Torah in Motion 5783: Parshat VaYishlach

The list of the families of Seir and their genealogy is given it the Law (ibid. 36:20-36), because of one particular commandment. For God distinctly commanded the Israelites concerning Amalek to blot out his name (Deut. 25:17-19). Amalek was the son of Eliphas and Timna, the sister of Lotan (ibid. 36:12). The other sons of Esau were not included in this commandment. But Esau was by marriage connected with the Seïrites...If the genealogy of these families of Seir had not been described in full they would all have been killed, contrary to the plain words of the commandment. For this reason the Seirite families are fully described, as if to say, the people that live in Seir and in the kingdom of Amalek are not all Amalekites: they are the descendants of some other man, and are called Amalekites because the mother of Amalek was of their tribe. The justice of God thus prevented the destruction of an [innocent] people that lived in the midst of another people [doomed to extirpation]; for the decree was only pronounced against the seed of Amalek.

AND THESE ARE THE KINGS. Some say that this chapter records a prophecy. However, Yitzchaki claims in his book that this chapter was composed during the reign of King Jehoshaphat. He explained the generations as he saw fit. Was he not rightly named Yitzchak? Everyone that heareth his interpretation will laugh at him. For he identified Hadar (v. 39) with Hadad the Edomite (I Kings 11:14) and also said that Mehetabel (v. 39) is to be identified with the sister of Tahpenes the queen of Egypt. Far be it for one to believe that our chapter was written in the days of Jehoshaphat as Yitzchaki maintains. Indeed his book is fit to be burned.

וישב יעקב AND JACOB ABODE — After it (Scripture) has described to you the settlements of Esau and his descendants in a brief manner — since they were not distinguished and important enough that it should be related in detail how they settled down and that there should be given an account of their wars and how they drove out the Horites (see Deuteronomy 2:12) — it explains clearly and at length the settlements made by Jacob and his descendants and all the events which brought these about, because these are regarded by the Omnipresent as of sufficient importance to speak of them at length. Thus, too, you will find that in the case of the ten generations from Adam to Noah it states “So-and-so begat so-and-so”, but when it reaches Noah it deals with him at length. Similarly, of the ten generations from Noah to Abraham it gives but a brief account, but when it comes to Abraham it speaks of him more fully. It may be compared to the case of a jewel that falls into the sand: a man searches in the sand, sifts it in a sieve until he finds the jewel. When he has found it he throws away the pebbles and keeps the jewel (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 1).

2. Alternately, "And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good." Rabbi Tanchuma began: (Eccl. 3:11) "He brings everything to pass precisely at its time." Rabbi Tanchuma said: The world was created at its time; the world was not appropriate for creation before this. Rabbi Abahu said: From this we learn that the Holy Blessed One was creating worlds and destroying them, creating worlds and destroying them, until he created these. He said, "This is good for me; those are not good for me." Rabbi Pinchas explained Rabbi Abahu's reasoning: "And God saw all (pl.) that He had made, and behold it was very good (sing.)." THIS is good for me; THOSE are not good for me.

...At the conclusion of Shabbat, the Holy One, Blessed be He, granted Adam, the first man, creative knowledge similar to divine knowledge, and he brought two rocks and rubbed them against each other, and the first fire emerged from them. Adam also brought two animals, a female horse and a male donkey, and mated them with each other, and the resultant offspring that emerged from them was a mule. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says that the first mule was in the days of Anah, as it is stated: “And these are the children of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah; this is Anah who found the mules in the wilderness, as he fed the donkeys of Zibeon his father” (Genesis 36:24).

The interpreters of Torah symbolism [ḥamurot] would say: Anah was the product of an incestuous relationship, and as a result he was spiritually unfit to produce offspring. Therefore, he brought an example of unfitness, i.e., an animal physically unfit to produce offspring, into the world, as it is stated: “These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land: Lotan, and Shoval, and Zibeon, and Anah” (Genesis 36:20). And it is also stated: “And these are the sons of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah” (Genesis 36:24). One verse describes both Anah and Zibeon as sons of Seir, meaning that they are brothers, while the other verse describes Anah as Zibeon’s son. Rather, this teaches that Zibeon cohabited with his mother, the wife of Seir, and fathered Anah from her. He is called Seir’s son although in fact he was the offspring of Seir’s son and Seir’s wife.

He concerned Himself also with the genealogy of Esau’s sons in the chapter These are the generations of Esau to disclose their degeneracy. You find that they too were the offspring of incestuous relations. Scripture states in one place: And the children of Elephaz were: Teman, and Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz. And Timna (ibid. 36:11), and elsewhere it states: And Timna was concubine to Elephaz (ibid., v. 12). This clearly informs us that Elephaz had sexual relations with his own daughter. How did that occur? He had sexual relations with Seir’s wife first and made her pregnant and begot Timna. Later he married Timna, as though she were Seir’s daughter, when in fact she was his own. That is why it says: And the children of Seir: Lotan … and Timna was Lotan’s sister (I Chron. 1:38–39). She was Lotan’s sister by her mother, but not by his father; Elephaz was her father, and Timna became the concubine of Elephaz the son of Esau.

בראשית IN THE BEGINNING — Rabbi Isaac said: The Torah which is the Law book of Israel should have commenced with the verse (Exodus 12:2) “This month shall be unto you the first of the months” which is the first commandment given to Israel. What is the reason, then, that it commences with the account of the Creation?