She pleaded with Avram to wed Hagar, Sarai’s Egyptian handmaid.
Perhaps, Sarai hoped, Hagar would have a child. Sarai would help raise him. In that way, Sarai would do
her part in participating in the fulfilment of Heaven’s plan.

After repeated requests from Sarai, Abram acceded to Sarai’s pleas. Abram married Hagar, and she
conceived. Verses tell us that Hagar also grew conceited. She looked down on Sarai. The domestic scene
between Sarai and Hagar became more than just sticky; it was toxic.

Abram’s two wives couldn’t get along. At all. Strife tore the patriarch’s family apart. Hagar ran away.
While wandering in the adjacent desert, an angel of God appeared to Hagar. Several communications
passed between them. See the verses quoted above.

Abravanel focuses, among other things, on the son that Hagar would soon bear: Ishmael. What will
become of him, Abravanel asks. Bible aficionados believe the answer to be a simple one, as per the
verse: “And he shall be a will ass of a man.” Clearly, the description of Ishmael as a “wild ass” is not open
to interpretation, we would think.

Readers will be surprised by Abravanel’s approach, one that paints Ishmael, the patriarch’s first son, in a
positive light. Here is how:

The angel of God chided Hagar for leaving the creature comforts of home. He told her, in so many
words, to return to Abram and Sarai, come what may. Among the arguments that the angel put forth to
coax Hagar back was one of environment. What will she gain for her or her son should she decide to
adopt a nomadic existence, traipsing from wilderness to wilderness? Is a barren desert any place to live,
let alone raise a son?

If Hagar was to call the desert home, then the prospects would be bleak, said the angel of God. Do you
want to raise your son, he continued, to be a societal outcast? Do you think it’s in Ishmael’s best
interests to grow up without social skills, uncouth and uncivilized? In this manner, did the angel bring
about a change in Hagar’s heart.

To be sure, Abravanel uses finesse, with a stress on intonation: “And shall he be a wild ass of a man?”
Abravanel reads the verse rhetorically, as we have translated it.

The angel of God threatened that undesirable outcome, if Hagar relocated to the desert. Next, the angel
from above showed how Hagar could opt for a better life for her and her son, predicating it on her
return to Abram’s and Sarai’s holy household.

“His hand shall be against every man, and every man’s hand against him…” These are the angel’s words
should Hagar take the high road home. The angels expressed the following. To the question, “And shall
he be a wild ass of a man” came the answer from above. NO!

“His hand shall be against every man.” It means that Ishmael will be cultured. He will develop healthy
ties with his fellow man. He’ll be cultured. Moreover, the verse teaches that he’ll conduct commerce
with others, partnering up with them. Finally, the angel foretells that Ishmael, in time, will be close with
his half-brothers (children born to Abraham and Keturah).

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. In Genesis chapter 7, the Bible details and describes the flood that wiped clean an
entire planet, after repeated Heavenly warnings fell on deaf ears.

“And the flood was forty days upon the earth. And the waters increased,
and lifted up the ark. And it was carried above the earth. And the waters
prevailed, and increased greatly upon the earth. And the ark went upon
the face of the waters.”

In the chapter that conveys how Heaven unleashed the great flood, Abravanel notes the redundancies.
Multiple verses appear to go over the same material – “increasing waters” and “prevailing waters” etc.
He asks: Wouldn’t it suffice to write of these things once?

Abravanel introduces his answer after he wryly remarks that other Biblical commentators attempt, in
vain, to get the right read. They fail to adequately explain the reason why the verses repeat key terms
pertaining to the flood. The best these commentators could come up was literary license and emphasis.
Namely, increasing and prevailing waters claimed the lives of every single inhabitant of the world, the
lone exceptions being the passengers on Noah’s ark.

Bible 101 presumes this: Holy Writ does not waste words. No verbiage. Each word, each letter serves a
purpose. Indeed, they impart divine knowledge. Working with that assumption, Abravanel provides a
rationale for the seeming redundancy of this chapter’s description of increasing and prevailing waters. In
addition, Abravanel explains why the Bible seems to repeat itself when the chapter turns to outlining
the carnage.

“And all flesh perished that moved upon the earth, both fowl, and cattle…and every man. He blotted out
every living substance…and they were blotted out from the earth. And only Noah was left, and they who
were with him in the ark.”

Abravanel spells things out. God’s flood obliterated the planet. The Creator desired to give the world a
thorough scrubbing from its moral turpitude and stench. Earth was sorely needful of a redo. Water
would do the job. “Living substance” in the verse above does not narrowly refer to living beings. Instead,
it takes on a broader scope. Specifically, according to Abravanel, “living substance” takes into account
nature at large, including majestic and mighty trees, vast forests and jungles.

“Living substance” means more. It refers to urban and societal accessories, institutions, and
achievements. They all came crumbling down, the sprawling palaces, neighborhoods, and cities.
Needless to say, even the more modest and makeshift structures like cattle sheds and nests made of
sticks met their end, no differently than “impenetrable” city walls and “impregnable” defense systems.
In a word, whatever had any association whatsoever with the “living” melted away, vanished in flood
waters.

When the deluge receded, not a trace of life stood in its former place. As the Talmudic sages taught:
Even household implements like mortar and pestle disappeared, gone for good. “He blotted out every
living substance…and they were blotted out from the earth. And only Noah was left, and they who were
with him in the ark.”

In sum, Abravanel teaches how our chapter alludes to the annihilation of a world gone awry. God had,
after dispatching Noah to warn people, resolved to vanquish His creation. From its most intricate and
majestic forms to its most jejune and rudimentary parts – all were swept away in a maelstrom. Each
verse lent additional information, and imagery, about the utter ruin to befall an expendable world.

Based onAbravanel’s World of Torah, by Zev Bar Eitan

“And when Abram was ninety-nine-years-old, God appeared to Abram
and said unto him: I am God Almighty. Walk before Me and be
wholehearted. And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and
will multiply you exceedingly…This is My covenant, which you shall keep
between Me and you and your seed after you. Every male among you
shall be circumcised.”

Bible studies with Don Isaac Abravanel’s commentary (also spelled Abarbanel) has withstood the test of
time. In Genesis chapter 17, God once again appears to Abram. However, this time was
different, notes Abravanel. The commentator asks: Of all the divine communications with the patriarch,
why does only this one peg the prophecy to Abram’s age? “And when Abram was ninety-nine-years-old,
God appeared to Abram.”

Further, Abravanel observes that if the point was to inform us that Abram was a nonagenarian, it would
not make sense. Why? That information will be conveyed at the end of our chapter: “And Abraham was
ninety-nine-years-old when he was circumcised…”

In chapter 15, the Bible recorded an earlier covenant between the Creator and the patriarch. It taught
Abram that his progeny would flourish. The patriarch accepted the joyous news wholeheartedly, a
reaction that God attributed to Abram’s piety: “And he believed in God, and He counted it to him for
righteousness.”Shortly afterward, Ishmael was born to Abram.

Abram believed that the divine promise was coming to fruition. Ishmael would carry the patriarch’s
legacy and take title to the Holy Land. At present, in our chapter, God appears to Abram. The message
would disabuse the patriarch of his misunderstanding.

Abravanel elaborates. God’s message came in the form of a divine commandment. The patriarch needed
to undergo circumcision. “Every male among you shall be circumcised.”This informed Abram that the
sacred act of circumcision was an integral component of the covenant. It paved the way to producing a
Holy Nation. Children born to a circumcised father started conception, and life, on the right foot.

The Creator clarified matters more when He announced to Abraham later in chapter 16: “But My
covenant will I establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear unto you at this set time in the next year.”
Note the progression in our chapter.

The first patriarch underwent a name change from Abram to Abraham, the matriarch Sarai became
Sarah. These were precursors to the commandment to undergo circumcision, an additional preparation
preceding the birth of Isaac – from holy and pure Abraham and Sarah.

An emerging picture took shape and the patriarch grasped its intent. That is, Abraham understood his
miscalculation. Not Ishmael but rather Isaac would be the patriarch’s exclusive progeny to enter into the
Abrahamic covenant and take possession of the Holy Land.

Why? It is because Ishmael had been born prior to his Abraham’s circumcision (and name change). In
spiritual jargon, these events were profoundly significant; they were game-changers. Both requisite
preparatory steps brought the patriarch to higher levels, facilitating his ability to better commune with
the Creator. In stark contrast was Isaac’s conception and birth, circumstances that carried mystique.

In sum, Isaac would solely carry his father’s mantle to civilization insofar as the miracle baby entered the
world with a halo, figuratively of course, that bespoke his hallowed spiritual readiness. As for Ishmael,
only the mundane marked his welcome into Abram’s and Hagar’s household.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508), also spelled Abarbanel was a penetrating Jewish thinker, scholar, and
prolific Biblical commentator. In Genesis chapter 3, he explains one of the Bible’s more puzzling and
curious narratives featuring a cunning and talking snake. Some English translations refer to it as a
“subtle serpent.” Be that as it may, Bible readers need to understand this chapter. This blog provides a
thoughtful approach to Genesis chapter 3 in particular, and Bible study in general.

“Now the snake was more wily than any beast of the field…”

Abravanel begins chapter 3 with questions.

• Who informed the snake of God’s command to Adam, namely that he should not eat fruit from
  the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Was the snake a prophet or a sorcerer to divine
  Heaven’s message to Adam?
•  How did Eve understand the snake’s communications, its hissing? Was Eve a snake whisperer,
  attuned to the language of snakes (or other animals)?
• Did the snake use body language or gestures to convey ideas – a wink of the eye or the crossing
  of its legs, snapping of its fingers? If so, was Eve adept at deciphering such non-verbal
  dispatches?

Abravanel takes to task those commentators who have put forth such silly notions. Hogwash. Animals
lack the intelligence to transmit such highly sophisticated communications. Abravanel also argues with
his predecessors who posit that in the beginning of time, snakes possessed different traits and abilities.

No, snakes were not created to stand upright and speak. No, the Garden of Eden snake was not Satan,
disguised as a serpent. Finally, Abravanel disagrees with those who submit that our verse cannot be
taken at face value, but rather that the snake symbolizes nature etc.

Here is Abravanel’s approach. This lays out the authentic foundation of the snake narrative. The snake
did not speak to Eve, nor did Eve speak to the snake. Obviously enough, serpents cannot speak. To wit,
we don’t find a verse alerting us to the impossible or miraculous. Nowhere is it written here: “God
opened the mouth of the snake…” Contrast that with Numbers 22:28. There readers find that the
Almighty opened the mouth of the donkey. When Bible students do find an explicit verse preparing
readers for highly unusual (miraculous) events, we accept it as literal, because the Bible prompts us to
switch mental gears, if you like. We have entered the realm of the marvelous.

No such heads-up is written with the snake, and so we must conclude that this snake did not open its
mouth nor did it speak to Eve. No miracles. No wonders.

Abravanel learns that this is what transpired. Eve observed the snake slithering up the tree of knowledge
of good and evil. She further watched it eat the knowledge fruit. The snake munched and munched and
munched. Strange, Eve thought to herself: “the snake didn’t die. It didn’t even get sick from the
forbidden fruit.”

Projecting, Eve said to herself, as if conversing with the snake: “Look at you. You climb up the tree of
knowledge and you eat freely of it. Yet nothing happens. You didn’t get sick and die.”

So, while it’s true that the verses appear to convey a “he said she said” dialogue, no such conversation
took place. Other examples in the Bible also suggest dialogue, but really are man’s (or in this case
woman’s) musings.

Eve convinced herself to eat forbidden fruit and share it with Adam. Dire consequence followed. The
rest is history…

Genesis 3:1

Based onAbravanel’s World of Torah, by Zev Bar Eitan

“In the beginning, God created the heaven and earth.”

Introduction to Angelology and Abarbanel

Throughout his groundbreaking Biblical commentaries, Don Isaac Abravanel (also spelled Abarbanel)
(1437-1508) writes extensively on angels. This should not come as a surprise. After all, angels or
heavenly facilitators played and continue to play significant roles in heaven and on earth. What is
surprising, Abravanel asks, is this: Given that of all God’s creations, angels rate topnotch. Why is the
creation of them not mentioned here?

Many classic commentators, among them Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Rabbi Bachya, Ralbag and of course, the
Talmudic sages, have put forth their respective reasons for the apparent and glaring void in the Torah.
Abravanel sought a simple answer to this key question. He writes that he did not find it among the
ancient sages or classic commentators.

Below is Abravanel’s approach to and explanation for a lack of verses discussing the creation of angels.
“In the beginning, God created the heaven and earth.” The Torah’s opening verses do not encompass a
narrative featuring all of the higher and lower creations, those that are simple or essential, nor those
that are composites of other creations. Instead, “In the beginning…”, teaches that when the Almighty
created His world out of nothing, there initially existed what we may call a blob. Everything was jumbled
and clumped together. Celestials and planets, sun and moon, as well as other more complex creations,
had not been defined, let alone formed. To be sure, that was also the original state of what would later
become angels, wholly, non-corporeal beings.

We circle back to Abravanel’s question concerning angels. Where in the creation story do we read about
angels being created? “In the beginning, God created heaven and earth.” According to Abravanel, in an
in-depth essay about the Torah’s lead verse, he learns that the word “heaven” alludes to angels or
heavenly facilitators, among other creations. Furthermore, Abravanel asserts that a close reading of the
words of the midrash corroborates his opinion.

Based on Abravanel’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. Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Genesis chapter 25, Abraham marries again. For Abravanel, the patriarch’s decision to
take a wife is more than baffling, it’s disturbing. That is because, at first glance, it seems so out of
character.

“And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah. And she
bore him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and
Shuah.”

Abravanel shares his cognitive dissonance, let us call it. The patriarch was on in years, well on. We would
expect him to devote the limited time left to study and meditation, to commune with his Maker.

But there’s more to the strange turn of events surrounding his nuptials. Keturah was much, much
younger than Abraham, young enough to bear him children, as is written. “And she bore him Zimran,
and Jokshan, and Medan…”Abravanel, of course, intends to flesh out the holy patriarch’s decision.

For a starting premise, and to be blunt, Abravanel rules out sexual motives, namely that the patriarch
experienced a yearning for spousal intimacy. Absurd.

Below Bible students will find several intriguing reasons to explain Abraham’s conduct. For brevity, we
list two here. Please see Abravanel’s World for the full treatment of this counterintuitive, albeit telling
story. It will stimulate lively Bible study discussion and show how Abraham’s determination to marry
youthful Keturah bespoke purpose and moral clarity.

Earlier in Genesis, God had promised the patriarch: “But your name shall be Abraham, for the father of a
multitude of nations have I made you. And I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of
you, and kings shall come out of you.”The divine message presaged that Avraham would father many
and multitudinous progeny. By marrying Keturah, and having many children with her, it would set the
scene for God’s blessed tidings to come to fruition.

Here is a second rationale. When Abraham reached one hundred, God commanded him to undergo
circumcision. Together with the commandment, the patriarch received a prophecy. That is, the aged
Abraham would become a father. The Bible records his reaction: “Then Abraham fell upon his face, and
laughed, and said in his heart, shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old?”Incredulous.

After Abraham fulfilled the divine commandment to undergo circumcision, change took place. He was
strengthened, invigorated. So much so that in his late years, he married Keturah. With her, he fathered
six children. “But they that wait for God shall renew their strength, they shall mount up with the wings of eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint.”The prophet Isiah penned these words; Abraham epitomized them.

As stated, Abravanel writes four additional rationales to explain Abraham’s choice to marry. Taken as a
whole, Bible students are the richer for it. They portray Abraham’s spiritual awareness and unwavering
service to 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 18, God once again appears to Abraham.

“And God appeared unto him by the terebinths of Mamre, as he sat by
the tent door in the heat of the day.”

Abravanel notes the peculiar aspects surrounding this prophecy. That is, readers receive minutiae that
don’t seem to hold much relevance. In order to sharpen Bible student’s minds, Abravanel peppers them
with questions.

•  Why is venue important – “by the terebinths of Mamre.”
•  Why is Abraham’s body posture significant – “as he sat by the tent door.”
•  Why is the climactic condition newsworthy – “in the heat of the day.”

Abravanel wonders what it all means. Does location provide vital clues? Are Bible students any smarter
by knowing that prophecy came to the patriarch in Mamre, and not in a different hamlet?

In addition, Abravanel asks about the verse supplying readers with Abraham’s sitting position by his
tent’s entrance. And if he reclined inside his house, or on a chair or sofa, would it make an iota of a
difference? Or if he sat under a tree in his garden instead of his patio?

Next for Abravanel, he questions: What do we gain by knowing that the patriarch sat down? If he was
lying on his back, and not sitting, are we on to something earth-shattering? Finally, does it even
remotely matter that it was hot outside? And if it was a rainstorm, do we better grasp the unfolding
scene?

Students get the drift of Abravanel’s pounding questions. Now he supplies answers. Actually, Abravanel
says, these painstaking details are very important. They tell us of Abraham’s transformation, informing
students of the sea-change in the way that the patriarch embraced his Maker.

Abravanel clarifies. Actually, he relies on Maimonides to address the patriarchs’ metamorphoses.

Maimonides holds that the three patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) constantly occupied themselves
with the Almighty. Said differently, it means that they kept God constantly in focus. Even while they
performed day-to-day affairs, they kept their God tab open, in a manner of speaking. By infusing the
Divine into their mundane chores or habits, they sensed Him in tangible and intangible ways.

This requires more explanation. When Abraham, for example, applied God to eating time, it was the
patriarch’s method to elevate food to the point where mealtime became an exercise in godliness.
Abravanel illustrates the point from our verse. “And God appeared unto him by the terebinths of
Mamre, as he sat by the tent in the heat of the day.”

Before Abraham underwent circumcision, when the Creator appeared to him, we find that the intense
experiences felled him; he dropped to his feet. Moreover, the patriarch also had to prepare himself
through seclusion and quiet and meditation – far from the hustle and bustle of his daily life’s routine. He
had to still his senses. Nighttime was most apt, when quiet reigned.

After the patriarch’s circumcision, that all changed. Abraham could channel prophecy, and stand his
ground. How is this deduced from the verse just quoted? For Abravanel, “the heat of the day”does not
refer to the temperature outside. Rather, it suggests a general time of day (morning) when folks
heatedly rush hither and thither – off to work etc. Rush hour madness. Even in his hometown of Mamre
where his business beckoned him, he communed with God. Even when he sat on his house’s stoop, and
passersby bellowed and brawled, he sensed stillness.

The patriarch had been transformed by his circumcision. It religiously charged him. That, in a nutshell, is
precisely why our verse writes in such detail concerning Abraham’s prophecy.

Indeed, the patriarch entered his Creator’s holy space while the world around him blared loudly and
boisterously, honking and hawking during the day’s rush hour.

“And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground…”

Bible studies with Don Isaac Abravanel’s commentary (also spelled Abarbanel) has withstood the test of
time. For over five centuries, Abravanel has 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 4, the Bible introduces Cain and Abel, Adam and Eve’s first two sons.
Though little is explicit concerning Cain’s motive for taking Abel’s life, Abravanel plumbs Cain’s psyche.
His observations build a case to help solve the murder mystery.

Abravanel asks: Why did Abel choose to become a shepherd even though his older brother Cain was a
tiller of the soil? Farmer Cain, logically enough, decided to tend crops so to put food on the table. Yet,
Abel raised livestock – at a juncture when early man was not permitted to eat beef or mutton. Raising
cattle or sheep that cannot be consumed piques curiosity.

Abravanel probes further. As for the two brothers’ diverse occupations, the Bible clearly favors Abel’s
form of livelihood. How do we know? It is because the verse gives Abel first billing, despite the fact that
Cain was his elder: “And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground…”

Now we turn to Abravanel’s answers that will expand the discussion. Cain committed fratricide because
he feared not God. In the aftermath of Adam and Eve’s sin in the Garden of Eden, the Maker
pronounced Adam’s punishment: “Cursed is the ground for your sake.” Cain’s choice of vocation speaks
volumes. More than just insensitive to God’s pronouncement, Cain was nonchalant and defiant. On
future challenges and hardships associated with agriculture, God said: “Thorns also thistles shall it bring
forth to you.”Conceited, Cain cared not a fig about such utterances. He thought that his ingenuity and
resourcefulness would neutralize Heaven’s curse, rendering it irrelevant.

Abel, on the other hand, was a shepherd. Animal husbandry reveals a certain personality, one that
delights in controlling others; he governs them. In bio hierarchy, animals notch a rung higher or more
sophisticated than plant life. Readying himself to rule over man, Abel first honed his political acumen on
beast.

Thus far in Abravanel’s analysis of Cain and Abel, we have focused on their respective vocations. Both
choices – farming and shepherding – convey a deeper story vis-à-vis Abravanel’s understanding of the
verses. The main thing to takeaway is this: Neither Cain or Abel displayed interest or awareness of God.

Abravanel makes another important point about Cain and Abel. In Hebrew, Kain shares a cognate with
the verb liknot, meaning to acquire. Cain desired to grow wealthy and acquire things with the profits he
would turn from his farming business. Mammon can distract ethical pursuits.

Abel in Hebrew is ‘hevel.’ It conveys that which is fleeting and illusory. To be sure, Abel’s choice of work
portrays a man with grandiose notions, and political aspirations. Heaven frowns and disapproves of
upon such ephemeral focus.

In sum, Abravanel develops personality theory from the scant number of verses in our chapter. Neither
Adam or Eve’s first two sons showed a religious bent. Occupation with worldly affairs stoked their
passions. Hence, they and their descendants were expendable. When the great flood hit with a
vengeance, that line of Adam and Eve’s would be obliterated.

Seth was the couple’s third son. A truth seeker. Of noble bearing and upright character, his descendants
would, in time, carry God’s word and message to the world.

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

Genesis Chapter 4

“Enoch lived 65 years, and he had a son Methuselah. Enoch walked
with God for 300 years after he had Methuselah, and he had sons and
daughters. All of Enoch’s years were 365 years. Enoch walked with God,
and he was no more because God had taken him.”

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 5, the Bible provides a sketch of Enoch, albeit an enigmatic one.
Abravanel’s portrayal of Enoch adds much to our understanding of Enoch’s conflicted soul, as we shall
now see.

Abravanel begins by comparing verses pertaining to Enoch and Noah, both exemplary men described as
individuals who “walked with God.” He asks: Why does Enoch’s verse praising him tack on mention of
Methuselah: “Enoch walked with God after he had Methuselah”, yet Noah’s verse does not, as it says:
“Noah walked with God"?

Furthermore, why does the Bible use puzzling language to convey Enoch’s death: “And he was no more
because God had taken him?”Wouldn’t it suffice to simply say that Enoch died?

Abravanel answers these questions, and by so doing, gives Bible students key insights into Enoch’s inner
struggles to keep the faith.

To properly understand Enoch, Bible students need to first assess from whom he descended. Who was
his father, grandfather, great-grandfather etc.? Abravanel traces ten generations of righteous
personalities, starting with Adam leading to Noah. Each one, in his own unique way, served the Maker.
These men put God front and center, as far as their principles and conduct was concerned.

The Bible points out that each of these truth seekers set their minds and souls to learning God’s ethos,
His values. Consequently, they delayed marriage until they were older and religiously mature. Enoch
deviated from his ancestors’ precedence, marrying much younger than his illustrious forebears.

This suggests, Abravanel writes, a less than flattering observation about “young” Enoch. He was sex
crazed. That explains why he ran headlong into marriage so early, unlike his noble predecessors.

After Enoch’s marriage and after his son Methuselah was born, Enoch regrouped. He found God. See
Abravanel’s World to learn about the driving force behind Enoch’s transformation. Laudably, Enoch
served his Creator. “Enoch walked with God for 300 years after he had Methuselah…”In a word, Enoch
reinvented himself.

But, he also remained with his wife, begetting sons and daughters. Compare Enoch’s family life with
Adam’s. Abravanel teaches that after Adam fathered Cain and Abel, he temporarily separated from Eve
for purposes of realigning his goals, putting his life in order – alone.

In brief, we have outlined Enoch’s inner struggles. On the one hand, he aspired to Godliness, while on
the other hand he sought spousal intimacy. Heaven looked down on Enoch’s conflicted soul, and had
mercy: “And he was no more because God had taken him.”

Genesis Chapter 5

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

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

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

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

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

Here is Abravanel’s response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bible studies with Don Isaac Abravanel’s commentary (also spelled Abarbanel) has withstood the test of
time. For over five centuries, Abravanel has delighted – and enlightened – clergy and layman alike,
offering enduring interpretations of the Bible. Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Genesis Chapter 33, we read about the long-anticipated reunion of Jacob and Esau.
Twenty years had elapsed from the time the twins had last seen each other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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